Blurring the thin blue line

Anthony Mackie and Clifton Collins Jr. in "Triple 9." Image courtesy Open Road Films

Most of my time watching the almost entirely forgettable “Triple 9” was spent thinking about the many other better movies I could be watching at the moment. “Deadpool,” after all, was just a theater away, or I could have gone home and put on “Rififi” or “Dog Day Afternoon.” I sat through “Triple 9” anyway, waiting for something unique or noteworthy to occur and hoping beyond hope this thing could contribute something more to society than contrivances, racism and Aaron Paul doing crack once again.

That moment never came though, largely due to a plot dreamed up by a bored Homer Simpson and written by an overeager freshman film major. “Triple 9” opens with a successful bank robbery – because it's always a bank robbery – perpetrated by Paul, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Clifton Collins Jr., Norman Reedus and Anthony Mackie. The big twist? Everybody except Paul and Ejiofor are cops for the Atlanta Police Department pulling the job for Russian mob boss Irina Vlaslov (Kate Winslet pulling out an atrocious Russian accent from a secondary orifice) who happens to be the sister of Ejiofor's ex (Gal Gadot). One job isn't enough though, and the crew is recruited for another heist that will free Winslet's husband from the Gulag or something like that. (It was tough to tell because the dialogue was in Russian and the subtitles were cutoff on the bottom of the screen.) This new job is difficult, as robbing from a Homeland Security building will draw lots of unwanted attention.

Unless, that is, someone kills a cop – a titular code 999 – which will distract every officer in the area. And who better to murder than Mackie's new annoying partner Chris Allen (Casey Affleck), nephew of daffy but well-regarded investigator Jeffrey Allen (Woody Harrelson), who happens to be investigating that first heist. Mackie and company come up with a plan to slaughter Affleck for their own means, but the best laid plans in such films never work out so well, and things start to fall apart from there amid shenanigans involving Latino gangs, booze and women filled with malice.

In other words, pretty much the general plot of most heist films stuffed into less than two hours of run time, even though director John Hillcoat and writer Matt Cook clearly need more time to establish characters and coordinate plot machinations. “Triple 9” is far too short for it's ambitions – it feels like someone slashed off 15 minutes or so indiscriminately – although it still somehow lasts too long after the second heist when all the loose ends have to be wrapped up. One of the worst places a film can be is in that zone of being too long and too short, and “Triple 9” finds itself right smack dab in the middle of the dull zone. Then again, a longer film would mean having to watch even more of “Triple 9,” which isn't a very exciting proposition. It's not a visually stunning movie nor a particularly well executed one when it comes to its action sequences, most of which are filmed in a workmanlike fashion with little to no ownership. Even the moments theoretically meant to invoke suspense come off as funny and light instead of serious; the audience literally laughed at what was clearly the point of greatest tension of the entire movie.

None of this would be overly bothersome; forgettable films come and go like the tides or the next great presidential candidate. What makes “Triple 9” stand out though is a discomfiting vein of racism directed toward its Hispanic characters. Hillcoat and Cook go out of their way to establish a backstory for just about every character to offer some justification for their actions; it’s the main reasons why the plot is so overstuffed. Ejiofor has a kid he's trying to see again, Mackie is torn between loyalty to his partner and his comrades, and Paul is mourning for much of the film. Clifton, the lone Hispanic member of this group, is a remorseless killer though, a very bad man whose motivations are rooted solely in dollars and self preservation. He's an extension of the way the filmmakers portray the Hispanic community, a group that in this film is violent, uneducated, crude, cruel, slightly atavistic, and borderline subhuman. “Triple 9” is a film built to justify white people's fear of Hispanic communities, which is such a weird angle for a film otherwise devoted to themes of loyalty and moral quagmires.

It's that aspect that shoves “Triple 9” into the problematic realm, a film unwilling to shake clichés both damaging and useless because they might look cool. It tries ever so hard to be smart, to be a head spinner on par with a Tony Gilroy flick. But as “Triple 9” proves, trying too hard to be smart really makes you look pretty dumb.

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 115 minutes (One hour and 55 minutes)

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: People who want an unnecessarily convoluted cop flick.

Take the whole family?: A ton of dudes get shot in the head in this one, so stick with the rating suggestion and send your kids to “Zootopia” next week.

Theater or Netflix?: Stream it.

Who do you want to win the Academy Awards?: Brie Larson for “Room” and Rooney Mara for “Carol” would be terrific choices for Best Actress and Supporting Actress, respectively. On the male side, Leonardo DiCaprio is the best choice from the options granted, while I'd really like Mark Ruffalo to win for “Spotlight.” If I had my druthers, George Miller would win for directing and “Mad Max: Fury Road” for Best Picture, although neither will probably occur.

Watch this instead?: Considering “Triple 9” tries to be a cop film and a heist film, recommending from both genres makes sense. Both “Bad Lieutenant” and “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” are fascinating films for the former category, while “Inside Job” (also starring Chiwetel Ejiofor) and “Asphalt Jungle” are terrific heist films.

That crazy witchcraft

Anya Taylor-Joy in a scene from "The Witch." Image courtesy A24.

Two days after watching “The Witch” and I can’t decide whether or not I actually like it. It's interesting to say the least, sometimes a little sillier than it intends to be and often overbearing in how it approaches the main objective of scaring the bejesus out of the audience. Whether it accomplished that objective depends on what scares you: the occasional creature popping out of nowhere (usually a mirror) or watching a family self destruct in a discomfiting fashion. If it's the latter, then “The Witch” is heartlessly effective; if it’s the former than prepare to be teased.

“The Witch” sets its premise quickly, with the father of the Calvinist family, William (Ralph Ineson), effectively getting his family banished from a well protected camp in the new world sometime in the 1630s. Joined by his wife Katherine (Kate Dickie), eldest daughter Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), eldest son Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), twins Mercy and Jonas (Ellie Grainger and Lucas Dawson) and infant Sam, William finds a plot of land near the woods and builds a small farm to start their new life. Everything starts off pretty well until Sam is abducted by a clandestine witch in the middle of a game of peek-a-boo with Taylor-Joy. Thinking a wolf took her, the family's life begins to fall asunder when the crops start failing and the livestock acts strange as weird things begin to happen around the family.

Not much more than that happens in “The Witch.” The plot is intentionally thin, more of a necessity to deliver chills than the crux of the film. Writer/director Robert Eggers’ main interest with this film is to frighten his viewers, and he digs pretty deep into his bag of tricks to pull that off, from intimidating animals and the woodland setting to an over-the-top score and a few first act/third act set ups. All of this buildup though doesn't really go anywhere. “The Witch” sports one or two traditional scares and really ends up being more weird than scary.

The real horror comes from how easy it is for a family to turn against itself when strange calamity occurs. Sam's kidnapping is the first in a series of calamities to reveal how little the family members truly care about one another; rather, their reason to be is to atone for their earthly sins in the slim chance of entry to heaven. Religion is an easy scapegoat, especially given the faith of choice is the dreary New England trademark based on predeterminism and constant sinning, but there's a deeper issue to that as well. Religion, for “The Witch,” is more of an excuse to act on the human feelings of fear and paranoia and hate when life goes astray and deleterious emotions take over for love or rational thought. Whatever faith or philosophy is practiced, people often act out of fear and self interest when things go to pot, and Eggers exploits that idea to deliver a strong rebuttal against the concept of family being a strong enough bond to stave that off.

And yet, Eggers undermines his own point in his presentation. “The Witch” literally features a witch, a being with supernatural power that has it out for the people who have intruded into her domain. The audience knows this titular spell caster exists and is introduced to her in the first act, ending any suspense as to the possible causes of all these terrible things happening to this family. Without the possibility of a family member – posited as either Taylor-Joy or the twins – actually being in league with the devil, the audience doesn't feel the same amount of paranoia as the family does. Eggers keeps viewers a step removed from the drama, and that distance hinders their involvement and even interest in the proceedings.

That’s the downside to presenting this as a folktale, which sets the tone for how the story will unravel and the inherent need to accept the supernatural elements. Still, “The Witch” earns credit for offering a fair number of chills and a discomfiting experience, and Eggers explores the central concept with aplomb. It's not a milestone film or the next great horror film, but it's interesting, and interesting is always worth at least a cursory glance.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 92 minutes

Genre: Horror/Thriller 
 

Ask Away

Target audience: Scary movie nerds who are really really interested in New England folklore.

Take the whole family?: Kids will get freaked out by the violence and the rather notable score.

Theater or Netflix?: This film would work best in a midnight screening. It at least has to be nighttime to have the full effect.

Is this a horror film?: Writer/director Robert Eggers addressed this topic after the screening and essentially said it is, but he doesn't give a fuck what people call it. I’m a little on the fence about it; it doesn’t have the same type of rhythm or intensity as something like “The Babadook,” but it is close enough in vibe to “Rosemary’s Baby” that it still fits into the genre, just barely.

Watch this as well?: Trade witches for aliens and “The Witch” is pretty similar to “The Thing,” which is always worth seeing. Also watch on of my favorite recent animated flicks,“ParaNorman,” for a family friendly retelling of the perils of supernatural abilities.

No electricity left in this boogaloo

Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller and Penelope Cruz do stuff in "Zoolander 2." Image courtesy Paramount Pictures.

I can see why Ben Stiller would want to revisit his Zoolander character, even after a 15-year break. Derek Zoolander fits right within his acting wheelhouse (Stiller can play three things: stupid, nebbishy, and macho) and the universe the character exists in is bound by the thinnest threads of reality. Strangely though, he doesn’t seem to have much more to say in “Zoolander 2,” aside from some trite themes about fatherhood and getting Sting some work. Otherwise the jokes are remarkably similar to the original, although they lack the whimsy and the charm of the first version.

Since the last film left off, former fashion model Zoolander (Stiller) has gone from the top of the fashion world to a self-proclaimed “hermit crab.” His wife Matilda (Christine Taylor) died when the school Stiller fought to build collapses (it's seemingly his fault for the incident too), and he also lost his son thanks to his utter incompetence as a parent. Best friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) has had his fair share of hard times too: the building accident left him scarred, and he now resides in a desert along with his beloved orgy. That situation falls apart too after the members (including Kiefer Sutherland) inform Wilson they are pregnant. Wilson, as many a man does in movies, runs away from his impending fatherhood, citing his own lack of a father figure growing up.

Fate (or Billy Zane) has other plans for the retired models though. Top designer Alexanya Atoz (Kristen Wiig looking like Donna Versace) recruits them to rejoin the fashion world at a show in Rome, where they encounter Valentina (Penelope Cruz), an Interpol agent working a rather odd case involving dead musicians (Justin Bieber included) and Stiller's modeling past. Also residing in a Rome orphanage is Stiller's son Derek Jr. (Cyrus Arnold), a whip-smart boy with a pretty strong hatred of his father. Everything just seems too convenient for Cruz's liking, and the easy circumstances could be linked to evil designer Mugatu (Will Ferrell), who has spent about a decade looked away in a fashion prison. Shenanigans involving fashion, celebrities, tiny cellphones, fat jokes and lava ensue.

“Zoolander 2” aims to amplify the first film, simply adding more to the quirky little flick that preceded it. More violence, more celebrity cameos, more exotic locations, more ennui, more everything except Ferrell (the movie offers less of him). More isn't necessarily better though, especially when it interferes with the plot machinations and, in the case of the bloody Bieber murder emphasized in trailers, doesn't offer that much in the way of laughs. Momentum frequently comes to a full stop to insert a celebrity into the proceedings, a problem the original avoided by having those moments heighten the film’s surreality, like during David Bowie’s (RIP) walk off appearance. “Zoolander 2” often throws them in for the sake of showcasing Stiller's Rolodex.

“Zoolander 2” is just off, relying too much on Cruz to provide humor (she tries, but just doesn’t fit in the “Zoolander” universe) but keeping pros like Wiig and Ferrell closer to the sidelines. The success of the film, then, depends on the performances of Stiller and Wilson, neither of whom plays a character who is really all that likable; like Harry and Lloyd in “Dumb and Dumber,” their models come across as aggressively stupid. The same problem arose in the first film, although Stiller used Ferrell and Taylor (and the cameos) as buffers to make Zoolander and Hansel look more approachable. Left mostly alone and their artificiality and banality come to the surface, and the film just shambles forward through the first two acts.

What saves the third act is the arrival of Ferrell's Mugatu, who injects a bit of the original's endearing oddness to things. He's such a weird character, so evil and childish and disdainful of his profession because he's the only one who realizes how insipid fashion really is, which makes him fit perfectly into the slightly off world Stiller built for his Zoolander. Most of the best lines of the film come from Ferrell's lack of respect for those around him (he also gets the one good joke about Bieber's death); that “Zoolander 2” falls apart once he leaves the screen is less than surprising and reinforces the idea that one really fun film was more than enough. “Zoolander” certainly didn't need a derivative slog as a followup.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 102 minutes (One hour and 42 minutes)

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People who remember the first one with some fondness.

Take the whole family?: The humor is puerile enough to appeal to viewers a hint younger than 13, although the graphic language will turn off parents.

Theater or Netflix?: Definitely Netflix if one must.

Is there an issue with Benedict Cumberbatch's model?: I didn't mention him in the review because he appears in the film for all of a minute, but Cumberbatch's character All is problematic. The actor does what he can; it’s the nature of the character as shown by Ben Stiller and his fellow writers is meant for mockery. They treat All like a freak show, a thing that is meant to make people say “ewww,” especially the two lead characters.

Watch this instead?: Rent the first “Zoolander” if you haven't seen it already. A bit of a bust at the time (it came out a little more than two weeks after 9/11), it has very much earned the cult following its endeared due in large part to Will Ferrell's performance as Mugatu and, of course, David Bowie.

Meet Deadpool, America's stabbiest superbeing

Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool in, well, "Deadpool." Image courtesy 20th Century Fox.

From the opening credits to the final roll, “Deadpool” posits itself as a very different kind of comic film, one that never takes itself too seriously while mocking the conventions the wildly popular genre has adopted and embraced. And, for the most part, the backs up its claim; it's bloodier than any other property related to a Marvel or DC character, and the hero by default has no qualms dropping a motherfucker or two. There is, however, one area in which it can't help but follow the standard hero story, the one chink in its armor that undermines the purpose of this grand superhero experiment.

I'll bring that point up again later, because it’s time now for a little introduction to the Deadpool character, a popular figure in Marvel Comics but not exactly a star like the X-Men or Spider-Man. Our hero started off as Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), a mercenary who sells himself as an amoral killer but is more akin to Rick Blaine (wait, did I just compare “Deadpool” to “Casablanca”?). He does have a sweet spot for Morena Baccarin's Vanessa, and the two are even set to be betrothed until Reynolds develops all of the cancer. His odds of survival are nil, but he is given one last shot at a cure through a secret experiment headed by Ajax (Ed Skrein, showing much more life than he did in that “Transporter” flick he did).

But, of course, nothing is that easy in a superhero flick, as Skrein is a ruthless scientist, aided by a punch-tacular Gina Carano. (Totally unrelated, but her IMDB page leads off with “Gina Joy Carano was born under a tornado warning”.) The cure is to torture Reynolds until his latent mutant powers are unleashed. The result is the ability to regenerate his body at the expense of looking like Ryan Reynolds. Angered by what happened, Reynolds seeks revenge against Skrein with the assistance of bartender Weasel (T. J. Miller) and two X-Men: Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapicic), who serves as Reynolds' Jiminy Cricket, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand). Also along for the ride are blind roommate Al (Leslie Uggams) and cab driver Dopinder (Karan Soni).

“Deadpool” is the movie “Kick-Ass” (versions one and two) wanted to be: A deconstruction of the genre is which the violence is rendered as both cartoonish and with a squirm-inducing verisimilitude. Bloody hell, does this thing get bloody; chunks of people rain down with abandon in the opening fight sequence, with one guy even going splat against an intersection sign. (Fun fact: mixing a green sign and a bloody carcass does not create yellow). It does get painful at times, but there's always a hint of levity to the proceedings to temper the constant violence, especially a scene in which our hero pursues a man while driving a Zamboni. (One reason why there's no way in hell Disney would do a "Deadpool" film. Fox, clearly, gives zero fucks about such concerns.)

Reynolds' Deadpool comments about preposterous nature of that sequence while riding the Zamboni. Deadpool comments on just about everything in “Deadpool”; the film's budget, Reynolds' checkered history as a film star, the X-Men, the fact he breaks the fourth wall repeatedly, his intent. Yet, somehow, this isn't cloying in the least. Reynolds delivers these little asides with vigor and earnestness, and it is very refreshing to have a comic film that, again, realizes how ridiculous it is that these things have gotten so popular. (Compare that to next month's “Batman v Superman,” which will be the dourest of things.)

Now we bounce back to the caveat alluded to in the opening paragraph highlighting the movie's most glaring weakness. What goes wrong is the back half of the plot, the one in which Reynolds' Deadpool saves Baccarin from the villain, reducing a character who started off as an equal to Snow White (she is literally encased in glass during the rescue). Because of course the woman is kidnapped, and of course she becomes a plot device, and of course the film won't even chide itself on how lazy that concept is. It's not even all that necessary to begin with; revenge is more than enough motivation for someone like Deadpool to seek out Skrein amid a deadly rampage. Why should the character be redeemed when the film has both Reynolds and an early save the cat moment to make him likable?

OK, so I'm being a little hard on a film that I admittedly enjoyed very much. I laughed through most of it, enjoyed the solid action sequences and the wisecracks and all of the meta commentary. It's a Bugs Bunny cartoon (an overused description, but apt nonetheless) disguised as a superhero film starring a man more than willing to mock himself for his own failings. It's a very welcome reprieve from the hyper serious yet tame superhero flicks that have permeated the theaters in recent years. And, again, he chases after a man on a fucking Zamboni.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 108 minutes (One hour and 48 minutes)

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: People who love the character and viewers in search of a little more bite to their superhero.

Take the whole family?: Considering the trailer shows Deadpool holding a man above his head with two swords, I'll strongly urge against taking the kids.

Theater or Netflix?: It would make for a fascinating Valentine's Day feature for couples with a wicked sense of humor.

Has Ryan Reynolds redeemed himself?: I honestly don't think he really had to – he's been excellent in “Adventureland” and in the better than expected “Just Friends” – but he deserves kudos for pursuing what is clearly a passion project. Plus, he's just perfect as Deadpool too; sly and irritating but still oddly likable despite the destruction he causes.

Watch this as well?: A better “Howard the Duck” film would have worked – the character also has a knack for breaking that fourth wall – but I'll go with the Netflix series “Jessica Jones,” which, like “Deadpool,” has a sharper edge than the average Marvel-related fair.

Life in pictures, in a picture

Josh Brolin in a scene from "Hail, Caesar!" Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

Picking on Hollywood for being shallow and vainglorious and outright artificial is both easy and passé, at least when its done by lesser hands. “Hail, Caesar!” – a flick that teases Hollywood for the reasons listed above and more – is, fortunately, a Coen Brothers film, which automatically grants this movie a little more panache than it would have otherwise. And while even cinema’s greatest sibling pairing can’t avoid the trappings of the insider flick, their version flashes the brothers’ eccentric mindset, and it’s quite clear the brothers mock with love, not viciousness.

Based on the imagination of the Joel and Ethan Coen, “Hail, Caesar!” stars the terrific Josh Brolin as the perfectly named Eddie Mannix, a Hollywood studio head defined by his efficiency, tireless work ethic, and perfect mustache. Taking place over the course of around 28 hours or so, the film catches Brolin amid his day-to-day business dealings, including breaking up illicit photo sessions with a starlet, converting oater star Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) into the star of a Douglas Sirk-esque flick (directed by Ralph Fiennes), and arranging to have pregnant star DeeAnna Morgan (Scarlett Johansson) married off before her child is born. The man has a pretty busy life, and it gets all the crazier when the star of his upcoming blockbuster “Hail, Caesar!” Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped by a gaggle of communist writers and held for ransom. All of that comes on the same day that Brolin must decide if he'll take a management position with Lockheed Martin, a job that offers better pay, better hours and far less insanity. Throughout the day he also visits a slew of characters played by Tilda Swinton, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Frances McDormand, Alison Pill and an armada of that guys.

“Hail, Caesar!” is a rather silly little film made by two of the best filmmakers of all time, which makes it something more than a silly little film. A Coen Brothers film is guaranteed to have more going on than what it shows, and there is certainly something bubbling beneath the surface of Clooney's innocent mugging and sly gay jokes at Tatum's expense. There's definitely religious undertones – a bit heavy handed, although perhaps a jab at their own reliance on them? – as well as commentary about the McCarthy era and about the pettiness of Hollywood life, topics that have been covered frequently, including by the Coens themselves in movies like “Barton Fink.”

Few filmmakers would wrap those subjects in such a bright, shiny ribbon as the Coen Boys do. The brothers weave in era-appropriate dance numbers, synchronized swimming routines and even a lovely little cowboy song into the swing of thing, weaving in footage of films within the universe depicted in “Hail, Caesar!” – including the titular flick featuring Clooney's Whitman – with the reality in which those films are shot. The divide between the film’s reality and the films within the film become difficult to parse as the movie goes on; Michael Gambon's narrator provides voiceover for “Hail, Caesar!” the movie and “Hail, Caesar!” the movie within the movie and stars will find themselves reenacting scenes from their own films in the fake real life. Two of the actors even start singing a song together that, in most films, would lead into a full-on musical number (the fact it doesn't and ultimately segues into a sequence befitting a noir thriller is totally Coen).

The downside of the blurring reality is the effect it has on the plot machinations. The Coens paint themselves into a corner when it comes to the resolution for the internal strife Brolin's Mannix faces; there is only one way the film could end because “Hail, Caesar!” follows the same rules as the fake movies it parodies adoringly. It's not the first time the Coen Brothers have run up against this problem, and it kills the sense of uncertainty featured in their best work.

Darn it though if the movie itself isn't a blast. The Coen boys know their way around fast talking characters, and the actors they enlist are up to the challenge of revisiting a strange time in filmmaking history. “Hail, Caesar!” certainly never reaches the brilliance of “No Country for Old Men” or “Fargo” or “Miller's Crossing” or “The Big Lebowski” or “Raising Arizona,” but it is just fine as it is; a fun, smart and peculiar little film.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 106 minute

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: Coen Brothers film fans and people who like screwball comedies.

Take the whole family?: There really isn't anything overly explicit about this film. The kids would get a little bored by it, but they won't require earmuffs either.

Theater or Netflix?: Good for a rainy day matinee.

Is this really a February film?: Even if this isn’t the best Coen Brothers film, the thing is much better than the average February selection. It’s not quite good enough on the whole to fit the late fall Oscar rush (although I hope Josh Brolin isn’t forgotten for next year’s Academy Awards) and this definitely isn’t a summer film either. Such a shame to waste a good film during the worst season for films.

Watch this as well?: Almost everything by the Coens is at least good, but “Barton Fink” and the cruelly underrated “Hudsucker Proxy” exhibit the filmmakers' quirky take on Hollywood life and love for fast talking films, respectively. Also flag down Robert Altman's “The Player,” which features “Hudsucker Proxy” lead Tim Robbins as a darker version of Brolin’s Eddie Mannix.

It's ever so hard to keep up appearances amid the zombie apocalypse

Lily James stars in "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies." Image courtesy Sony Pictures Entertainment.

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” technically offers everything its title says it will. The gist of the plot from “Pride and Prejudice” are there along with the characters and the drama they create, and the film chucks in a few zombies to make things a little ghastlier than the Jane Austen novel had to offer. It delivers what it promises, but the quality in which it does so is mediocre and dry, the two genres conflicting frequently and the poor special effects and cheapness spoiling the whole affair like uninvited zombies at a dinner party. They always take the best brains first.

Following the footsteps of the zombiefied adaptation of the Austen novel, “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” concerns social engagements of the five Bennet sisters: Elizabeth (Lily James), Jane (Bella Heathcote), Lydia (Ellie Bamber), Mary (Millie Brady) and Kitty (Suki Waterhouse). The last three are of little import to this story and shoved off to the sidelines to be plot devices; it’s the first tow their mother (Sally Phillips) tries to promote to suitors. It doesn't take too long for Heathcote to catch the eye of the exorbitantly wealthy Mr. Bingley (Douglas Booth), and the two fall into love immediately during one of several party sequences. James though is a little more sarcastic and independent than the other Bennet women, making it a little more difficult to find a proper husband. One suitor, Booth's friend Mr. Darcy, (Sam Riley), is a little too blunt and standoffish; the other, George Wickham (Jack Huston), exceeds his rival in charm but lacks a sense of integrity and harbors mysterious designs toward the James. Parson Collins (a very hammy Matt Smith), a cousin of the family, also pursues James' hand with little success.

All that only covers the first three words of the film's title. The last two lurk around the edges of the story; as the film explains it, a zombie outbreak that swept through England has returned with a vengeance and threatens the future of the country.  Fortunately, the Bennet women are very well trained in fighting the undead, as is Riley's Darcy, who spends much of the film stabbing or bludgeoning things with sharp objects. Still the zombies, many of whom can speak and maintain their British mannerisms, are forming a master plan to take over London for good, and it might be up to James and Riley to stop it.

You'd figure adding the threat of the walking dead to this scenario would perhaps add a heightened sense of urgency to the proceedings; after all, any romantic moment has the potential to be curtailed easily by a surprise zombie bite. But “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” never takes expediency into account, leaving the audience to wait for the characters to finally reach the proverbial fireworks factory. The fact that reaching said goal often results in low-quality action sequences and poorly rendered zombie kills makes everything all the more disappointing.

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” is a rather frustrating film not because it has any real chance of being good – the premise and the February release date make that a high improbability – but because it does retain a chance to be interesting. Yet it rarely even rises to that level, with the genres conflicting so heavily the more appealing parts of both are lost in the process. Adding the zombie subplot cuts down on the amount of screen time afforded to the Bennet sisters, whereas the slow burn of the period drama sucks the life out of the zombie film (pun quasi-intended). Writer/director Burr Steers does have one scene where the two meld together, although it happens to be a moment with nary a zombie in sight.

The main issue is wide lacuna between the quality of the two films within “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.” The Austen half is fine; it's hard to go too wrong with the “Pride and Prejudice” formula and there is a reason why the book is so revered. The zombie film, though, is dreadful, over-the-top and well-trod, relying too much on the novelty of the idea to carry it. The film especially rings hollow when the zombie-film dialogue infects the Austen-inspired prose, effectively eliminating whatever verisimilitude remains from the film universe. “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” has two audiences it needs to serve, and its efforts to satisfy both renders the entire project as a silly, asinine pipe dream.

Review: Two and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 118 minutes (One hour and 48 minutes)

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Viewers searching for something tacky heading into Valentine’s Day.

Take the whole family?: Stick with the rating for this one; it has all sorts of blood and body parts splattering across the screen.

Theater or Netflix?: Might as well wait for it for the streaming options.

Does the film maintain its feminist bona fides?: On the surface it does; the women in it do defend themselves on a frequent basis, and it does pass the Bechdel Test. Then again, the female characters often lack complexity – the zombification removes vital character development for the Bennet sisters – and director Burr Steers' camera has a habit of ogling his female stars whenever possible. It's arguable and it would make for a fun essay, but I lean toward the film being more about objectification than independence.

Watch this instead?: “Shaun of the Dead” remains the highlight of the nascent and ill-explored RomZomCom genre, a wonderful mix of horror, comedy and romance with just a dash of British humor too . How's that for a slice of fried gold?