Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
Director Burr Steers... does a nifty job of rocketing from period-piece romance to gory bloodshed, with sprinkles of dark humor here and there.
This story might have been better suited to a television adaptation. The characters would have been allowed to breathe for a beat in that case. Here, the action and violence take up the space that would have generally been used for character development.
New York Post:
Steers nails the aesthetics - zombies in ornate period dress are both amusing and chilling - but has his actors playing it completely, thuddingly straight.
The novelty of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies wears thin in the last third, but Riley and James help carry it to the finish line.
That this particular retelling of the Jane Austen novel feels like a Cliffs Notes version is understandable; that its zombie bits are equally rudimentary, though, is more disappointing.
Austen geeks and zombie lovers will enjoy enough laughs to tip the scales in the film's favor.
OK, so it's not Olivier or Colin Firth material. But writer-director Burr Steers delivers a screen mash-up that's generally done in the right, warped spirit.
The movie strives to be both scary and funny but winds up being neither.
J. R. Jones,
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is: (a) the greatest movie title since Snakes on a Plane and (b) the worst movie with a great title since Snakes on a Plane.
For all the splurch and head-lopping, "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" is monotonal. It turns its action sequences into a noisy blur.
The works of Austen are endlessly adaptable, and "Pride and Predjudice and Zombies" shows they can hold up to even the most outlandish of plot devices. Talk about a writer with bite.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram/DFW.com:
Far better than Vampire Hunter, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies at least gets the P&P part of the equation right...Yet the film is neither humorous enough to work as send-up, cutting enough to work as social commentary nor scary enough to work as horror.
If more inventive than scary, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies breathes fresh life into the hugely popular, but now desperately predictable, undead genre.
Lumbering, lifeless and -- strange thing to say about a cadaver -- almost entirely charmless.
The skirmishes and eventual full-blown battle is garden-variety PG-13 violence - clanking swords and grunting - so the action won't past muster for a generation weaned on The Walking Dead.
An unexpected and off-kilter treat, thanks to a BBC-quality cast and (un)deadpan humor.
Not enough has been preserved from Austen's book to give it any presence, much less gain an exciting new resonance. The only true zombie metaphor here is the impulse to turn everything into fodder for teenage boys.
New York Daily News:
The hungry monsters in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies are looking for nice big brains. Well, they won't find any here.
New York Times:
Both pride and prejudice still play their parts, but now in service to one tediously repeated joke: the sight of a gentleman or a lady, together or alone, playing cards or ballroom dancing, fatally swarmed by devouring zombies.
The bottom line is that Burr Steers' adaptation is unlikely to please any audience regardless of what they're looking for.
Maybe someone else can crack the code to the ultimate Austen mash-up when the inevitable "Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters" adaption comes along.
PP&Z is rated PG-13, so the zombie gore is decidedly decorous. But before repetition dulls the party, the movie gets in a few juicy innings.
San Francisco Chronicle:
Compared with other Jane Austen movies, it isn't much, but compared with other zombie apocalypse movies, it's an intelligent, literate effort.
Minneapolis Star Tribune:
As clever as it is iconoclastic, this bloody good satire tickled me by overturning much, but not all, of what we admire in Jane Austen's original.
Globe and Mail:
Like its source material - a loose term if there ever was one - Steers's movie is a failure across multiple fronts.
Not gory enough to satisfy horror fans, nor clever enough for a really good laugh ...
The essential problem here is that the story and characters of Austen's novel feel totally separate from the crass and pandering zombie plot overlay, so much so that some of it just doesn't make much sense.
The film flatlines the moment anyone draws a blade.
Like its original source material, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies works best as a comedy of manners.
This gung-ho but cruddy-looking mashup fails from A to Z: It's neither good Austen nor good zombie flick.
The New Republic:
This is a perfect film for our mash-up/viral culture in which short, clever, easily digestible bits of entertainment are passed along giddily from friend to friend. But most shareable YouTube videos run a couple minutes. "Zombies" is much, much longer.
"Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" delivers what its title promises: a little romance and some undead villains, plus a bit of comedy. But this overly busy riff on Austen's winning formula doesn't justify all the tinkering.