Colonial House
|
List Price: Our Price: $23.99 You Save: $25.99 (52%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $23.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Colonial House
Movie Review: I Had An Immediate Opinion On The Families
Summary: 3 Stars
I couldn't stand the Governor's family(the adults) the minute I
first saw them in the boat.
The second family I couldn't stand was the Minister's family(the adults)
the minute they opened their mouths on the boat.
Loved the English lad,plus the poor kid working for the obnoxious Minister
and his wife..
Movie Review: Wasted opportunity
Summary: 2 Stars
I had actually considered trying out for Colonial House; I abandoned that plan when I knew one of the questions on the application would have red-flagged me for sure ("Do you suffer from allergies?").
I missed 1900 House, and was introduced into the House series with Frontier House, which was very good, and Manor House, which, even though I don't really feel much if any cultural connection with the British, I thought was absolutely masterful.
What could be better? Forging a new nation in an untamed wilderness. Instead, Colonial House offered us little more than watching people do chores and condescending historial revisionism. The two biggest flaws with Colonial House were an unacceptably high level of turnover among the cast and a similarly unacceptable lenience with respect to the rules of the project.
The other two miniseries seemed to be more clear in their mission than this one. Colonial House never seemed to be sure if it wanted to recreate 1628 under with 2003 people playing 1628 roles or playing themselves.
I'm not sure why half of the people on the show did apply, however. Hugh Edgar, the butler on "Manor House" (who participated to understand his own grandfather's experiences as a butler in an Edwardian manor), mused about the servants who complained constantly about work: "What did they expect? Did they just come to be on television?"
Immediately after Michelle finished telling the other women of the colony about how women were "at the bottom of the ladder and that's the way it is," there seemed among the other women to be an air of the sudden realization that this was the case when it should have been perfectly obvious.
I guess if I had to sum up in one word why Colonial House wasn't as good as the less-imperfect Frontier House it would have to be "survival," especially beyond the time constraints of the project. This theme was accentuated much more, especially when the focus of the assessment was, "Can these families survive the winter?" There was a drive in the waning weeks to secure enough firewood and provisions whereas in CH it seemed more that the colonists were just waiting for the clock to run out. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the assessors may not have fully agreed with their own decision at the end.
At eight hours, it's two hours longer than either Frontier House or Manor House. I taped it when it originally aired, but I probably won't watch it again. If you are very interested in the early American colonial period, it might be worth checking out if it is rerun on your PBS station or if there is a copy in your local public library, but it's not worth owning.
Movie Review: Leave Your 21st Century Ideals Behind
Summary: 2 Stars
I really wanted to like Colonial House. I really did. I thought 1900 House was good, Manor House was better, and Frontier House was excellent. I figured by having a whole colony of people, this would be the ultimate living history. Unfortunately, this was not to be. My biggest question is did the Voorhees family even read the rules on the application, or did they go just to prove how 21st century they really are? I mean, she didn't even TRY to live by the 1628 laws. Skinny dipping on the Sabbath? In 1628? INSTEAD OF CHURCH?? And how about Jonathon Allen? To really feel as if it were 1628, and to prove to all he would abide by rules of days gone by, Mr. Allen should have kept his homosexuality a secret until the final day, and especially to not come out in church! That would have proved to all that you were truly trying to live by 1628 laws. Come on folks! If this were truly the seventeenth century, both subjects would have been burned at the stake! If you're going to sign up for a project like this at least TRY to abide by the laws and rules of the times!! That's the whole point - to see if a 21st century human could survive in a different time period. If you want to skinny dip, fine. If you're gay, fine. But neither was acceptable in the time period you were attempting to live in. Even the British guy ventured off to the future for a couple of days to go drinking in a modern pub. Why did you all sign up? To promote your political agendas? This is not a knock at anyone's lifestyle - this is a frustrated viewer and lover of experiments like these "House" shows. All you proved to those of us watching was that you all couldn't hack it. So you decided to make it almost into a 1960's commune instead of a 1628 colony.
To me, the attitude of the Voorhees family really brought the whole project down. Their 21st century ideals spread like a disease to the others in the colony except the first Governor, who was chastised by the rest for truly following the rules of 1628.
At least the participants in the past "House" series, for the most part, made an attempt to live in the chosen period of which they were selected.
I sure hope the powers that be are a little more selective in choosing people for any future experimental "living in the past" House shows. Colonial House was not worthy of the quality I've come to expect from PBS. It was as if Fox or WB took it over and tried to create controversy instead of a quality reality show.
Movie Review: Who edited this thing??
Summary: 2 Stars
My biggest problem with this series was how they told the tale. They would show 'colonists' having emotional or angry outbursts, and it always seemed they were over reacting because they never show what led up to that boiling point.
For example two different times you see two different goat-milking women lose their sh*& because of the work. The problem is that other than the comments they make during their respective meltdowns ("it's dirty, it's gross"), you haven't followed their goat-milking struggles, have seen no tension build and consequently don't feel the least bit connected to their misery when they have their fits.
Another example is with the servant guy who works for the preacher and his wife. He says at the beginning that he didn't want to 'get stuck' with them, but you never know why. (Were they mean to him? Do they have body odor? 'Tis all a mystery!)
Still another example is when that same guy is so sad when the black woman leaves (sorry, hard to remember names when these people don't mean anything to you). It's only as she's leaving that you find out she's his best friend there and they 'hang out all the time.' They don't tell you that until the moment she's leaving, and you're supposed to feel sad for his loss?
Also, inexplicably, they tell you what some people do in their 'real' lives, and leave you in the dark on who the others are. Overall, it's hard to feel invested in any of their lives, or their relationships.
Finally, they spent most of the time showing the most annoying people (the governor and his family, and the preacher and his wife). The freemen seemed like fun, but you hardly got to know them at all.
This was a big disappointment, and could have been a winner.
Movie Review: Distracting
Summary: 2 Stars
IF you have to eat the food that was eaten in the 1600's, and IF you have to wear what was worn then, and IF you have to do all the daily chores that were done then, and IF you have to put up with all the physical unpleasantness that went along with the time, and IF you are truly trying to represent the actual time, then this has to be viewed as a failure of almost epic proportions. For, if you follow the rules stated above, then the rules for everything else should be followed. Hey, you want to come out of the closet in 1600's New England, then you are courageous. Unfortunately , you would also be pressed to death, hanged or , if you were lucky, very lucky, run out of the colony. And the same fate would have befallen anyone who praised you. Horrible, but true. A woman in charge of a congregation? Really, now. Also something unfortunate, but true. If one is trying to portray history, they could at least portray it honestly. It was an offensive culture by our standards, but it was what it was. So, this does just become a Survivor wanna be. One need not be a Christian to attend meeting on the Sabbath. One went because to not go was suicidal. I am sure there were atheists back then, you'd just never know it. So, IF the show was realistic, when these folks did socially unacceptable things they would be punished as was fit for the times. Obviously that would not be acceptable socially or legally in these times. So, they could have at least FAKED it. Banish people from the set, instead of making a distracting Survivor-copy masquerading as an historical study.