I enjoyed the program. Something different and fun to watch; especially Don Wood. Great attitude and hardworking man...etc. Does anyone know what he does now and how he is?
Dana DeLaplante
15 Reviews
Don Wood
danadelaplante29 August 2020
I Agree to a Point
bfried520 January 2007
The colonists, especially Mrs. Vorhees seemed focused on living as 21st Century folks without modern conveniences, instead of acting as period people. For example, if she had gotten to know the lay-preacher better, she would have seen he was play-acting as a Bible thumper. He may have even been willing to explore some of her views. Instead, she saw this as a forum for her opinion, rather than playing along with the experiment.
If I were in charge I would have applied post-industrial revolution division of labor. I would have found the best sawyer, and had him cut it all--firewood, marine spars, etc. The field work would have been divided also, and I would have bucked the rules and plowed in rows instead of mounds. And speaking of farming, would not goat dung have acted as a viable fertilizer?
Okay, back to the people. I thought the people should have been more focused on the economic part more than on personal comforts. Jeff seemed too concerned about his leadership rather than the economics. He should have taken the trade with the indians, and not stonewalled them. Also, as someone suggested on this website, it was a waste of time and talent to build the separate house for the new family. That could have waited (or been done along side the production of spars). The divided labor could have said "Ten spars, ten beams for a house . . ."
Overall, I liked this one better than the others--the worst being Manor House (which was also filled with whiners, especially the chef and kitchen crew). Anyway, I think I could adapt to the circumstances of these shows if I was single. However, with a family it would be very difficult.
Bruce
If I were in charge I would have applied post-industrial revolution division of labor. I would have found the best sawyer, and had him cut it all--firewood, marine spars, etc. The field work would have been divided also, and I would have bucked the rules and plowed in rows instead of mounds. And speaking of farming, would not goat dung have acted as a viable fertilizer?
Okay, back to the people. I thought the people should have been more focused on the economic part more than on personal comforts. Jeff seemed too concerned about his leadership rather than the economics. He should have taken the trade with the indians, and not stonewalled them. Also, as someone suggested on this website, it was a waste of time and talent to build the separate house for the new family. That could have waited (or been done along side the production of spars). The divided labor could have said "Ten spars, ten beams for a house . . ."
Overall, I liked this one better than the others--the worst being Manor House (which was also filled with whiners, especially the chef and kitchen crew). Anyway, I think I could adapt to the circumstances of these shows if I was single. However, with a family it would be very difficult.
Bruce
Time travel isn't always pretty
tnliving11 March 2013
I am a huge Colonial House fan. I watch it about once a year and it never fails to move me and make me appreciate how much life has changed in 400 years.
So many of the reviews have been very harsh about the cast members failure to completely transform into eager colonists. The living conditions and drudgery that these people endured for FOUR months was astounding. I think people are so used to watching commercial television reality shows that they really fail to appreciate the magnitude of difference between this experiment and a show like Survivor. The first season of survivor took 37 days to film, Colonial house was 120! For 120 days the cast went without access to running water, showers, toilet paper, most foods, fresh produce other than blueberries, mirrors, vehicles, telecommunications, electricity, mirrors, shampoo and hundreds of other everyday items. They ate off of insect covered dishes, consumed rancid bacon and bacteria covered salted fish and mountains of dried peas. When they boarded the boat at the start of the series they didn't know if they would be a servant, governor, a freeman etc. Another important difference between other reality shows in Colonial House is that the cast of Colonial House wasn't competing for 100K dollars. From my point of view there was very little joy to be had and I think the cast made a huge effort and is fascinating to watch and get to know.
The other common criticism of the show is how indifferent the governor and council were towards colonial era laws. The show clearly documented the struggles they experienced in enforcing those laws. Half of the labor force was staked out in isolation at one point for various infractions. It was deemed too disabling to continue so some compromises were made. There were some people on the show who were more willing to commit than others.
If you want to see a bunch of people instantly transform into happily industrious automaton pilgrims for four months, this show will disappoint. If you want to take a really good look at how our physical and social worlds have transformed in 400 yeas, Colonial House is time well spent.
So many of the reviews have been very harsh about the cast members failure to completely transform into eager colonists. The living conditions and drudgery that these people endured for FOUR months was astounding. I think people are so used to watching commercial television reality shows that they really fail to appreciate the magnitude of difference between this experiment and a show like Survivor. The first season of survivor took 37 days to film, Colonial house was 120! For 120 days the cast went without access to running water, showers, toilet paper, most foods, fresh produce other than blueberries, mirrors, vehicles, telecommunications, electricity, mirrors, shampoo and hundreds of other everyday items. They ate off of insect covered dishes, consumed rancid bacon and bacteria covered salted fish and mountains of dried peas. When they boarded the boat at the start of the series they didn't know if they would be a servant, governor, a freeman etc. Another important difference between other reality shows in Colonial House is that the cast of Colonial House wasn't competing for 100K dollars. From my point of view there was very little joy to be had and I think the cast made a huge effort and is fascinating to watch and get to know.
The other common criticism of the show is how indifferent the governor and council were towards colonial era laws. The show clearly documented the struggles they experienced in enforcing those laws. Half of the labor force was staked out in isolation at one point for various infractions. It was deemed too disabling to continue so some compromises were made. There were some people on the show who were more willing to commit than others.
If you want to see a bunch of people instantly transform into happily industrious automaton pilgrims for four months, this show will disappoint. If you want to take a really good look at how our physical and social worlds have transformed in 400 yeas, Colonial House is time well spent.
Commentary on the commentaries
woodkmw29 January 2007
I have found these programs to be very interesting and this is the 3rd or 4th that I have watched that deals with modern day people returning to another time. I did enjoy watching Colonial House but many viewers seem to fault the program for its lack of rigor in forcing the colonists to stick with 17th century laws. Overall I found the program educational but it really did teach more about 21st century views toward the colonial period than it did actual 17th century life. I remember when I was in history class, one of the first points for students to remember is that all contemporary views of history are clouded by your modern day perceptions. One can never completely understand how people of a different time thought because our views will always be clouded by our knowledge of the present and our present day beliefs. The show gives a somewhat good account of what it was like to come to a new, distant land with nothing, establish a community and the hard work that went into making it grow. What was distracting was the modern-day participants tendency to whine about the drudgery of daily life in the 17th century and their refusal to participate fully in the experience. Well of course, it would be like returning to a leper colony and being surprise that there are sick people there! So I also found it very annoying when the participants refused to participate in mass, accept subservient positions, accept male-female and class differentiations. All were accepted and unbreakable foundations of 17th century British life. The rules in the 17th century were enforceable due to the ability to inflict serious punishment and death on the offending individual. This of course would not be allowed in the modern day so the colonists are allowed to basically fall into a quasi-17th century colony with plenty of 21st century lifestyle choices thrown in. More like a camping trip with farming and bad hygiene. All in all, I found the program most interesting when it showed the construction of the colony, the work required to make it grow, and the narrator's accounts of how life would have been. I also found it very annoying to hear the native Americans account of "we know what our ancestors would have thought." Well sorry...you are modern day people of a 21st century world. You would no more have known what people 400 years ago were thinking at any particular moment than I would know what a cave man was thinking. So the program sometimes tends to veer off into tedious modern day politicized rants. Back in the day, the people would have probably just settled such discrepancies with a good flogging and hanging. End of story.
Better Preparation Needed
PartialMovieViewer11 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Watch 'Tudor Monastery Farm' and learn from the British how to do something like this. This should be a success, but suffers in execution. Notes to next bunch that try something like this: 1. Ding-ding-ding, learn how to meet a challenge head-on and overcome. ; 2. And for God's Sake, when a group of Passamaquoddy approach - (I am part Passamaquoddy myself) - don't blubber about being part Native AmericanNews flash - you are supposed to be a settler - nitwit. 3. I feel so bad there are no iPads and iPhones - but please learn from the PhDs in 'Tudor Farm' face hiccups and fix them. 4. I would never take clueless volunteers for something like this, but more like interested students - not a bunch of butt-hurt whiners. Boohoo, cry me a river. 5. This is 15th century mindset - not 21st century blame-a-thon. 6. The team needs to spend a week together before being dropped off and weed out the unadjustable. This show is ok, but these folks can't get along. If they can't get along - they need to be kicked out into the wilderness. This might be a brilliant idea for another show - 'Colonial Wilderness - Meet the Wolves, Eat the Wolves or The Alternative.'
Ok, I made a mistake. This is really pretty good show.
Ok, I made a mistake. This is really pretty good show.
Shoulder flaunting😱
beth-4974021 July 2022
What's with all the female 'sexy' shoulder flaunting? A bit hard to believe with all the terror of vanity back then they'd be digging that. Waited awhile figurin someone would call her on it and BIG penalty but no everyone's fine with it🙄
Good idea, poor execution
Violet12117912 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
An eight-episode reality show about a group of people trying to reproduce the experience of early New England settlers in 1628? I hoped it would be as promising as it sounds- I'm fascinated by the Hudson Valley Dutch settlers of the same time period. Unfortunately it's more Seventeenth Century Survivor than Plymouth Plantation. The focus is on the squabbles of the twenty-odd volunteers rather than the problems of settlers facing a new and often hostile land.
To begin, the more successful "House" shows were well-cast. The producers found people who were willing to live by the rules and learn from their experiences. Colonial House appears to have been cast mainly with people who either had no idea what they were getting into or who weren't willing to live by the social rules of the period. Those who are, and who do well in the show, get little attention.
The first three families get most of the screen time. The Wyers are likable and Jeff Wyer appears to be a thoughtful leader, but I think they should not have been allowed back on the show after leaving, although they didn't plan to leave. The Heinzes start off nice and eventually become maddening. John Voorhees is sympathetic, but Michelle Rossi-Voorhees seems to have had little interest in historical accuracy. The fourth family, who arrived later with their servant, have no introduction whatsoever and got little screen time, which I thought was unfortunate.
Single people seem more interesting. I'm sorry we didn't get to see the "sexy milkmaid" go from tears of frustration to patiently teaching others to milk. In general the servants seemed more willing to work and less likely to cause drama and following them would have given more of the historical content I would have liked. Jack Lecza was both effective and delightfully stern, but he virtually disappeared after about half an episode.
By the last episode I was disappointed. The producers were clearly more interested in drama than in showing how people really lived. If the evaluation was to recommend that the colony be continued, it should have been a good deal harsher- I wasn't convinced that the colony could survive the winter, let alone turn a profit (maybe if Jack Lecza stayed around . . .). Even the follow-ups were disappointing; they left so many people out. Did Danny Tisdale come to any resolution of his troubles with the project? How did people's lives change after coming back from the seventeenth century? I don't regret watching the show. I did manage to pick up a lot about the time period. I loved the period clothing and other details. And I did like many of the people who appeared. But the end result was awfully disappointing.
To begin, the more successful "House" shows were well-cast. The producers found people who were willing to live by the rules and learn from their experiences. Colonial House appears to have been cast mainly with people who either had no idea what they were getting into or who weren't willing to live by the social rules of the period. Those who are, and who do well in the show, get little attention.
The first three families get most of the screen time. The Wyers are likable and Jeff Wyer appears to be a thoughtful leader, but I think they should not have been allowed back on the show after leaving, although they didn't plan to leave. The Heinzes start off nice and eventually become maddening. John Voorhees is sympathetic, but Michelle Rossi-Voorhees seems to have had little interest in historical accuracy. The fourth family, who arrived later with their servant, have no introduction whatsoever and got little screen time, which I thought was unfortunate.
Single people seem more interesting. I'm sorry we didn't get to see the "sexy milkmaid" go from tears of frustration to patiently teaching others to milk. In general the servants seemed more willing to work and less likely to cause drama and following them would have given more of the historical content I would have liked. Jack Lecza was both effective and delightfully stern, but he virtually disappeared after about half an episode.
By the last episode I was disappointed. The producers were clearly more interested in drama than in showing how people really lived. If the evaluation was to recommend that the colony be continued, it should have been a good deal harsher- I wasn't convinced that the colony could survive the winter, let alone turn a profit (maybe if Jack Lecza stayed around . . .). Even the follow-ups were disappointing; they left so many people out. Did Danny Tisdale come to any resolution of his troubles with the project? How did people's lives change after coming back from the seventeenth century? I don't regret watching the show. I did manage to pick up a lot about the time period. I loved the period clothing and other details. And I did like many of the people who appeared. But the end result was awfully disappointing.
A good idea that failed horribly.
Sparrow_in_flight25 May 2004
The "colonists" do not appear to have understood what they were signing up for, and are unwilling to forget the 21st century, as they would need to, to do their job properly. Instead, laws that would have been strictly applied in the 1600s are bent, broken, or abandoned. A colonist was allowed to simply because he no longer felt like participating. Family emergencies are understandable grounds for leaving, as is having leaving assigned due to the role you were cast in.
Women were second-in-line to men - this is something all the women should have understood before signing on board. Yes, occasionally, there were exceptions - but not often. Indentured servants were barely above slaves. That was how things were, and how things are now should not have been brought in.
The younger children should have been working as well, for while they would have had some play time, everyone pitched in in those days.
While the idea of building a house probably seemed great, the colony might have done better to add on to an existing house, or something like that - less work to do, more time to work for sending things back to England.
Many things could have been done differently, but I won't list them all here. I will simply say a lot could probably have been done better, both preparing these colonists for their roles, and then the colony could have been managed better.
I have no idea if they passed or failed - that episode comes on later tonight. But if I were the judge, they would fail. I doubt, had they been a colony then, that they would have made it through full year, or even a winter.
Women were second-in-line to men - this is something all the women should have understood before signing on board. Yes, occasionally, there were exceptions - but not often. Indentured servants were barely above slaves. That was how things were, and how things are now should not have been brought in.
The younger children should have been working as well, for while they would have had some play time, everyone pitched in in those days.
While the idea of building a house probably seemed great, the colony might have done better to add on to an existing house, or something like that - less work to do, more time to work for sending things back to England.
Many things could have been done differently, but I won't list them all here. I will simply say a lot could probably have been done better, both preparing these colonists for their roles, and then the colony could have been managed better.
I have no idea if they passed or failed - that episode comes on later tonight. But if I were the judge, they would fail. I doubt, had they been a colony then, that they would have made it through full year, or even a winter.
A massive failure
AshenGrey10 October 2005
This series is *much* weaker than either "Frontier House" or "Manor House". None of the volunteers ever really tried to act colonial. The participants had no clue about teamwork, unity, or community. Mostly, they spent valuable time whining and bickering.
The women griped about the lack of women's lib. The atheists griped about church. The "colonists" slept until 10.00am every day, drank, and cursed. A gay guy came out of the closet (a death sentence in the 1600's).
These fools would have either starved or murdered each other if they were *really* in the 17th century. The concept was good, but the volunteers ruined the experiment.
The women griped about the lack of women's lib. The atheists griped about church. The "colonists" slept until 10.00am every day, drank, and cursed. A gay guy came out of the closet (a death sentence in the 1600's).
These fools would have either starved or murdered each other if they were *really* in the 17th century. The concept was good, but the volunteers ruined the experiment.
Easily the Crappiest of its kind
curtis-824 May 2004
The latest in an increasingly long line of public television "reality" programs featuring modern day people trying to live according to the rules and limitations of a more primitive past, "Colonial House" is by far the worst produced and least successful. In previous incarnations like "Frontier House" and "Victorian House" (or something like that) the participants at least seemed willing to try to live up to the obligations they took on when signing up. In "Frontier" for instance, they went in knowing that they were going to have to build their own dwellings and grow their own food. They were surprised by how hard it was, tensions flared, etc. But they never acted like they didn't know what the whole point was--to live like pioneers.
The people in "Colonial House" act as though they had been kidnapped and forced to participate against their will. I mean, the whole point was to live the 16th century early-colonial life and we have one woman who bitches without end about how women are treated as second class citizens and about how she shouldn't have to go to church services because she's an atheist. Commendable sentiments in the 21st century, but crap like that would have gotten her burned as a witch back in the old days. So, if she's not willing to play along with the concept, why did she sign up to be on the TV show? And what's with all the indentured servants complaining about having to do what they're told? They're supposed to be SLAVES for God's sake! They signed up to be just that! Didn't any of them look up the term "indentured servitude" before they went to the show's auditions?
I suspect that the producers of this new show have purposely set it up to be an only half-real "Real World" ripoff instead of the usual documentary experiment, complete with pre-set conflicts and phony drama. For instance, one colonist has a dramatic moment when he "comes out" to the rest of he colony and announces that he is gay. I mean, come on--like it matters? Did anyone ask? It's not like anyone expected that he was going to marry one of the wenches or anything, right? A totally fake moment of drama. And not the only one. The show is rife with obviously staged moments and impossibly perfect camera placements. And on top of that, almost every single one of the Colonist is annoying as hell (except for the bearded guy who says f*ck all the time and the governor's hot daughter).
I have firm suspicions that the almost entirely inept "Colonial House" is really a brilliant new mocumentary by Christopher "Waiting for Guffman" Guest.
The people in "Colonial House" act as though they had been kidnapped and forced to participate against their will. I mean, the whole point was to live the 16th century early-colonial life and we have one woman who bitches without end about how women are treated as second class citizens and about how she shouldn't have to go to church services because she's an atheist. Commendable sentiments in the 21st century, but crap like that would have gotten her burned as a witch back in the old days. So, if she's not willing to play along with the concept, why did she sign up to be on the TV show? And what's with all the indentured servants complaining about having to do what they're told? They're supposed to be SLAVES for God's sake! They signed up to be just that! Didn't any of them look up the term "indentured servitude" before they went to the show's auditions?
I suspect that the producers of this new show have purposely set it up to be an only half-real "Real World" ripoff instead of the usual documentary experiment, complete with pre-set conflicts and phony drama. For instance, one colonist has a dramatic moment when he "comes out" to the rest of he colony and announces that he is gay. I mean, come on--like it matters? Did anyone ask? It's not like anyone expected that he was going to marry one of the wenches or anything, right? A totally fake moment of drama. And not the only one. The show is rife with obviously staged moments and impossibly perfect camera placements. And on top of that, almost every single one of the Colonist is annoying as hell (except for the bearded guy who says f*ck all the time and the governor's hot daughter).
I have firm suspicions that the almost entirely inept "Colonial House" is really a brilliant new mocumentary by Christopher "Waiting for Guffman" Guest.
Not as memorable as Frontier House.
drdreads18 March 2006
In Frontier House, there were 3 families, all with their own separate and distinct personalities. It was easier to keep a tab on who's who, and everyone was funny and likable.
2 years later, the house series continues, with Colonial House. More then 3 families, of forgettable people that just cant seem to let go of their old lives, unlike the people in Frontier House, who saw the big difference, and even went as far as to say "There should be a support group for the 21st century."
Its actually boring too and the Indian part of the show was just...dull...it was a good idea, but the cast made it dumb and boring in my opinion.
2 years later, the house series continues, with Colonial House. More then 3 families, of forgettable people that just cant seem to let go of their old lives, unlike the people in Frontier House, who saw the big difference, and even went as far as to say "There should be a support group for the 21st century."
Its actually boring too and the Indian part of the show was just...dull...it was a good idea, but the cast made it dumb and boring in my opinion.
A failed experiment
Maciste_Brother19 May 2004
If this show was supposed to have modern folks live and recreate "living" during Colonial times, well, it's a failure on all counts. The people are mostly annoying and don't seem to care about living and becoming their historical roles. The whole set-up is haphazardly enforced. The show makes for dreary viewing.
I'm not a fan of reality shows, like SURVIVOR or BIG BROTHER. So when I heard about this show created by PBS, I thought "This one has potential to be interesting". Well, I thought wrong.
BTW, Oprah was invited to participate for a couple of days. Her appearance was probably thought up by some producer (most likely a friend of Oprah or a friend with a producer of the Oprah show) because they knew the show wasn't working and they needed someone to help keep the whole project from falling apart.
I'm not a fan of reality shows, like SURVIVOR or BIG BROTHER. So when I heard about this show created by PBS, I thought "This one has potential to be interesting". Well, I thought wrong.
BTW, Oprah was invited to participate for a couple of days. Her appearance was probably thought up by some producer (most likely a friend of Oprah or a friend with a producer of the Oprah show) because they knew the show wasn't working and they needed someone to help keep the whole project from falling apart.
Great idea... poor execution.
nbryant-151296 June 2022
While it's almost 19 years after it aired, as I watch this series, I couldn't help but see what liberalism and a lack of work ethic can do to a country, faith, and mentality. People clamor for socialism, yet just watch this limited series to see how the people who worked hard and tried, felt about those who slacked off and didn't play by the rules. Many of the women cut the legs out from under their husbands and squashed the roles that they were supposed to be playing in 1628. Didn't they know what they signed up for? I could not stand the Voorhees family and I felt bad for the father. I also did not care for the Heinz family, both from a leadership standpoint and from a religious standpoint. They do fit the world's view of Christianity though, but not the Bible's. I agree with the assessment that those working as servants saved the show, as well as Don Wood. I'd have started a Colony with any of those men and women, but the others would've doomed us from the beginning, with their poor work ethic and unwillingness to play by the rules. The "experts" saved the Colony, but without Jack Lecza and his last minute push, the Colony as a whole would've failed, and the show should've let them. They didn't "pull together" as a Colony, but they pulled together for selfish ambition and because of procrastination, knowing how foolish they looked on a TV broadcast. This was a great and fun idea, one that I'd have loved participating in, but it was poorly executed by those who played their roles, minus the above bright spots. I'd be curious to see this done 20 years later, as smart phones and other technology was not yet present for another 5 or 6 years when this came out. I'd love to see people now, put down their phones, THEN try to take part.
It would have been watchable if it's a one-time 60min program
netbankcitibank10 June 2005
This program reminded me that how well-constructed "Survivor" is as a TV program (although I am not a big fun of it). A fundamental problem with this series is that people never played a real role. They just completed a "task" everyday. Without a $1M reward or 15 min fame after the show, how could you make participants get serious? The producer's answer to this question was "to choose the people who really love the history".
Another problem was that the experiment's length. "6 month"! No "functioning" member of the modern society can't take that long hiatus. As a result, almost all participants are losers and weirdo. And again, there is no systematic device that made them get serious. With these two factors, the show was bound to be a failure.
Another problem was that the experiment's length. "6 month"! No "functioning" member of the modern society can't take that long hiatus. As a result, almost all participants are losers and weirdo. And again, there is no systematic device that made them get serious. With these two factors, the show was bound to be a failure.
Unrealistic - and they would not have survived the winter
borg1005-110 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As others have said, "The Worst", but for me, worst on different levels.
First off, no for-profit outfit sends a group of colonists to a new land, filled with hostile natives, without a means to defend themselves. IMO, the backgrounds of these producers are Politically Correct, and to show guns in a positive light would have been a No-No, so the colonists are portrayed as unarmed.
Matchlock muskets had been in existence for 200 years when these colonists shipped out, so at least one of them should have been so armed. The hunting scenes were a joke - sending the guy out with what looked like a Boy Scout bow and arrow kit. No wonder they had no luck. OK, it was out of season for deer, but it would have been more realistic if they could have one guy designated as The Hunter, and had him go to a rifle range and shoot at a deer-sized target at 25-50 yards. A hit in the vitals and he would bring home a hog or sheep to simulate a deer. If he missed, they ate porridge.
The athiests should have been given an ultimatum - attend the services or be banished. You signed up for the equivalent of a four-month enlistment. None of this a la carte business.
The gay guy played it straight (no pun intended) and stuck it out, despite the threat of death in the time period. The black guy who folded was a disappointment, as he seemed to have his act together. He let his 21st century angst get in the way and it chased him off.
The Passamaquoddy indians played the "white man bad" routine, but it was within the context of the time. They made a good point when they said "first there comes one, then two, etc" and was then backed up by the preacher wanting to expand their community by building a church on the outskirts of the hamlet. The Wampanoags were a different story. They come with an attitude, tap-dancing in from 300 miles away. Instead of a 20-day hike, they probably drove only one day.
One of the bucks is so filled with hate over what happened to them 400 years ago, he steals a chicken from the colonists in revenge. When he is rightly chastised by the tribal elders, he does a phony mea culpa and later relishes the thought that he put one over on the colonists, whose dog was touted as the community's guardian.
The Governor's wife (I think) missed a chance to straighten out the Wampanoag matriarch when she said something like they wore the original clothes while the whites wore costumes. At that point, the wife should have observed that the experience pointed out the fact that the indians never advanced, just existed day to day, while the whites created wealth by inventing things, such as the cars the indians drove to the site so they could complain. She could have also mentioned that they lived comfortably on the reservation in warm houses with electricity and running water, courtesy of white creativity.
One look at the woodpile would tell the assessors the colonists wouldn't last the winter. "Frontier House" used that as a criteria and should have been used here. Then we have the houses - you could see daylight coming in through the unchinked walls (no attempt to fix that) and the suicidal attempt to live in one house that just had two large openings in the gables instead of a fireplace. It was summer and the colonists told how cold they were - how would they feel in mid-winter, with near zero temps plus snow up to the window sills, when the firewood ran out?
All in all, a pretty lame attempt.
First off, no for-profit outfit sends a group of colonists to a new land, filled with hostile natives, without a means to defend themselves. IMO, the backgrounds of these producers are Politically Correct, and to show guns in a positive light would have been a No-No, so the colonists are portrayed as unarmed.
Matchlock muskets had been in existence for 200 years when these colonists shipped out, so at least one of them should have been so armed. The hunting scenes were a joke - sending the guy out with what looked like a Boy Scout bow and arrow kit. No wonder they had no luck. OK, it was out of season for deer, but it would have been more realistic if they could have one guy designated as The Hunter, and had him go to a rifle range and shoot at a deer-sized target at 25-50 yards. A hit in the vitals and he would bring home a hog or sheep to simulate a deer. If he missed, they ate porridge.
The athiests should have been given an ultimatum - attend the services or be banished. You signed up for the equivalent of a four-month enlistment. None of this a la carte business.
The gay guy played it straight (no pun intended) and stuck it out, despite the threat of death in the time period. The black guy who folded was a disappointment, as he seemed to have his act together. He let his 21st century angst get in the way and it chased him off.
The Passamaquoddy indians played the "white man bad" routine, but it was within the context of the time. They made a good point when they said "first there comes one, then two, etc" and was then backed up by the preacher wanting to expand their community by building a church on the outskirts of the hamlet. The Wampanoags were a different story. They come with an attitude, tap-dancing in from 300 miles away. Instead of a 20-day hike, they probably drove only one day.
One of the bucks is so filled with hate over what happened to them 400 years ago, he steals a chicken from the colonists in revenge. When he is rightly chastised by the tribal elders, he does a phony mea culpa and later relishes the thought that he put one over on the colonists, whose dog was touted as the community's guardian.
The Governor's wife (I think) missed a chance to straighten out the Wampanoag matriarch when she said something like they wore the original clothes while the whites wore costumes. At that point, the wife should have observed that the experience pointed out the fact that the indians never advanced, just existed day to day, while the whites created wealth by inventing things, such as the cars the indians drove to the site so they could complain. She could have also mentioned that they lived comfortably on the reservation in warm houses with electricity and running water, courtesy of white creativity.
One look at the woodpile would tell the assessors the colonists wouldn't last the winter. "Frontier House" used that as a criteria and should have been used here. Then we have the houses - you could see daylight coming in through the unchinked walls (no attempt to fix that) and the suicidal attempt to live in one house that just had two large openings in the gables instead of a fireplace. It was summer and the colonists told how cold they were - how would they feel in mid-winter, with near zero temps plus snow up to the window sills, when the firewood ran out?
All in all, a pretty lame attempt.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
