The King of Kings

Modern trad-con bastardisation

First, I find the Princess-bride narrative device of Dickens telling a story to his kids actively obnoxious. It's overdone, it disrupts the flow of the story, and the boy and cat are simply insufferable.

Speaking of, the wife is the epitome of the modern trad-con wet dream: the behind-each-great-man cliche, power-behind-the throne type, all authority with no discernible responsibility.

Feminism with a demure coat of paint.

Dickens is pictured as a bumbling idiot saved by his wife, a victim of bullying by his whole family, cat included. Actually disgraceful. And disgusting.

Facts: Dickens had a litter of kids, a superior intellect, did write a children's book about Jesus, was a pretty hard man by today's standards, and so was his (first) wife (he never remarried really, such were the times).

Also, anachronisms. From the get-go: a story of 2000 years ago. Right. Dickens was mid 19th century, people still knew how to count then.


The scriptural part of the movie lacks accuracy. Playing fast and loose with Dickens' life is one thing, but with the Good Book is less forgivable. My kids kept interrupting with "That's not how it goes in the Bible".
Historical accuracy, well, decided to sleep in that day. Lazy, shody research.

At least the minimalist rendering of the Cena, the Last Supper, was a welcome departure from the usual Da Vinci-esque extravaganza.



I wanted to like this one. But it's a lot of work.
I understand the will to appeal to the younger ones, but show them Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth instead, and explain that which needs explaining.