“Dead Alive” but Whither Peter Jackson

Dead Alive (1992)

Braindead was released in New Zealand on 13 August 1992. But the distributors changed the name to Dead Alive for its 12 February 1993 US release. And that’s the name I know it by.

It is a classic film that everyone should watch. Enough said!

So let’s talk about Peter Jackson. His early films were all like Dead Alive. You could hate them. But you would have to admit that they were creative and at least interesting. Now?

Jackson’s films make a lot of money. And critics generally like them. But I don’t. Well, that isn’t exactly true. You see, I have yet to be able to make it all the way through any of his Tolkien films. They are tedious and full of self-importance. They could not be more different from his early “fun at all costs” films.

But the sad thing is that I haven’t even tried to watch the other films he’s done recently. King Kong is the only exception. And I rather like it. Or I like the first half; like the Tolkien films, it is too long.

Jackson used to make films. Now he makes products. His career is a great example of how financial success ruins artists. Not that I blame him. I’ve been waiting my whole life to sell out without any offers at all.

And regardless of what I think of his more recent work, Dead Alive is still an outstanding film. You should watch it. And here it is from Archive:


Dead Alive (Braindead) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

4 replies on ““Dead Alive” but Whither Peter Jackson”

  1. I have a copy of “Meet The Feebles,” Jackson’s twisted Muppet-style movie, with oozing VD pustules. I haven’t watched it in, like, 20 years. I’m sure it’s actually pretty great (or just the worst movie ever). This inspired me, I MIGHT try it. But I am frightened.

    • Dead Alive is more gory but less disturbing than Feebles. I know I wrote about it over on Frankly Curious. I may bring it over.

      • Well, DA is funnier. MTF is more shock value. At least it has feeling, though.

        Once a director who had a knack for humor loses it, they’re lost. Not irredeemably so. We were talking about Boorman’s Ex2 and Zardoz in another thread, and Boorman had NO sense of humor. Zilch. Then he found one for Hope & Glory, Tailor of Panama, The General. The General is all crime and grime, but Gleeson is funny! Brosnan is howlingly sleazy in TOP.

        A sense of humor grounds you. It’s how you reach out to people. Dank seriousness can be fine if you have a dank serious story to tell. But most movies aren’t telling a very serious story. And certainly not The Hobbit, a charming kids’ book where the little overlooked guy proves he can be clever! Turning it into “The Bible: The Prequel Years” shows just how much Jackson had lost all good sense by that point.

        • I wish Hollywood would learn that Tolkien isn’t serious stuff. But they can’t even figure out that Marvel isn’t serious stuff. I’m not saying that films have to be serious. Obviously! But, you know, superheroes and hobbits could be fun! They have been in the past.

          I’m glad you got to see it. I haven’t seen either in a few years so I really can’t compare them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *