Hey man...I did finally get to see the film at Jordan Landing before I left. I have to say I was surprised by the film. BUT, I do understand why it is flopping so far. First, the timing is off. This film should have been released about two months earlier when nothing else was out...then it would not have to compete with HARRY POTTER or some of the other Holiday Extravaganza films.
Secondly, I completly understand why this film may turn away LDS movie goers. People don't want to go see this story, they would rather be uplifted...or more correctly, blatently and easily uplifted. This film makes you think and search your heart to get the entire message. Movie-goers for the most part want to get the message easily and don't want a film to make them think.
In that sense, I can certainly see how some people will never understand this film, aside from viewing ordaninces on screen. While I do not think Dutcher missed the point, or did not convey the message clearly, I do think he is out of touch with the mainstream LDS audience. After all, this was supposed to create revenue for him, and will not.
However, being out of touch with an audience that only wishes to be spoon-fed is not a terrible thing. I would rather have a movie of quality like this than a plethora of 'SINGLES WARD' or 'THE R.M.' type films...which is what we have.
That being said, from what I have heard about FALLING and the controversial nature of the film being confirmed a year ago by a friend who worked on the film (who also worked on this one...CONGRATS MORGAN! Great to see your name on the silver screen!)...I think that movie may alienate the LDS fans from Dutcher.
I certainly hope this is not the case, because he is an outstanding filmmaker, and I get the point in each of his films. I wish others would.
The only negative criticism I have for this film was in editing and the end scene. I got the point with about 1.5 - 2 minutes of screen time. I didn't need to bask in that scene for 5-6 minutes. I actually rolled my eyes and said to my cousin, "Now we'll have a scene of every main character holding the baby. There it is." And then the same thing happened when everyone kneeled. I also felt having the girl there underminded the scenes impact.
In regards to editing, I think Dutchers films can suffer from a little bit more efficient editing, like the sacrament scene in BRIGHAM CITY could have been more efficient and shorter. Nail the scene is a shorter amount of time.
Lastly, I felt like we could have had two movies, as none of the story arches felt as fully explored as they could have been. All of the elements were outstanding..I just wanted to see more. The gang member story line was solid, and nearly perfection. I just wanted to see more of the aftermath when he arrived home and the elders were there. It felt like that story line was waiting for closure. It could have also been expanded into its own movie.
The other storylines of the missionaries, the preacher and the out of work actress could have made its own movie. The preacher storyline was by far the most cheated story line. He had such a great character and actor that I just wanted more development.
Ultimately this film needed to wrap up the storylines better, and I think the lack of cinematic closure is what will leave audiences, especially typical LDS audiences, hanging and slightly uncomfortable.
I wish I could have seen this movie twice when I was there, and hopefully AZ will get the film soon. Regardless, I wait impatiently for the DVD, and Dutcher's commentary.
My instant reaction to the film is 3.5 out of 5.
-Todd
www.toddlbauerle.com
reply
share
notyourordinarymoviecritic
18 years ago
Glad you got to see the movie.
I agree with your assertion:
"This film makes you think and search your heart to get the entire message. Movie-goers for the most part want to get the message easily and don't want a film to make them think."
You have many valuable insights into the movie. (From your website's movie review list, it appears you are quite the quality movie buff. I value your critique, partly due to your background in watching quality films.) I thought it odd to have the actress in the final scene, too, especially gripping Farrell's bicep--a little too weird. You were able to verbalize it well--how it undermined the scene.
It seems to be part of Dutcher's formula to present many possibilities, questions, and not a lot of answers or closures in his films. But that doesn't bother me. I still find his films uplifting.
I read another reviewer's reviews where he thought the ending was a little too long or a little too "something" (the right word escapes me).
I've also read other comments where reviewers criticized Dutcher for sensationalizing missionary work, using tragedy just for shock value and to manipulate the viewer's emotions. I totally disagree with those assertions. I think he just attempts to tell a good story and he knows that the greater the conflict, the greater the possibility for edification and peace at the other extreme of that spectrum.
Thanks again. Later...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."--Albert Einstein
reply
share
tlbauerle
18 years ago
Thanks, I appreciate it.
In regards to the "sensationalizing" of missionary work, it's a two hour movie. You have to. It's not like it is a six hundred page book you can take your time with. The best story telling devices for church conversion are the extremely dramatic ones. Aren't those the stories we marvel at in the Ensign?
What about all the drama in THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN? That's been an LDS classic since Elder Groberg's novels. Why don't I see the complaints there? Answer: The message is much easier to get.
However, I do think one flub in after thought was how different this Mission President was than in the first film. Yeah, it's the same guy, but a different character. I was expecting a large amount of chastizement, and perhaps anger...but none came. It leaves me to believe this is a different character. An improvement from the harshness of the first...but different.
Ultimately this film is not as good as THE BEST TWO YEARS, and I'm disappointed as hell by that.
-Todd
www.toddlbauerle.com
reply
share
notyourordinarymoviecritic
18 years ago
About the Mission President. I think it is the same character. I just think he must have gotten some acting coaching and the actor improved his "genuine" factor. In God's army the person playing Pres. Beecroft came across as a little too stilted and unnatural. Plus, I think we get the opportunity in this film to see the softer side of the Mission President. Instead of chastising, we see him for the most part consoling. That seems to be one of the underlying themes--how the Savior's infinite love can reach out, around us and through us to console us in our deepest despair and feelings of loneliness.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."--Albert Einstein
reply
share
guildysticks
18 years ago
You rolled your eyes at the most powerful scene in the movie, most likely missing the analogy being made. The girl was in the scene to show hope for the missionary's future life.
reply
share
tlbauerle
18 years ago
Sorry...I think it undermined the 'naughty-ness' of what he did. For me there wasn't any 'forsaking' of his actions. Go home, repent, then if you still feel like you need to have contact with the girl, write her...call her up...NOT when you are still a missionary.
I'm sorry, but having personally been through a situation in dealing with sexual sin, you can't continue to remain as close with the person you screwed up with. It leaves the door open to doing it again...and again.
But, if you read what I actually 'rolled my eyes' at, it was the length of the scene, and that every single person had to hold the baby. Then we have to kneel. It was a bit too long for me, plus it felt like it went way past supporting the Elder in a time of need and it began to feel like condoning.
I think that scene needed to be cut down several minutes. Let the guy have his moment and then have the mission president put his arm on the Elder and say, "C'mon son, Let's get you home."
Roll credits.
As far as missing the analogy...the girl didn't give any hope for the guy's future life. Hope for his future life would have been his broken heart and contrite spirit. If the girl was to mean hope that is the same as the formula: sex = love = happily ever after. Which is most certainly NOT true.
-Todd
www.toddlbauerle.com
reply
share
guildysticks
18 years ago
The reason they all had to hold to Christ (the reason the scene the was so long) was because it was a metaphor for partaking of the sacrament.
reply
share