On what basis does one judge this film?

Here is the problem with films such as these. These are not, as some would have it, feature films providing an objective view of history. They are instead produced for the purpose of propogation and desemination of a particular religious point of view. They are in short, literally, propoganda.

I do not have much of a problem with that. The same could be said for <i> The Ten Commandments </i>, <i> Ben Hur </i>, <i> Quo Vadis </i>, and countless others. As movies, some of those are pretty good. Some are not. But there is little question that they are written to make a religious point. Ben Hur is a little less obvious than most, as it is easy to get caught up in the chariot scene and forget the subtitle of the film, and the book from which it came, <i> A Story of the Christ. </i> But these were very religious films, meant to make a religious point. You are certainly suppposed to feel a lump in your throat at the end of <i> The Robe, </i> when the hero and heroine go off to be fed to the lions, rather than renounce their Christian faith. (It is also rather ironic that one of the important roles, that of St. Demetrius, was played by Tony Curtis, a Jew, though not a particularly observant one.) Most people do not get worked up about those. And it is hard to imagine a more blatant peice of cinematic religious propoganda than <i> Exodus. </i> Ever wonder how the Palestinians felt about that one? A movie painting an uncritically favorable portrait of early Zionists, from a novel by a Jewish author, with a Jewish director, from a movie industry which is, let us be honest, overwhelmingly Jewish?

No doubt Muslims, Hindus, and a few others make movies promoting their own religious points of view. They just don't do it in this country. So I have to figure that as criticism, the fact that this is a piece of religious propoganda doesn't bother me. Viewed as a piece of art, I thought it was mediocre at best. The story was melodramatic, the characters were one-dimensional, the conflicts in the story were painfully simplistic. Of course, one is supposed to see these very nice, peaceful Mormons quietly going about their business, while the rest of the world picked on them. As usual, the truth is more complex. A more objective view of Joseph Smith and his history might lead one to believe he was a charming and charismatic charlatan, not above taking advantage of his followers and anyone else he could. And as someone observed below, the soundtrack was syrupy enough to cold-cock a diabetic. Regardless of one's religious point of view, this did not have the special effects or stunning scope of <i> The Ten Commandments, </i> the breathtaking chariot scene of <i> Ben Hur, </i> or Peter Ustinov playing the emperor Nero, like <i> Quo Vadis. </i> And <i> Exodus </i> had a much better soundtrack.

But as a piece of religious propoganda, it works quite well. This was a very professional production. The sets were beautiful in their detail. The cinematography was lovely. The acting was, well, tolerable. Hey, I can see why Mormons like it, and if I were a Mormon, I would, too. This is a movie by Mormons. For Mormons. And before one of the Mormons points out that the guy who made it was not a Mormon, I have to ask, where did the financing come from for this movie, not to mention the rest of the series, and whose idea was it to make it in the first place? So take the movie for what it is and what it is worth. I doubt anybody expected it to sweep the Oscars.

And that leads us to the reaction this movie has provoked here. Why is anyone surprised that the Mormons produced a movie for the purpose of propogating their faith? And why does this inspire people to post insults toward the Mormons? Let me be frank here. I am not a Mormon, and I must say to the Mormons posting here that I have taken your prophet at his word. I have examined your scriptures, (though frankly, not in scholarly detail,) have studied your beliefs, have looked into my own heart, as your scriptures suggest, and decided that it is all fiction. I think Joseph Smith was a crook and a charlatan, your scriptures are all his invention, and your beliefs are preposterous. But these are matters of faith. It is pointless to argue about them. One either believes, or one does not. In all fairness, I expect that many people could, and Bill Marher for one did, make the same remarks about my own deeply held religious beliefs. I also have to admit that although I find Mormonism is not exactly my cup of sacramental wine, (no way I am giving up my hundred dollar a day caffeine jones) it does seem to suit the Mormons rather well.

So I have to wonder about all the folks here who are taking the Mormons to task over this movie? What did you expect? Why does this movie offend you so? Assuming that they are all crazy and misguided, why does that disturb you so much? There are lots of movies out there about crazy and misguided people, some of which portray them in a sympathetic light. Do you go this far off the wall about vampire movies? How about the ones about mass murderers? Why are you so threatened by a movie which portrays Mormons in a sympathetic light? I would submit that such fear of others' religious views says more about the depth and quality of your faith than the validity of thiers.