propaganda

Well Andy, virtually all films are propaganda to some extent. The new term is 'spin'.

Even so, I would have a hard time recommending this one even to the most devout of my Mormon friends. Not at all to non Mormons.

I thought the makeup was poor. To consistently inconsistent. LOL
They should have found pictures of exposure victims to use for models.

It obviously wasn't very cold, around freezing, but even so, the stupidest of people would have wrapped their bare feet in rags when walking in the snow.

All in all I found it very difficult to suspend disbelief, and I mean in general, not the miracles. Makeup, acting, props, cinematography, all were in my opinion sub-par.

thanks for the warning. exactly the reason I looked this up on imdb before attempting to watch this. thanks again

raising the dead? can this really be done in Mormon faith? though i finished the movie with a lot of belief, (as a fellow christian), but not that resurrection parts.

raising the dead? can this really be done in Mormon faith? though i finished the movie with a lot of belief, (as a fellow christian), but not that resurrection parts.

I know a film produced by a religious organisation will get bashed simply for being produced. However, can you really call it propaganda when it actually happened?

Looking up the actual Ephraim Hanks, he did take part in the rescue of the Martin Handcart company. Obviously, as with any movie, the facts are always altered a touch to make a more entertaining production, but I wouldn't call it propaganda, as that suggests the media is created to make people believe something which didn't happen, or is a particular view of events. The events in this movie are based on actual occurrences, so I wouldn't consider it to be propaganda.

In answer to your question this was largely made for consumption by members of the LDS church. I don't know if I would go so far to call it propaganda, because all of the events were based first hand off of personal journals of those pioneers that crossed the plains. You can find their journals online and judge for yourself. Yes the production was cheap because it was not funded by the LDS Church. I actually helped with the first film "17 Miracles" for free because I think it is a story that needs to be told. Yes they do not have very convincing accents like in most big Hollywood films. Just because a movie was made by Mormons doesn't mean the "Mormon" Church was behind it. This was a privately funded film made on a shoestring budget in comparison to Hollywood pictures. I liked it and recommend it to those that want to learn more about the Early Mormon Pioneer history.

I came here thinking the title might be reference to a mountain rescue, or a midget stuck down a rabbit hole or something, but reading all the god bollox I think I've been well and truly saved with what can only be described as a miracle. Amen and oh I say vicar take your hand out of my little boy's underpants!

While I didn't find it to be spectacular, your assertion about wealth seems a bit silly. The movie is an independent film that was not funded by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It could be possible you are suggesting in your phrase 'with all their wealth' that the Mormon people as a whole are wealthy, but that seems like an odd generalization.

That being said, the intended audience is clearly Mormon families.