Reader comments
Return With Honor: A Missionary Homecoming
209 comments | Read story
Shaun Williams | 1:53 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I am just amazed, so many people gripe that there are no good LDS films
available and when someone makes one the only thing people can do is make fun of
it and gripe. I guess that if the film producers had 150 - 200 million dollars
to make a film people would complain that the movie producers spent way too much
money.I think that people should support those who make LDS films and just enjoy
them for what they are...entertainment, why does everyone have to think of
themselves as a film critic?
Ed Clinch | 7:19 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Preachy.
Was Jesus preachy?
I suppose he was tactful.
But there is a time and a place for everything.
I haven't seen a lot of movies lately.
Thanks for the update.
Was Jesus preachy?
I suppose he was tactful.
But there is a time and a place for everything.
I haven't seen a lot of movies lately.
Thanks for the update.
Comments continue below
Jon | 8:18 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I'll take the "Preachy" Elder over one who sleeps with the girl
next door and then slits his wrists in the bathtub rather than face his father
who would prefer he came home in a pinewood box.
Understanding | 8:21 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I am confident that this film will do mildly well in Utah and be unheard of in
the rest of the world. And if the review is accurate, Mormons should be pleased
that the rest of humanity won't understand the preachiness and
self-righteous attitude had by most Mormons.
Fair Game | 8:35 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
LDS topic-based movies shouldn't have some sort of santuary as far as
criticisms go. When all is said and done, in spite of the message, it is a
movie. A movie made by mere mortals. Some people interpret criticizing an LDS
cult film like they're condemning the church. Such is not the case.
All in all, I am picky when it comes to movies and entertainment. I should hope that critics do their jobs and keep me informed of good and bad entertainment. It is then up to me to decide if I agree with the critics and see it despite their warnings or praise.
Besides, I think that the missionary-based movie topic has been burnt to the ground. It's all been done - both done well and poorly. Anyone attempting a missionary-based movie from here on out is facing an uphill battle.
All in all, I am picky when it comes to movies and entertainment. I should hope that critics do their jobs and keep me informed of good and bad entertainment. It is then up to me to decide if I agree with the critics and see it despite their warnings or praise.
Besides, I think that the missionary-based movie topic has been burnt to the ground. It's all been done - both done well and poorly. Anyone attempting a missionary-based movie from here on out is facing an uphill battle.
Tim | 9:01 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Shaun-
So are you suggesting that we should be watching and praising films simply because they're made by LDS filmmakers? Even if they're failures as films?
While I'm no believer in the idea that a movie has to make money in order to be good, the problem so far is that a vast majority (with only a very few exceptions) of LDS films have not been good, nor (I don't believe) have they made much money.
If an LDS filmmaker made a good film people might not "make fun of it and gripe" as much.
They still might not go to see it, but that's been a problem of many great films from around the world - films of artistic worth and high entertainment, that for some reason or another go overlooked by mainstream audiences. It is unfortunate that most audiences today view film only as an escapist entertainment, and not as the artform that it is, but oh well.
As arrogant as it sounds, I still have far too many of the great films of directors such as Eric Rohmer and Micaelangelo Antonioni to see (and too many great books to read and great symphonies to hear, etc...) - works that are actually "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy."
I agree with filmmaker Richard Dutcher's assertion that LDS filmmaking (so far) has not come anywhere close to its potential as being some of the finest in the world. I think that day will come, eventually, but to say that LDS filmmaking is currently in its infant stage is almost making it sound more advanced than it really is. The influential film critic Pauline Kael once make the distinction between "great art" and "great trash", So far, LDS filmmaking has failed to be either.
So are you suggesting that we should be watching and praising films simply because they're made by LDS filmmakers? Even if they're failures as films?
While I'm no believer in the idea that a movie has to make money in order to be good, the problem so far is that a vast majority (with only a very few exceptions) of LDS films have not been good, nor (I don't believe) have they made much money.
If an LDS filmmaker made a good film people might not "make fun of it and gripe" as much.
They still might not go to see it, but that's been a problem of many great films from around the world - films of artistic worth and high entertainment, that for some reason or another go overlooked by mainstream audiences. It is unfortunate that most audiences today view film only as an escapist entertainment, and not as the artform that it is, but oh well.
As arrogant as it sounds, I still have far too many of the great films of directors such as Eric Rohmer and Micaelangelo Antonioni to see (and too many great books to read and great symphonies to hear, etc...) - works that are actually "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy."
I agree with filmmaker Richard Dutcher's assertion that LDS filmmaking (so far) has not come anywhere close to its potential as being some of the finest in the world. I think that day will come, eventually, but to say that LDS filmmaking is currently in its infant stage is almost making it sound more advanced than it really is. The influential film critic Pauline Kael once make the distinction between "great art" and "great trash", So far, LDS filmmaking has failed to be either.
Matt | 9:02 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Shaun,
Why should we enjoy a movie for no other reason than some LDS people made it? People go to movies to be entertained. If they pay money to see a movie, that entitles them to like or dislike the movie. As for everyone being a film critic, the person who wrote this story is paid to do just that. And whether you see it or not, LDS cinema is absolutely horrible. It has nothing to do with money, it's a matter of talent.
Why should we enjoy a movie for no other reason than some LDS people made it? People go to movies to be entertained. If they pay money to see a movie, that entitles them to like or dislike the movie. As for everyone being a film critic, the person who wrote this story is paid to do just that. And whether you see it or not, LDS cinema is absolutely horrible. It has nothing to do with money, it's a matter of talent.
LDS Daniel | 9:02 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Short and sweet - portrayal of diety is always wrong.
Anonymous | 9:23 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
"some suggestive talk and mild sexual humor, and scattered, mild profanity
(religion-based)"
Why must we have these things in LDS movies? I realize they probably are used by "non-members," but seeing they're in the movie at all makes me not want to see it. In LDS books & movies, I am searching for the "virtuous, lovely, & of good report." "Charly" did it, as did "Best Two Years."
The Book of Mormon does a great job of describing challenges, etc. without using profanity or suggestiveness. Why can't we?
Why must we have these things in LDS movies? I realize they probably are used by "non-members," but seeing they're in the movie at all makes me not want to see it. In LDS books & movies, I am searching for the "virtuous, lovely, & of good report." "Charly" did it, as did "Best Two Years."
The Book of Mormon does a great job of describing challenges, etc. without using profanity or suggestiveness. Why can't we?
Anonymous | 10:02 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Just to let you know, Return With Honor was made by a non-member.
John F | 10:42 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Thank you, thank you, thank you Anonymous (9:23am, Sept 14).
Of all genres, LDS-oriented films should be free of "suggestive talk", "sexual humor" and "profanity". Some LDS filmmakers and writers are apparently so absorbed in Hollywood's standards (of today that is) that they can't do a production without these vices.
To think that it wasn't that long ago when Hollywood would not include sexual content, profanity, gore, etc. in its fare because it (Hollywood) had righteous standards and a sense of responsibility. Yet today even LDS filmmakers (and audiences) do not have the standards Hollywood once had. How ironic.
As Elder Hales said recently at our Stake Conference, many LDS are staying a few paces behind but nevertheless slowly accepting Hollywood's declining standards.
Of all genres, LDS-oriented films should be free of "suggestive talk", "sexual humor" and "profanity". Some LDS filmmakers and writers are apparently so absorbed in Hollywood's standards (of today that is) that they can't do a production without these vices.
To think that it wasn't that long ago when Hollywood would not include sexual content, profanity, gore, etc. in its fare because it (Hollywood) had righteous standards and a sense of responsibility. Yet today even LDS filmmakers (and audiences) do not have the standards Hollywood once had. How ironic.
As Elder Hales said recently at our Stake Conference, many LDS are staying a few paces behind but nevertheless slowly accepting Hollywood's declining standards.
Sam Hofer | 10:51 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I'm hoping to get to a mission to Vegas next year. Do they still have the
ridiculously cheap meal deals if you stay up to 2 or 3 in the morning? It was
great last time we were there, but it's been a while so I imagine things
have changed.
Joshua | 11:00 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I was able to see this movie at the LDS Film Festival, and I must say it is one
of the best made in the LDS genre. Comments about it being preachy and comedic
are completely unfounded. The message is real and powerful.
John B | 11:32 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Tim
We should not support movies just because they are produced by LDS Producers, but neither should we go off one or two film Critics opinions!!!
Here in the UK one film is released today featuring a top young UK star, one national newspaper gives it NIL and another gives it 3 stars, that is personal opinion. Me I take no notice of either if it interests me I watch it and make my own opinion.
Finally about content of movies with an LDS theme it would be completely wrong if content was restricted, that takes away the talent of a producer or writer - it should never be hidden what is happening in the world.
We should not support movies just because they are produced by LDS Producers, but neither should we go off one or two film Critics opinions!!!
Here in the UK one film is released today featuring a top young UK star, one national newspaper gives it NIL and another gives it 3 stars, that is personal opinion. Me I take no notice of either if it interests me I watch it and make my own opinion.
Finally about content of movies with an LDS theme it would be completely wrong if content was restricted, that takes away the talent of a producer or writer - it should never be hidden what is happening in the world.
Won't be seeing this one | 11:38 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
The radio ads give a very vague synopsis, something about an LDS missionary
& a car crash and being sent back to finish his life. Mildly deceptive, I
think. If people are going to write LDS missionary-themed stories turned to
films, can't we just have at least one with a true-to life presentation?
Best Two Years comes close, but my mission was largely uneventful. Nobody died.
Nobody pointed a gun at me. Nobody beat me up. I didn't crash the car. I
didn't fornicate. I wasn't sent home early. This supernatural stuff is
just cartoonish. Sorry to say, but LDS films are mostly junk. Too bad. LDS can
do much better. If in fact this one is the product of a non-LDS, it shows. Only
a LDS has the full LDS perspective.
brett | 11:51 a.m. Sept. 14, 2007
hey jeff i think your over exaggerating the violence and vulgerness of this film
especialy if you are suggesting that people hope the main character dies in the
start of the film in a car wreck.i think thats vulgar in its self more so than i
saw in the entire movie
My Thoughts | 12:38 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Lighten up. Don't take things too seriously. Perfect movie? No. But I
saw it and thought it was actually pretty cute.
tired of it all | 12:53 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
they need to stop making movies that only LDS people can relate too and make
movies that are LDS friendly.
To tired of it all: | 1:28 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Why is it necessary to stop making movies that LDS people relate to? If you have
a problem with it, don't watch it, it's that simple.
BLAH | 1:46 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
LAME, who cares about what anyone on this comment page is saying.
jasperdundee | 2:09 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Wow, Mr. Vice...were you foaming at the mouth as you finished typing the review?
I haven't seen the movie, but I imagine you did more violence to your
keyboard than is perpetrated in the film...
I hadn't planned on seeing this movie in the theaters at full price because LDS cinema, with few exceptions, has proven itself to be generally lacking...
I'll watch this movie on my couch, hopefully free of wishing harm upon the main caracter. Thanks for the review.
I hadn't planned on seeing this movie in the theaters at full price because LDS cinema, with few exceptions, has proven itself to be generally lacking...
I'll watch this movie on my couch, hopefully free of wishing harm upon the main caracter. Thanks for the review.
Anonymous | 2:14 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
A lot of people like to watch movies to escape and be entertained. So, why do
movies have to reflect reality perfectly? What's wrong with a nice story? I
certainly loved Harry Potter and that story doesn't reflect reality.
What's wrong with that? Besides who's to say this movie isn't
realistic. Have you ever died and come back, Jeff? I doubt it. So, what makes
you an expert? I loved the message of this movie. I think it's something
that most human beings can relate to. I guess the message could have been made
without any reference to a mission, but so what? The movie included a mission
probably because it was geared toward the LDS audience. Another thing, Jeff, you
say that the film is preachy. First of all, the missionary was supposed to be
preachy--that was how his character was. Aren't characters supposed to have
flaws that they can overcome? He changed too. Or do you just think that having
standards makes someone preachy? Well, I am sick and tired of people criticizing
Christians in general (not just LDS) for their moral standards. Non-Christians
think Christians are supposed to be tolerant of everyone else no matter how much
their behavior departs from Christian standards, but generally Christians are
not tolerated. They are told that they are too "preachy", too
"pure", not enjoying life enough, and certainly being intolerant of
other people. Well, everyone has the opportunity to choose their own moral
standards. The missionary in this film chose his and they (and his other
religious beliefs) made him happy. Why wouldn't he want to share that with
others? I agree he was being too pushy, as people can be about any issue (not
just religion), but that was--again--part of his character.
Anonymous | 2:19 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I agree with To Tired of it all. Just don't watch if you don't like
it!
Bourne Ultimatum | 2:22 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I'm gonna go see Bourne Ultimatum tonight. I wanted to see it right when
it came out, but you know how things come up and then you don't get out
like you wanted to. The Bourne movies are awesome!!! As for LDS movies, I am
LDS and I have only seen a couple LDS films, simply because with all of the
awesome movie choices out there, why would you waste money to see a sub-par
film, when you could see one that blows your mind?
susan | 2:25 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
ah utah get over yourself
movie in the afternoon | 2:39 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I saw it today and liked it. There are some plot problems (including a really
irritating girlfriend - why would he want to marry her? And I don't love
the ending - for me it would have been better to simply end five minutes
earlier.)
But the characters of Rowe and Corbin and the friendship between them had some real depth. Both those actors should be proud of their work. The music was outstanding. And the idea that we sometimes judge without full information about people, and maybe love is a better answer - it works in this movie in a way that is kind of sweet.
I've seen lots of Mormon movies. This is far better than the Halestrom drivel. Almost as good as Brigham City. Definitely worth the price of admission to see in the theater.
But the characters of Rowe and Corbin and the friendship between them had some real depth. Both those actors should be proud of their work. The music was outstanding. And the idea that we sometimes judge without full information about people, and maybe love is a better answer - it works in this movie in a way that is kind of sweet.
I've seen lots of Mormon movies. This is far better than the Halestrom drivel. Almost as good as Brigham City. Definitely worth the price of admission to see in the theater.
Skeptic? | 2:39 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Wow. People in the LDS faith are often mighty defensive on point in this comment
board. (NOT A BLOG!) Apparently Vice is required by many here to like all
LDS-themed movies or he is somehow a Mormon hater.
From this board:
Wow, Jeff only said the MOVIE was preachy (not the character which was defended) and that it wasn't a good movie. The writer of the above comment aparently has some anger issues and needs approval because by Jeff saying the MOVIE, which costs me money to see, is preachy, he somehow became intolerant of Christians?
My problem with LDS movies is that they are badly made. By not supporting bad LDS films and paying money to well made ones, I hope more and better LDS-themed films are made. By supporting the bad ones, I am giving my financial permission for more bad ones to be mad. I refuse to do this.
This doesn't make me intolerant of Christians, it makes me intolerant of poor films that try (and do) cash in on Mormon culture or doctrine.
Somebody commented that if I don't like the movie I shouldn't watch it. OF COURSE! That was the whole point of Jeff's review. He is saying, "This isn't a good movie, don't watch it." He saved me $8 and two hours but I don't understand why some are so hostile about his opinion.
From this board:
Wow, Jeff only said the MOVIE was preachy (not the character which was defended) and that it wasn't a good movie. The writer of the above comment aparently has some anger issues and needs approval because by Jeff saying the MOVIE, which costs me money to see, is preachy, he somehow became intolerant of Christians?
My problem with LDS movies is that they are badly made. By not supporting bad LDS films and paying money to well made ones, I hope more and better LDS-themed films are made. By supporting the bad ones, I am giving my financial permission for more bad ones to be mad. I refuse to do this.
This doesn't make me intolerant of Christians, it makes me intolerant of poor films that try (and do) cash in on Mormon culture or doctrine.
Somebody commented that if I don't like the movie I shouldn't watch it. OF COURSE! That was the whole point of Jeff's review. He is saying, "This isn't a good movie, don't watch it." He saved me $8 and two hours but I don't understand why some are so hostile about his opinion.
Jon B. Holbrook | 3:13 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
If the movie critic at the Deseret News believes this movie is so terrible, why
is it being advertised on the Deseret News website? The advertising dollar
trumps all other considerations obviously.
John Afar | 3:48 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
We all need to read Skeptic's review, best opinion on the board, well said.
Saw the movie today and it was awful, I have to be more selective in chosig my
movies based more on quality, this was awful in every respect, acting,
storyline, scinematography, just awful.
Tyler Hinton | 4:07 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I was shocked to see such a negative review of this film in the Deseret News.
I've now seen the movie twice at the LDS Film Festival and plan on seeing
it again. In my opinion, it is one of the best LDS-themed movies ever made.
The message is actually quite subtle, and the story is surprising and
satisfying. It is not sugary sweet or slapstick but a compelling drama that
could be appreciated by Mormons and non-Mormons alike. It won best picture at
the largest film festival in the world. That should tell you something.
Don't let this review make your decision for you.
Anonymous | 4:42 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Anonymous-I need to respond to your diatribe about LDS films caving into
Hollywood's standards. A)religious based profanity can only mean one
thing: HeII. It's a place. It's in The Bible, The Book of Mormon and
ALL of the other standard works. Just because the paper has to list it,
doesn't mean that it should be overly shocking.
B)Get off your high horse. If you were to make a movie about The Book of Mormon exactly, it would likely be carry an 'R' rating for language (they sure say "HeII" a lot), suggestive sexual content, and TONS of violence.
As for the whole LDS genre in general, I hate to say it, but I have a hard time supporting it. To connect small budgets with poor writing and storytelling is giving these people a pass. I've seen WAY too many equally poor financed films at Sundance and else where to know that you can make fantastic movies with low budgets. The difference? Most of these LDS film makers know that they have an audience that will show up to the theater out of curiosity and obligation that they seem to have given up on actually attracting an audience due to quality. Not that I'm putting all the blame on the film industry. The "creative" writing folks lowered the bar long ago. I for one, will not.
For the record, I thought that New York Doll was a fantastic film.
B)Get off your high horse. If you were to make a movie about The Book of Mormon exactly, it would likely be carry an 'R' rating for language (they sure say "HeII" a lot), suggestive sexual content, and TONS of violence.
As for the whole LDS genre in general, I hate to say it, but I have a hard time supporting it. To connect small budgets with poor writing and storytelling is giving these people a pass. I've seen WAY too many equally poor financed films at Sundance and else where to know that you can make fantastic movies with low budgets. The difference? Most of these LDS film makers know that they have an audience that will show up to the theater out of curiosity and obligation that they seem to have given up on actually attracting an audience due to quality. Not that I'm putting all the blame on the film industry. The "creative" writing folks lowered the bar long ago. I for one, will not.
For the record, I thought that New York Doll was a fantastic film.
Nadine | 5:16 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I love the attention this film is getting!
I have actually seen this film, three times and will pay to see it again. For every Jeff that hates it, I have met twenty people that absolutely love it. In Jeff�s defense, not everyone likes every movie. Although, I like to hear his opinion I certainly don�t base my choices on it. I respectfully disagree with his entire critique of this film. I have read other critics, both in and out of the church that praise it as one of the best LDS films made. Check out the website to find these reviews and judge for yourself. www.Returnwithhonormovie.com
I have been following it since the 2006 LDS film festival. Word of caution, though, this is not like anything else within the genre. The characters are not very likable at the beginning, but by the end of the movie you love them all. It really takes you on an emotional ride.
As for the �reported� violence, sexual content and vulgarity. Excel Entertainment is a church owned company with very strict guidelines. There is NO sexual content. The church would not allow it. The total sum of the so-called vulgarity is contained in the word �Hell�. The sum total of violence is an uncomfortable scene when one of the characters gets beer poured all over him.
All of the other LDS themed films that crossed this line WERE NOT distributed by Excel Entertainment a subsidiary of Deseret Book. This is one film that is well worth the price of admission.
I have actually seen this film, three times and will pay to see it again. For every Jeff that hates it, I have met twenty people that absolutely love it. In Jeff�s defense, not everyone likes every movie. Although, I like to hear his opinion I certainly don�t base my choices on it. I respectfully disagree with his entire critique of this film. I have read other critics, both in and out of the church that praise it as one of the best LDS films made. Check out the website to find these reviews and judge for yourself. www.Returnwithhonormovie.com
I have been following it since the 2006 LDS film festival. Word of caution, though, this is not like anything else within the genre. The characters are not very likable at the beginning, but by the end of the movie you love them all. It really takes you on an emotional ride.
As for the �reported� violence, sexual content and vulgarity. Excel Entertainment is a church owned company with very strict guidelines. There is NO sexual content. The church would not allow it. The total sum of the so-called vulgarity is contained in the word �Hell�. The sum total of violence is an uncomfortable scene when one of the characters gets beer poured all over him.
All of the other LDS themed films that crossed this line WERE NOT distributed by Excel Entertainment a subsidiary of Deseret Book. This is one film that is well worth the price of admission.
Randal | 5:21 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Jeff? I hate to break the news, but all those things that happened to Forrest
Gump, weren�t really true. Should it have been a comedy as
well? This is a movie. It is fictional. It doesn�t claim to
be �based on a true story�. It has a
theme of Love vs. Judgment. That�s it. It is not an
indictment on any of us. All people at one time or another have been overly
critical and judgmental of others. We all have flaws including the main
character. I am a fan of film, including this one. I�m not
a film critic but even I can see that the writer, Tracy Garner, used the
outrageous premise of a near death experience to enhance and dramatize the
telling of the story and to accentuate the theme.� Everyone
just step back and take a deep breath and say to your self
�It�s just a
movie��and a good one at that!
Warren | 5:31 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I find it interesting that most of the commentors on this page have not even
seen the movie, but just wish to hash out old unresolved issues. Had you even
seen the movie, you might have learned something new, something insightful that
most people might miss (Mr. Vice). I absolutely loved this film, despite its
shortcomings, the message at multiple levels should transend all religious
bounderies. Having had my own "out of body experience", the
description by the writer was "spot on". I agree with those who are
saying this is one of the best "LDS" films that has been made, but I
don't think it is just an LDS film.
I also have been following Mr. Vice's reviews for some months now, and I think it is time the the DN find a movie critic that has a more representative view of most Utahns.
I also have been following Mr. Vice's reviews for some months now, and I think it is time the the DN find a movie critic that has a more representative view of most Utahns.
Love it! | 5:37 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
This movie is tight! all of you just relax and enjoy it. Get out of here if you
aint...
Shaun McC | 6:09 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I have to admit to a few reservations, but this movie and "God's Army
II - States of Grace" are the best since Brigham City in this genre. I
support the fledgling LDS movie scene because, for any art community to grow, it
has to begin. If nobody sees (and critiques) it, it dies. If it is seen (and
critiqued) it has a chance to grow and get better. Just look at the the LDS
Popular Music scene. 20 years ago, the only things available were Afterglow and
Marvin Payne (both of which I love)***. Now that there has been time for that
genre to grow, we have a lot more variety, depth and quality to choose from. I
give tribute to the early ones that paved the way. I give support to the early
LDS movie people so that they can grow as well.
As far as this movie being preachy, I think the point was well made that, instead of being preachy, we should love one another. Like St. Thomas of Assisi said, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words."
***No, I'm not ignoring the "Sons of Mosiah", "Debbie Au" or even the Osmonds "The Plan". I liked them too. Just didn't know how many out there even know of them.
As far as this movie being preachy, I think the point was well made that, instead of being preachy, we should love one another. Like St. Thomas of Assisi said, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words."
***No, I'm not ignoring the "Sons of Mosiah", "Debbie Au" or even the Osmonds "The Plan". I liked them too. Just didn't know how many out there even know of them.
Thank You! | 7:07 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Nadine,
Thank you for your accuracy in reporting on the content of the film. I was shocked when I read that the film contained sexual humor, profanity, and violence. I couldn't remember any and wondered if I had seen the same movie as Mr. Vice. As for the comment about LDS geared movies not containing these things, I don't want to watch that either, but it's not in this movie. Plain and simple.
Thank you for your accuracy in reporting on the content of the film. I was shocked when I read that the film contained sexual humor, profanity, and violence. I couldn't remember any and wondered if I had seen the same movie as Mr. Vice. As for the comment about LDS geared movies not containing these things, I don't want to watch that either, but it's not in this movie. Plain and simple.
Bookaholic | 8:00 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
The comments on this site have convinced me to give the movie a chance. The
people who've seen it seem to like it for the most part. Most of the LDS
films have been a bit disappointing. "The Single's Ward" was
outstanding, but you have to be LDS
Bookaholic | 8:07 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Oops...as I was saying: You have to be LDS to get all the jokes in "The
Single's Ward". It was an excellent movie in my opinion. Brigham City
and some of the westerns were pretty good, as well. Most of the rest were just
plain awful. Caricatures of Mormon people, nowhere near reality.
I agree with tired of it all's comment: they need to stop making movies that only LDS people can relate to and make movies that are LDS friendly.
Spot on!
I agree with tired of it all's comment: they need to stop making movies that only LDS people can relate to and make movies that are LDS friendly.
Spot on!
Bookaholic | 8:07 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Oops...as I was saying: You have to be LDS to get all the jokes in "The
Single's Ward". It was an excellent movie in my opinion. Brigham City
and some of the westerns were pretty good, as well. Most of the rest were just
plain awful. Caricatures of Mormon people, nowhere near reality.
I agree with tired of it all's comment: they need to stop making movies that only LDS people can relate to and make movies that are LDS friendly.
Spot on!
I agree with tired of it all's comment: they need to stop making movies that only LDS people can relate to and make movies that are LDS friendly.
Spot on!
Ah ohhh! | 8:12 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
It sounds like the theme of this movie hit a little too close to home to the
reviewer. Did Mr. Vice ever hear of a genre in film called "fantasy" ?
For all of those who don't believe in the possibility of a near death
experience, this films premise definately fits within the fantasy genre. This
film also shares the drama, romance, comedy, genres as well. I would hate to see
one persons opinion keep people from seeing such a wonderful film.
Whew! | 9:31 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I'm not a Mormon and I have seen almost all of the Mormon films that have
come out. I didn't like most of them because I thought they were so
sophomoric, but I go because my wife is Mormon. I do know that Mormons
generally take themselves too seriously because they still aren't sure they
will be around for another 200 years and are afraid people making fun of them
somehow reduces the truth of their faith. Jews can laugh at themselves,
Catholics can and even Baptists can. But Mormons have a hard time laughing at
all unless it is with a fellow member, and then just about anything goes. I
think that if they all knew that no one but solid, active Mormons were watching
the film, they would relax and then possibly be honest in their feelings as to
how good the film was. If it were shown in Stake Conference, everyone would be
gaga about it. Digo yo.
Clark | 10:59 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
Whew! - I completely diagree with your comments, simply because you make way too
many blanket statements. How do you know that Mormons "generally" take
themselves too seriously while Jews, Catholics and Baptists do not? People who
attack the LDS Church love putting all Latter-day Saints in one tent, as though
they've met and personally interview every single Latter-day Saint in the
world. If you're going to attack latter-day Saints, Whew, find a fresher
argument.
I for one find most LDS films stupid, boring and insulting. And before you get on your soapbox and lecture me with comments like, "Quit taking yourself so seriously" or "I suppose you would like them more if it had lots of sex and violence them." PLEASE! I've heard it all before.
I've tried to give LDS films a fair chance, but time and time again, they blow it. The characters are way too one dimensional, humor comes by way of over exaggerated stereotypes, and more often than not, the plot lines simply hold no interest.
I haven't seen "Return with Honor" but if it's anything like the LDS films I've seen, I won't be wasting my money.
I for one find most LDS films stupid, boring and insulting. And before you get on your soapbox and lecture me with comments like, "Quit taking yourself so seriously" or "I suppose you would like them more if it had lots of sex and violence them." PLEASE! I've heard it all before.
I've tried to give LDS films a fair chance, but time and time again, they blow it. The characters are way too one dimensional, humor comes by way of over exaggerated stereotypes, and more often than not, the plot lines simply hold no interest.
I haven't seen "Return with Honor" but if it's anything like the LDS films I've seen, I won't be wasting my money.
Kjirstin Youngberg | 11:26 p.m. Sept. 14, 2007
I could not disagree with you more, Mr.
Vice.��
While some of the axillary characters are indeed cliched to move the story along, the main roles are quite believable.��If you haven't felt the same toward others, you have at least met such people.��It's one of the strongest reasons the un-churched loathe church members; that 'holier than thou" attitude and a proclivity to judge without walking in another's shoes.
At film festivals (where, incidentally it won "audience favorite" in places where no LDS people even saw it) and other venues, I've seen this film six times, and learn more of its nuances and depth at each viewing.��Whatever caused you to feel it wasn't supposed to be funny?��Since when are films lined up strictly in the 'drama' or 'comedy' category?��Have you not seen As Good As It Gets?��Even Gladiator had brief moments of levity.
The heart and soul of this film, the actor's portrayals, music, cinematography and yes, the writing, put it first in my book for this genre.��Garner worked a true miracle to pull this quality off on a budget that looks like something made on four times the money he spent.��Acting in your own film is very brave, if not stupid.��Garner was magnificent.��He included himself not due to an inflated ego, but simply because he couldn't afford another actor.
As to the "Near-Death" experience, I'll call YOU on the carpet.��My son experienced one at age three, when his heart stopped during surgery.��He told us things he could not possibly have known.��
My suggestion, Mr. Vice?��Go see it again when you aren't so cranky.
While some of the axillary characters are indeed cliched to move the story along, the main roles are quite believable.��If you haven't felt the same toward others, you have at least met such people.��It's one of the strongest reasons the un-churched loathe church members; that 'holier than thou" attitude and a proclivity to judge without walking in another's shoes.
At film festivals (where, incidentally it won "audience favorite" in places where no LDS people even saw it) and other venues, I've seen this film six times, and learn more of its nuances and depth at each viewing.��Whatever caused you to feel it wasn't supposed to be funny?��Since when are films lined up strictly in the 'drama' or 'comedy' category?��Have you not seen As Good As It Gets?��Even Gladiator had brief moments of levity.
The heart and soul of this film, the actor's portrayals, music, cinematography and yes, the writing, put it first in my book for this genre.��Garner worked a true miracle to pull this quality off on a budget that looks like something made on four times the money he spent.��Acting in your own film is very brave, if not stupid.��Garner was magnificent.��He included himself not due to an inflated ego, but simply because he couldn't afford another actor.
As to the "Near-Death" experience, I'll call YOU on the carpet.��My son experienced one at age three, when his heart stopped during surgery.��He told us things he could not possibly have known.��
My suggestion, Mr. Vice?��Go see it again when you aren't so cranky.
Tim Stuart | 12:20 a.m. Sept. 15, 2007
I just saw the film. By far the best LDS film I've seen. I read somewhere
that it won the founders choice award for Best Picture at the New York
International Independent Film Festival, and the main actor won Best Actor in a
feature film. That's unheard of for an LDS film. I really think the actor
deserved to win that award. And where did you get that "sexual humor"
and "profanity" thing? You really misrepresent the film. There's
nothing like that in it.
Staleys | 12:25 a.m. Sept. 15, 2007
We enjoyed the movie, two years ago at the LDS film festival and have enjoyed it
now. We enjoyed the story line, the acting of each actor. It was well done, we
feel. Over the 60 day period, the returned missionary mellows and sees that
some things take time and each individual needs to come to grip with their
failings in their own time.
We are glad this has finally hit the theaters.
We are glad this has finally hit the theaters.
Anonymous | 2:13 a.m. Sept. 15, 2007
I am LDS, not too picky about movies in general, and I have a son on a mission
right now. I didn't hate this movie, but I was disappointed in the too
skimpy, revealing clothes of the girlfriend. I think that people everywhere
(including LDS people) have the same problems, challenges, and temptations as
the rest of the population. I do hate to think, however, that the LDS Church is
judged based on any movie--movies are after all, FICTION. (Even if they are
supposedly based on a true story, you are still subjected to only one
person's viewpoint of the story, and believe it or not, perception is not
really always reality.) Most of the LDS movies, and I have seen them all, have
been either too slapstick, or too cheesy, and have not represented a true
picture of what life is like in the "real LDS world". Much of the time
I believe the LDS writers, producers, etc. are making fun of themselves, or
playing on what non-LDS may consider quirks, by overly dramatizing them for
entertainment purposes. One good thing about this movie is that it at least had
some actual real-life characterizations.
A voice of reason | 6:30 a.m. Sept. 15, 2007
Let's look at the content of this article as well as others featured here
in The Deseret News...
While the paper is owned by the Church, you would never know it by the staff writers constantly putting down the Church. Remember who your employer is! Also, what about the skimpy ads featured for diet products in this paper. Standards are slipping. I say the Church should sell it to some liberal non-mormon, it already appears it is owned by one, at least it would be less perplexing if it were.
I live outside the state, and I read occasional articles like this one and the review of the Gay pamphlet the church put out. I do not like the liberal bias. It's like they have to try and look cool by putting down the church, and it is owned by the church!!! Come on.
While the paper is owned by the Church, you would never know it by the staff writers constantly putting down the Church. Remember who your employer is! Also, what about the skimpy ads featured for diet products in this paper. Standards are slipping. I say the Church should sell it to some liberal non-mormon, it already appears it is owned by one, at least it would be less perplexing if it were.
I live outside the state, and I read occasional articles like this one and the review of the Gay pamphlet the church put out. I do not like the liberal bias. It's like they have to try and look cool by putting down the church, and it is owned by the church!!! Come on.
BlueMark | 7:57 a.m. Sept. 15, 2007
Thoroughly enjoyed Return With Honor. It knew what it was created for and
fulfilled its mission. Better than 90% of the Hollywood nonsense and better than
99% of the pretentious Cannes, Sundance and other barbarian genres that have
better actors, writers and directors. NOTHING in it could be considered
objectionable by even a closed-door hermit.
Far better than anything Dutcher did, and head and shoulders over Beauty and Beast, Pride and Prejudice, the one about the dancer, Picadilly Cowboy, Baptist at BBQ, Charly, most Halestorms (I did enjoy Singles Ward). And of course nothing is worse than Book of M. Movie (I can't disgrace the great Book by including it fully in the title.)
Not as good as Saints and Soldiers, Best Two Years, Other Side of Heaven, and New York Dolls.
LDS filmmakers are starting to make some progress. I'll keep going to LDS cinemas because "that which you feed, grows." Hollywood is so corrupt, so perverted and stupid that except for a few big and truly notable films that sewer isn't worth the time wallowing in.
By the way... film isn't literature. I've read most of the classics and few films come close to fitting into a Classic definition. They're fun and interesting but of little consequence.
(Before some of the pedantics on this thread go off, I did study the subjects whilst gaining a Masters in English and another in Comm and Theater.)
Far better than anything Dutcher did, and head and shoulders over Beauty and Beast, Pride and Prejudice, the one about the dancer, Picadilly Cowboy, Baptist at BBQ, Charly, most Halestorms (I did enjoy Singles Ward). And of course nothing is worse than Book of M. Movie (I can't disgrace the great Book by including it fully in the title.)
Not as good as Saints and Soldiers, Best Two Years, Other Side of Heaven, and New York Dolls.
LDS filmmakers are starting to make some progress. I'll keep going to LDS cinemas because "that which you feed, grows." Hollywood is so corrupt, so perverted and stupid that except for a few big and truly notable films that sewer isn't worth the time wallowing in.
By the way... film isn't literature. I've read most of the classics and few films come close to fitting into a Classic definition. They're fun and interesting but of little consequence.
(Before some of the pedantics on this thread go off, I did study the subjects whilst gaining a Masters in English and another in Comm and Theater.)
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Movie Info
Rated PG for violence, mild profanity, vulgarity.
Cast: Tracy Garner, Timothy Hall, Joey Jalalian, Tayva Patch, Javen Tanner, Ryan Wood, Raymond Zeiters
Cast: Tracy Garner, Timothy Hall, Joey Jalalian, Tayva Patch, Javen Tanner, Ryan Wood, Raymond Zeiters
FIND LOCAL MOVIE SHOWTIMES
Find a Movie Theater
- Jazz missing 4 to injuries 12:55 a.m.
- Pitta doesn't win award 12:47 a.m.
- Jazz manage a magical win 12:43 a.m.
- Speed skating tuneup Friday 12:41 a.m.
- BYU football: NCAA awards 12:30 a.m.
- Magic unable to continue road act 12:26 a.m.
- Fans should worry about lousy teams 12:24 a.m.
- U.S.-born Hispanics see gains 12:23 a.m.
- Editorial: Extremism spike alarming 12:23 a.m.
- No need for more stimulus 12:22 a.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Defense witness goes on offensive
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Unga might enter NFL draft
- 5 officers lose their certification
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- Disappearance called 'sususpicious'
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Letters: Global warming a lie
256 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall193
- Palin signs books, chats with fans165
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil150
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead124
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness123
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
Latest comments
I too agree that Booz and the team are NOT just going through the motions....
The springs have a long history of being clothing optional, and they provide...
He "needs more outside shooting to beat LA". He needs to design a real...
NCFAA Contribution to College Football Award: LaVell Edwards, Brigham Young,...
Why did the Jazz play so bad against LA and really well for a 1/2 against...
We Coug fans will be forever grateful for your three or four years of bearing...
When was the last time Utah even got to the dance three times in a row; let...
His speech was quite good, I agree with what Gingrich said. However, for...
I believe that a large part of the deterioration of the rivalry is a result...
Good win Jazz!!! Now give Fesenko some Red Bulls and lets see how well the...
Advertisements
The show is a bit over earnest, and the main character does come off a bit preachy as you've noted, but I thought it added to the human reality of the character. After all, I've met a lot of Mormons who really are that preachy, and come across as self-righteous, but who do have good intentions and others interests deep down in their heart. They just lack tact. So the representation didn't bother me the same way it did you.