Reader comments
Film review: 'One Good Man' looks professional but has no sense of drama

Page:
1
2
Next >

boring | 3:27 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

sounds boring!

Truth Seeker | 3:27 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

I can't wait to see a movie about a man who always chooses the right and is strong enough to not be even tempted by a drink in a bar, but real enough to not want to be the Bishop.
Sounds like the kind of man I want to be. I'll gladly pay a few bucks to watch the training film.

LDS Movies | 3:37 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

LDS movies are hammy!

Comments continue below

Funny | 3:49 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

that hollywood has so programmed some of you that unless there are people sleeping around or things blowing up that it's "boring" or "hammy". Just hilarious.

Great Movie | 4:55 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

I was able to see the movie last night and it was very well done. It is a refreshing and uplifting movie. Tim Threlfall played his character perfectly and I left with the desire to be a better man. Most LDS dads who have had to sacrifice for family and church will thorougly enjoy the film. They will leave with a sense that being your best self and serving others is by far the most rewarding way to live life, even with all the trials that may be placed in front of you along the way.

Old Koot | 5:50 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

To: boring | 3:27 p.m. and
To; LDS Movies | 3:37 p.m.

I just have one thought - DON'T GO!

It is nice to have movies about nice guys rather than the usual Hollywood junk. So to "boring" and "LDS Movies" - you go to your movies and I'll go to mine.

The Fourth Nephite | 6:16 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

What's "Hilarious" is that Funny is so deep in denial and so out of touch with reality that he/she can read a review that clearly and eloquently state that a film is boring because it's lacking in human drama, and then sanctimoniously spout off inane drivel about people disliking it because it has no explosions. This is exactly what's wrong with LDS cinema. Oh, wait. It's not "Hilaroious", it's sad.It's why LDS cinema doesn't get any better when it's perfectly capable of doing so.

Screen Age | 6:58 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

There must be pressure for film critics not to give wholesome movies a fair shake, because whenever Jeff Vice reviews LDS-centered film, you can count on him not liking it.

That's not to say he won't praise some aspects, but without fail, Jeff ultimately disses them. Interestingly, he faults them for things he doesn't see as a problem with in the non-LDS films.

So the story doesn't follow Hollywood's formulaic tension directive: the story is still compelling. No one I could see what dozing, and when it concluded, the theater I was at applauded.

There are plenty of studio films that do follow the screenwriter bible formula, like "Duplicity" for instance, that are just ROTTEN. There's obviously more than one recipe to make a cake.

If you are a real person and not a professional critic, and you are looking for a worthwhile movie for your family to see, this film certainly qualifies.

Remember the movie, Parenthood? This film is along those lines.

It is just fine, and not cheesy. Go into it without biases and you'll probably like it.

Live and let Live | 7:02 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

Everyone loves different things and LDS movies are for everyone that wants to walk out with a feeling of I want to be a better person. If you like that fine if you don't then don't go. One Movie that was a little off the beaten "LDS" Movie path was "Brigham City" Wow that was a great Movie and it just showed that bad things can happen to good people and bad people can fool good people and that everyone has trials in life but how we handle them makes all the difference. But ya know to each their own and don't tell me what is good and I won't tell you what is bad!

Don | 7:05 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

It's sad to see the people involved in the production of these LDS-themed movies hovering like vultures ready to trash anyone who questions their films.

Truth be told, a lot of the films they've produced have not been good.

Return with Honor has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen. That was painful.

Errand of Angels was a slight improvement, but still was too sappy to cling to. We rolled our eyes a lot while watching it and laughed at moments the producers didn't intend.

Pride and Prejudice was probably their best.

This movie interests me and I'm thinking of seeing it.

But, believe me, there are so many "feel good" movies that have been made over the years, I don't feel I have to support Excel Entertainment each time they produce a movie or DVD.

They're in the business to make a profit and should reap the rewards of their labors--make money for good productions and lose money on the bad.

KJB | 7:07 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

"This is a movie for people who are so concerned that there be nothing bad in a movie that they don't care if there's anything good in it."

-Roger Ebert (while writing about a different film)

Sadly, most of the people posting here seem to fall into this category.

Jason | 7:19 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

"Funny that hollywood has so programmed some of you that unless there are people sleeping around or things blowing up that it's "boring" or "hammy". Just hilarious."

Funny that a certain segment of the population has been programmed into thinking that a film's quality can be judged by whether or not it contains sex, language, or violence (or simply by looking at its MPAA rating.)

Yes, there are R-rated films that are more intelligent, mature, moral, spiritual, and artistic than this one. Yes a film can be very bad (artistically, intellectually, and even morally) even if it contains no explosions or sex or language.

With all that said, I'll now go back to watching the explosion- and sex-filled films of such spiritually aware artists as Robert Bresson, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Carl Dreyer, Mike Leigh, and Andrei Tarkovsky.

L'age d'or | 7:29 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

"There must be pressure for film critics not to give wholesome movies a fair shake, because whenever Jeff Vice reviews LDS-centered film, you can count on him not liking it."

You know, there may be a reason that most critics give most LDS films negative reviews. And it's not necessarily because there's a vast-critical conspiracy against wholesome movies. I'll even give you a hint: It's actually because no matter how clean they may be, most LDS movies really are just bad. A certain portion of the audience - mainly those who mistakenly believe cleanliness and a nice, uplifting lesson are all that is necessary for worthwhile entertainment or art - may eat them up, but that doesn't make them good.

"If you are a real person and not a professional critic, and you are looking for a worthwhile movie for your family to see, this film certainly qualifies."

I'm not sure how to tell you this... But even anti-Mormon, anti-wholesome critics like Jeff Vice are still real people. Mind-blowing, I know.

BW | 8:21 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

If some of you paid any attention instead of just griping you would remember that there have been a few LDS movies Jeff liked. Army of God 2 and Brigham City for example. Many of us enjoy feel good movies but it is through our overcoming us our frailties that we grow and it is more realistic as well as fulfilling to see someone have to overcome their weakness and not just someone that everything goes right for. Watching Rocky or Cinderella Man illustrate this well.

teen | 9:33 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

I saw this movie and really enjoyed that it was clean. I liked that the father always chose the right. The character is a good example to us. I walked away from that movie feeling good. Some movies I think will be good and wholesome are not and I walk away feeling bad that I watched it. But this movie is worth your time. It will make you ponder your own life and think of your problems in a different way.

Dan | 10:23 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

I am LDS and I enjoy wholesome entertainment. But I will agree that a majority of the "LDS" films I've seen are ones I have no desire to see again. In fact, I usually disregard the genre entirely because I think they misrepresent the gospel, people, the church, or Utah, AND may of them are boring.

Whole Sum | 10:37 p.m. Oct. 8, 2009

So the movie lacks Hollywood things like an "interesting plot" and "drama" or "tension". It is morally clean and uplifting, therefore the only very of entertainment we should be seeing, even if boring. I can't wait! You heathen can have crude Hollywood films to yourselves.

Tery | 1:26 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To Old Koot @ 5:50 PM: Okay, I wont. To Screen Age: Hey dog, they're asking us to pay the same admission price as any other movie so it's only fair that it be reviewed the same way as any other movie. In this tough economy, you have to choose your movies wisely and I'm making my decision that they aren't going to come between me and my hard earned dollars and you can too.

Movie Man | 3:21 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Boycott these films. Let Excel know that we won't stand for such mediocre quality. It makes Utah look like a joke. these movies don't even make for good TV viewing let alone in a theatre. Don't these script writers view any good films and learn about the craft of screenwriting. Don't they see any films and learn about the craft of suspense and conflict. Or must we be content with films that look like they were produced for and by the church missionary department for seminary students.

bad filme | 3:22 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

its a bad film. don't go see it.

Henry | 7:26 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I've seen this movie and I really liked it. I thought the bishop's interaction with the woman at the care center was very compelling. The bishop and his wife are both excellent. The worst part of this review was the too-good-to-be-true comment, it revealed more about the reviewer than it did about the movie. A lot of people live very good lives and make right choices most of the time. It really isn't that difficult.

Truth be told, anti's will hate anything that comes from the lds community. They are like a girl after a bad break-up that screams that her ex has always been a horrible person and she never loved him. Such are completely governed by their emotions.

If you like lds movies that aren't filled with cheesy material and lds inside jokes then you'll like this movie. In my view it is right up there with The Other Side of Heaven, Saints and Soldiers, and Work and the Glory.

I want a good drama | 8:41 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

But there has not been a good one hardly all year, and that includes all that Hollywood has to offer. I go to a lot of movies and this year has been the pits. Now I am staunch LDS as well but I typically stay away from LDS themed films because they do tend to cause one to roll their eyes at times.

This one could use some drama perhaps. Most other films could use something as well. Only Star Trek has held up this year as a great movie that makes me want to see it again in 2009.

Screen Age (again) | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Sigh.

If you are looking for a worthwhile movie, you can consider the opinions of:

(1) Those who haven't seen this film but still feel impelled to put it down simply because so many other LDS-market films were poorly done, or

(2) A theater full of applauding patrons who just paid to see it.

Vice gave this movie 2 of 5 stars, the same score he gave the vulgar and poorly done "Couples Retreat."

As a direct result of Jeff's review I won't be seeing Couples Retreat. (Thank you, Jeff).

And while I agree that "One Good Man" was no "Casablanca," it was certainly better than 2 stars.

-----

I TOTALLY agree there have been a LOT of very POORLY made movies produced for the LDS market, but there have been some good ones too.

Examples?

Forever Strong, Outlaw Trail, and Errand of Angels immediately come to mind.

In fact, Forever Strong and Outlaw Trail could compete well with Disney productions like Race to Witch Mountain.

If 100% of the last thousand LDS-market movies were indisputably horrible, that should have no bearing on your opinion of the next.

Think about it.

Don | 12:29 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To Screen Age @ 9:47 am:

You obviously don't follow Jeff enough. He gave "One Good Man" 2 stars out of 4 (not 5).

I highly doubt there will ever be a theater full of patrons applauding "One Good Man." The only way that will happen is if you pay for the tickets, popcorn, pizza, and tell the audience to applaud.

Obviously, you're part of the production team (touting "Forever Strong," "Outlaw Trail," and "Errand of Angels"). Take a clue, these films are never going to make your company a lot of money. There's not enough audience appeal.

Your company has built itself a reputation for producing sappy, dull films. So we expect that from you next film, and you usually don't disappoint.

The foundation of any successful film is a great, appealing story. The broader the appeal, the more the interest. That's where you've failed so far and "One Good Man" isn't the answer.

Jeff could actually help you sort through the stories you're considering for your next film, if you wanted his counsel. I suggest you call him.

Rich | 2:14 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I like Don's comment. If someone likes the film and others similar to it, he MUST be part of the production company. Talk about a bias!

That's a straw man fallacy, to you logical thinkers. If someone disagrees with you, make him out to be something he's not because OBVIOUSLY only someone with an extreme bias could POSSIBLY have an opinion different than yours.

It's truly pathetic that people think like that. I'm going to this show tonight. I plan to like it, but we'll see what really happens.

But beware of people who simply cannot believe someone else might have an opinion different than theirs without being bought off in some way. Pathetic.

Rich

PapaCorn | 3:17 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Jason...thanks for the lesson on morality. Wow. You're a real film aficionado. Dropping all those foreign film directors names, knowing full well we've never heard of them...and really don't care to.

I'm so grateful you brought Mike Leigh. He's given us some real moral gems. I would have to say his films "Naked" and "Vera Drake" (a lovely story on abortion) are great examples.

To Rich | 3:20 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Talk about pathetic. Forgot to take your anger pills this morning?

You too must be part of the production team.

You guys always hang around the Deseret News' comments pages anytime your films are released and try to create the (false) impression that everyone's talking about your films.

The comments are the same each time: "I can't wait to see this film." "It's the best LDS movie since Brigham City." "I've seen it four times and am going again tonight." "Finally, a clean and entertaining film."

Further you rip on Jeff Vice for not giving your film 4 stars (he's being very generous) and you spew hate at anyone who says your films stink.

On second thought, I don't want to see your latest film now. If there's that much hatred in your heart, you must not be "one good man."

Truth be told, the last time I heard a conversation about one of your films was at our family's last Christmas party. One sister said her family watched "Return With Honor." Everybody laughed when she (and her husband and five children) told us how horrible the film was.

jfcannon | 5:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Reading the preceding comments has been an interesting experience. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not qualified to discuss it. I suspect whether one likes this movie depends, as always, on their personal values and judgment.

But I have read a lot of Jeff Vice's reviews and it is clear to me that his values and judgment are not closely related to mine. That's fine...everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. But ever since Jeff Vice gave a glowing review to that dog of a movie, Jersey Girl, I have found that reversing Vice's opinion of a movie often gives a more accurate picture of the quality of the movie. So I continue to read his reviews. They are good for a laugh and applying the "reverse" strategy often works for me. But not always. Vice was right on with God's Army 2, which he gave 3 1/2 stars out of 4. It just goes to show that not even Jeff Vice is wrong every time.

Different Opinions | 6:04 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

There is a reason that there are so many different types of movies being made in this world. Different people have different interests and so they like different movies. If everyone was the same with the same interests, a lot of Hollywood producers would be out of a job as well, and we'd only have one genre to choose from.

Thank goodness there are producers who are willing to take a chance and make a variety of movies so we don't all have to see the same thing.

Differences, that's what makes the world go around.

Screen Age (yet again) | 10:11 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

Quick reality check:

(1) Indeed it is 4 stars, not 5.

(2) I truly was in a theater that applauded this film.

(3) I do not work for an LDS film company or in the movie business. I am a computer nerd, hence the screen name: ScreenAge (age of computers, smartphones, etc.).

(4) Ironically, the least civil behavior here is by the person accusing others of "spewing hate" for politely disagreeing with a movie critic.

(5) How can someone claim 2 of 4 stars is "being generous," then state that he or she won't go see the film? How do you know it's generous if you haven't seen it?

Could we ask for better evidence that people are ZEALOUSLY prejudging LDS-market films based on the poor efforts of previous films?

And it seems obvious that if people like this DID see the film, their passionately held preconceptions would prevent them from enjoying it the way others MIGHT.

BTW, we're sorry to have disagreed with your son, Ms. Vice, but my wife and I don't always agree on films either, and it certainly doesn't mean we hate each other, you know?

Screen Age | 10:50 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

I'm back to say I really liked jfcannon's comments.

It wouldn't have to be a perfect alignment, (like I said earlier, my wife and I don't always agree on movies), but wouldn't it be great to find a movie reviewer out there whose cinematic tastes AND more values MORE OR LESS align with my own?

And wouldn't it be nicer still of that reviewer happened to work for the Deseret News?

Instead, I often find myself checking movie-related and sites sponsored by Christian groups to get an idea of a film before seeing it.

Unfortunately, when it comes to LDS-market films, there is no source I know of that can help really, because those that do review LDS-market films truly seem steeped in a bias against the genre.

That leaves us all up to ourselves to just go ahead and pay to learn if a film is good, cheesy, or poorly done.

By the way, Ms. Vice, there absolutely is no hatred on this end. When I post comments, I give my email address to DN. DN and Jeff are always more than welcome to contact me.

Lee | 11:21 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

I highly recommend this film, having seen it last night. It speaks strongly to good men and women in the church who are trying to do what is right and may on occasion wonder if it is worth it, or whether they can cope. This film conveys real life in the church much more than any film portraying high drama or a foolish caracature.

There is a powerful scene in the bar. Yes, of course we knew he would not drink, any more than I knew that in that situation I would not drink either. That was not the point. The point was the exchange: he seeing the life of options and good times of his single friend, and his friend seeing his sense of identity and place. In reality there is a choice to be made. That is the point.

The film left me, as a striving good dad, reassured, strengthened and reminded of why I try to live as I do. Those who do not understand why people like me try to live as we do will not understand this film. It therefore may have a narrow appreciative audience. But for me, I am deeply grateful.

Lee | 11:44 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

In my previous post I meant to start my last paragraph with "The film left me, as a striving-to-be-good Latter-Day Saint dad and husband..."

I am of course very aware that there are many excellent men who are not members of the church for whom this film may not particularly resonate. The dimension of the framework of LDS living is the point of the movie. It hit the mark exactly.

total1096 | 6:21 p.m. Oct. 10, 2009

I saw this movie today and I really enjoyed it. Though it didn't go deeply into any one subjest it touched on concerns many can relate to. Dealing with children, difficult situations as work, lots to do with not much time.

I intend to see this again and suggest it to as many friends as I can. It made me smile, it made me cry. It was great!

"Too Good to be True"? | 8:09 p.m. Oct. 10, 2009

I saw this film today and thought that it portrayed a righteous LDS father very well. It is too bad that there are people who believe men like this are "too good to be true". I personally know many men who strive to be good husbands and fathers. Who will always make the right choices even when not being watched by their wife and family. It's called integrity and faithfulness. I am married to one of these men and feel very grateful that I don't have to wonder what he does when I am not around. This movie made me appreciate him even more. Thank you.

ScreenAge | 8:48 p.m. Oct. 10, 2009

Very cool comments, Lee and total1096.

Of course the bar scene wasn't about whether or not the dad would drink alcohol -- how could it be? Men like this made their decisions about alcohol LONG ago and never looked back.

When you think about it, although the movie industry is powerful and extremely influential, they themselves clearly don't understand their own craft very well. Critics included.

If they did, how do you explain films like The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Are there bigger industry heavyweights than Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford? Are their bigger budgets?

Nah, it wasn't that bad, but then again, how many times have YOU rewatched the DVD, assuming you even bought it?

Consider the resources, then the result, and tell me this industry really knows its craft.

Can you imagine the construction industry building skyscrapers with such a vague understanding of what really makes for a solid building?

Again, this was no Casablanca, but I found it quite comparable to that Steve Martin film called Parenthood. Both films showed us ourselves (and people we know), and made us think and feel.

Seriously, what's to fault about that?

jmch | 11:34 p.m. Oct. 10, 2009

I saw one good man and have been touched by the story and the reality of trying to live a good life. Living a good life is a challenge but this film touches on the sweet rewards of trying to do so. I am in the age range of the couple portrayed and my husband and I have faced some of these same things. At the end of this movie even my husband was in tears. Thank You to the writer and director Christian Vuissa for telling a story that speaks to the heart. Well done! If you read that credits at the end as I do at movies you will see that he wore many hats and did so well. I also noted that this is not an Excel Film as one other commenter stated. And no I had nothing to do with the making of this film. What I did was see it and was touched by it.

jbf | 9:04 p.m. Oct. 11, 2009

I thought the movie was beautifully well done. I've never relied on a critics viewpoint, as I like to make my own decision. I would encourage you all to do the same. I'm sure there are a number of people, like myself, who will come away touched and rewarded for going. Give this movie a chance and support our Lds film makers who are presenting better and better material all the time.

Caramba | 12:26 a.m. Oct. 12, 2009

I've seen One Good Man a couple of times. I'm not part of the production. I liked it. It's not Gone
With the Wind. But it's a nice film. I thought Vice made some interesting points, most of which I thought were accurate. I do find it a bit strange that he gave OGM two stars and gave the same rating to Couples Retreat. I have seen both films. OGM is clearly a better film. If we are at all concerned about the amount of money spent on a given film, it is compelling to think that tens of millions were spent on CR and well under one-half million on OGM.

But what I've said is only my opinion. After all, that's what this forum is about. Our opinions. There is no truth here.

You need to look elsewhere for that.

Mike | 8:38 a.m. Oct. 12, 2009

Sometimes I wonder if Vice sees the same movies that we do.

This was a great movie. I'd go into the bar to and not order nor be tempted to order a drink. That was in character and true to life. And why does there have to be the Hollywood obligatory crisis of faith to make a movie good?

The list of good LDS movies is getting longer and this movie just adds to it.

God's Army, States of Grace, Best Two Years, Outlaw Trail, The Dance, Brigham City, Forever Strong, Napoleon Dynamite (yep, I consider it to be an LDS movie), Nacho Libre (same as Napoleon with "stretchy pants"), Singles Ward, Pirates of the Great Salt Lake (ok I stretched with that one, but it was funny), Pride and Prejeduce (ok, I liked the cute girl), and some others. Also don't forget the best one of all LDS Cinema, Saints and Soldiers.

Phil | 9:21 a.m. Oct. 12, 2009

This is hilarious.

Once again, an LDS-themed movie is released and the Deseret News' comments page is filled with comments by so many people who loved this film, can't wait to see it again, and are telling all their friends about it.

And we also have the token bitter vulture (ScreenAge) who stands ready to trash anyone who doesn't sing the movie's praises.

So, how does this hoopla help your films? The fact is no one cares about your them. Very few people will see your films and no one will love them.

As the old saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out."

total1096 | 11:27 a.m. Oct. 12, 2009

I thought there was plenty of drama in the show. It wasn't the "in your face" stuff that the current generation needs but it was there and I felt it throughout the movie.

Good stuff in, good stuff out.

Sue | 12:33 p.m. Oct. 12, 2009

Just what is wrong with a movie that shows a man doing his best to do what's right? Isn't that what we all try to do? Maybe there isn't enough action in it for some but it is satisfying and gratifying to see someone doing what so many of us are trying to do. What kind of man would you like for a dad, husband, son? Religion doesn't matter-it's just good to see someone being one good man! Many are living quiet lives of goodness and integrity and this is a good recognition of them

JohnJudkins | 1:56 p.m. Oct. 12, 2009

I snuck into this movie because I didn't want to be honest and buy a ticket because I thought it problaby wasn't worth my $5. I guess I am not "one good man." But it was a good movie.

KW | 2:34 p.m. Oct. 12, 2009

I went to the movie Saturday night, invited by a friend who had a bit part in the film.

Though I told her I enjoyed the movie, I thought it was dreadful. I really tried my best to like it, but couldn't.

I kept thinking "so what?" as the plot unfolded. The whole story was a compilation of trivialities and contrivances, all surrounding the man's being called as bishop. You call this entertainment? Yawn.

I can't understand why so many of these films are pumped out. There can't be this much demand for boring and dissinteresting films. There weren't very many people at the theater I went to--and it was opening weekend.

Mimi | 6:17 p.m. Oct. 12, 2009

I nearly skipped this movie due to the negative reviews. I was pleased to find it was excellent in every way. Yes, it is more of a character sketch: a window into the life of a bishop with all the attendant choices, sacrifices, and results. I loved it and found it fascinating from beginning to end. I think reviewers have judged it far too harshly to give it 2 stars--the same rating as "Couples Retreat" or an inane movie like "Singles Ward." If you like Errand of Angels and Saints and Soldiers you'll love it. Go see it!

Screen Age | 1:49 a.m. Oct. 13, 2009

Phil,

Like you, I have not liked many (if not most) LDS-market films.

Unlike you, however, I'm willing to keep an open mind about the next one.

What can I say? I LIKED this film.

If that makes me defective in your eyes, what can I do?

I certainly don't care enough about it (or any film) to get all worked up and resort to labeling, name calling, and personal attacks.

As for "garbage in, garbage out..."

When you can't get a document to print, is it because you've input garbage? Or because the programs aren't working right?

Sometimes the problem isn't "garbage in," but FAULTY PROGRAMMING.

Obviously, if someone's mind is set against LDS-market films, and anyone who thinks they've found a good one, it would be pretty much impossible for that person to ever see anything but "garbage out," wouldn't it?

BTW, isn't all "this hoopla" you mentioned, including YOUR fiery contributions to it, proof that, in one way or another, people DO care about LDS-market movies?

Don | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 13, 2009

To Screen Age:

Thanks for once again trashing a critic. You're not one good man.

For your information, bucko, "One Good Man" did so well at the box office this past weekend, even with Caramba seeing it twice, that it failed to even register on Boxofficemojo.com's list of all films' revenue for the weekend.

So the theater you went to was packed and the audience gave a standing ovation.

I think that's called a lie.

All the more reason why I'm NOT going to see the film.

But you can keep up the good work of creating these false stories. Put your shoulder to the wheel, brother.

For what? To watch someone fulfull every LDS man's dream of being called as bishop. Whoop-de-do. Wow! That's the best storyline ever! It's so good no one cares, except you.

Prove I'm wrong. Show us the money. You can't, though, without telling another lie.

Screen Age | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 13, 2009

Wow.

So far in this discussion, there are people who have:

1. Seen the movie and liked it,

2. Seen the movie and didn't like it,

3. Not seen the movie but are willing give it a shot,

4. Not seen the movie and won't because they hate LDS-market movies,

5. Not seen the movie, hate LDS-market movies, and have have deep personal issues with group 1.

It is really hard for me to understand Group 5. I mean who lurks for DAYS around discussions about movies THEY HAVEN'T SEEN, dreaming up facts, occupations and circumstances about the lives of those who have?

Likewise, I don't get that box office mojo thinking.

If ticket sales are what defines good movies, that would mean Transformers was a better film than Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Rocky, Close Encounters and Pirates of the Caribbean.

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree about that.

Meanwhile, this lying and bitter vulture has to get back to my busy life of secretly making LDS-market movies, attending them all alone in a theater, and dreaming being a bishop. :-)

Peace.

Riley Workman | 9:39 p.m. Oct. 13, 2009

LDS movies are, at their default, not good movies. It's because they preach their point of view rather than entertain. The movie medium has been and will always be about entertaining. To preach is fine, but if you're doing it on the big screen it will always be met with opposition regardless of religion or cause...

Page:
1
2
Next >

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 slapstick violence.

Cast: Pam Eichner, Talon G. Ackerman, Lindsay Bird, Maclain Nelson, Susan Rounkles, Aley Underwood, Rand Sieger, Shelby Randall

FIND LOCAL MOVIE SHOWTIMES