The substance of this comment was originally written in October of 2005 and I just checked back and saw that it was deleted after an abuse report was received. Other than my comment not being flattering of the LDS church, I don't understand how it violates any guidelines. If it is objected to again, I hope someone will explain how it violates the guidelines. I think it gives those interested in this movie an important insight into the creation process. Those who are so insecure with their beliefs that they feel the need to censor alternative viewpoints are pretty shallow characters.
But on to the movie. I will confirm what many have posted here that this film is very effective at facilitating spiritual feelings in may of its viewers. When I saw it the theater was filled with tears and sniffles at the end.
The movie was generally well directed and the cinematography and art direction were all reasonably well done in comparison to major studio pictures. I don't believe it was as well done as its predecessor, Legacy, however, in the acting department. There were a few parts that didn't ring true for me such as the romance, which seemed poorly developed and unbelievable and a strange moment of levity involving the pet monkey when they were announcing the coming of Christ (seemed a bit irreverent).
The director of this film, Keith Merrill, came to our Ward for a visit and spoke to us about the film. Several things about his comments were interesting and shed insight into the creative guidelines he was given. He said when he met with the First Presidency of the LDS church to discuss what they were looking for to replace Legacy in the Legacy theater he was given wide latitude with only a few requirements. Two are worth expanding on: First, he was told to only cast actors that had temple recommends (or were temple worthy). He was told that this was because of problems that had arisen with actors which had been cast for Legacy. Merrill didn't elaborate but I later asked around and was told by someone who was on their mission at Nauvoo during the filming that the actor that played Joseph Smith in Legacy was openly homosexual and also openly critical of the LDS church during the filming in a way that was (not surprisingly) disconcerting to the many missionaries and LDS crew members present.
There was also another problem with the actress who played the female lead, as it was discovered only after the film was finished that she had appeared nude in two prior movies. (I checked out one of these movies, "The Betsy", in which she is shown seductively disrobing in front of the male lead played by Tommy Lee Jones.) I think this restriction placed by the First Presidency explains what I believe was a comparatively lesser quality in acting since the pool that actors could be drawn from was shallower.
The second instruction, which Merrill said came from President Hinkley, was pretty straightforward -- to make sure that everyone that everyone left the theater in tears. As you can see from other reviews, the director hit the mark there. Consider this story the next time you hear someone say they felt the "spirit" in any LDS movie.
But on to the movie. I will confirm what many have posted here that this film is very effective at facilitating spiritual feelings in may of its viewers. When I saw it the theater was filled with tears and sniffles at the end.
The movie was generally well directed and the cinematography and art direction were all reasonably well done in comparison to major studio pictures. I don't believe it was as well done as its predecessor, Legacy, however, in the acting department. There were a few parts that didn't ring true for me such as the romance, which seemed poorly developed and unbelievable and a strange moment of levity involving the pet monkey when they were announcing the coming of Christ (seemed a bit irreverent).
The director of this film, Keith Merrill, came to our Ward for a visit and spoke to us about the film. Several things about his comments were interesting and shed insight into the creative guidelines he was given. He said when he met with the First Presidency of the LDS church to discuss what they were looking for to replace Legacy in the Legacy theater he was given wide latitude with only a few requirements. Two are worth expanding on: First, he was told to only cast actors that had temple recommends (or were temple worthy). He was told that this was because of problems that had arisen with actors which had been cast for Legacy. Merrill didn't elaborate but I later asked around and was told by someone who was on their mission at Nauvoo during the filming that the actor that played Joseph Smith in Legacy was openly homosexual and also openly critical of the LDS church during the filming in a way that was (not surprisingly) disconcerting to the many missionaries and LDS crew members present.
There was also another problem with the actress who played the female lead, as it was discovered only after the film was finished that she had appeared nude in two prior movies. (I checked out one of these movies, "The Betsy", in which she is shown seductively disrobing in front of the male lead played by Tommy Lee Jones.) I think this restriction placed by the First Presidency explains what I believe was a comparatively lesser quality in acting since the pool that actors could be drawn from was shallower.
The second instruction, which Merrill said came from President Hinkley, was pretty straightforward -- to make sure that everyone that everyone left the theater in tears. As you can see from other reviews, the director hit the mark there. Consider this story the next time you hear someone say they felt the "spirit" in any LDS movie.