We finally made our pilgrimage to a 3D theater to pay our respects to James Cameron’s latest blockbuster creation, Avatar. As a science fiction lover, I wanted to see it as soon as it came out. But I’m also a workaholic and finding the time just wasn’t happening. However, when I read that it was finally going to be replaced in theaters at the end of the coming week I figured it was now or never to see the movie as the director intended, in 3D. After cajoling Debi into it, she agreed to go. She wanted to, but she was unwilling to pay $40.00 for a sitter so we could spend $30.00 to see a movie. The compromise: we took Toren. I don’t think he loved the experience, particularly not the really loud parts, but he likes getting out of the house. He didn’t make a peep the entire 2 hours and 40 minutes of the movie. We got some really strange looks taking our 9 month old son into the theater to see Avatar, but no one complained.

As for the movie… First, the technology behind it really is remarkable. The 3D effect was very cool, though it seemed much more noticeable in the slower sequences when you had a chance to really focus on depth than in the action sequences where there was too much movement to make the 3D effect really matter. The Navi were also very cool, considering they were a combination of computer generation and human actors. And the world of Pandora was spellbinding. The luminescence was absolutely stunning, especially in combination with the 3D. What a remarkable feat of human ingenuity to create a visual experience like that.

As far as the movie goes, I enjoyed it. It’s not the most amazing story ever, but certainly compelling in its own right. The best part about it is that it takes place in an utterly believable alternate world. Of course, what I mean by that is not that the supernatural elements of Avatar are believable, but assuming a suspension of belief, it is a well-developed alternative reality. And the quality of film production made it possible to disappear into the alternative reality of Pandora for nearly 3 hours and not realize what was happening. I loved that.

The story was good, with its respective twists – just enough people dying to make it believable but not so many that you consider it a full-on tragedy. The take home message – don’t spoil the beauty of nature – is a good one, that I support. And I’m even fond of the criticism of corporations, though the irony is funny: a corporation (20th Century Fox) made the movie possible; no corporations, no Avatar. But certainly corporations can be driven by greed and many are. Maybe that will change one day. The tie-in with the situation with the Native Americans was also nice, though I think the Navi took their “Native American-ness” a bit too far, unnecessarily. It wasn’t really a bad thing, but it also wasn’t necessary to make the Navi full-on Native American.

I’ll be intrigued to see if this film does change the movie industry, permanently. It did get us to the theater, and we rarely go to the theater, preferring to watch movies at home where they are much, much cheaper. I’m not sure we’d go just for 3D in the future, especially if it’s just a character-driven film. But it is experience-enhancing. Anyway, anyone else want to comment on Avatar?

So, it turns out Debi and I aren’t the only Star Trek fans in Tampa.  We weren’t interviewed by Fox 13, but saw all of these people being interviewed when we went last night.  As far as the movie goes, it’s very good, but somewhat problematic as far as the Star Trek time line goes.  However, we were duly impressed at how well this film integrated the quirks of the original characters into the new actors.  The new cast is also very good.  I hear there’s another movie in the mix, probably depending on how well this does in the theaters.  I guess we’ll see.  Maybe next time Debi, Toren, and I will dress up!

Halloween 2006

I used to write reviews of all the movies I watched.  Now, that honor is reserved for very specific movies, either movies I really, really like, movies on Mormonism, or movies that are so terrible someone has to say something.  The Happening, the latest of M. Night Shyamalan’s film disasters, falls into the last category – terrible, terrible, terrible.  I’m going to keep this short and to the point: Mr. Shyamalan knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about science.  The Happening is the perfect illustration of using a tiny bit of pseudoscientific bullcrap to scare people.  It belongs in the same category as Biblical Creationism, especially since it uses the same tactics as creationists to make its arguments.

The basic gist of the story: plants revolt, releasing a deadly toxin that makes humans kill themselves.  The wind some how triggers the plants to release the toxin, but only when there are large groups of people around, except at the end, when it kills small groups of people or even just individuals. Why the change?  Um, plot point?

Why does this happen?  According to the story, because humans aren’t taking care of the planet.  So, the plants revolt and kill humans.  And, according to Shyamalan, this is all based on sound evidence, because, well, “studies have been done.”  That phrase is used a good half dozen times or so to justify things like: (1) plants can sense the presence of humans and respond to human voices, (2) plants can willfully evolve new toxins during their lifetime, and (3) plants can be triggered to release those newly evolved toxins by atmospheric factors.  Unfortunately for Mr. Shyamalan, what he is proposing has already been debunked by actual science.  His “evolution” is actually Lamarckian evolution, the poster boy of the Soviet Union’s failed biology program, which actually proposed that living things evolve during their lifetime based on environmental pressures and pass those traits on.  This is not how evolution works.  The story in the movie could not and will not ever happen.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for suspending disbelief for a story for entertainment value.  I really enjoy superhero movies and sci-fi.  But using pseudoscientific babble to try to scare people and claiming it is based on real science is immoral.  The movie goes so far as to use the classic creationist ploy, “It’s just a theory,” as a plot device.  FYI, in science, a theory is not “just a theory” (i.e., someone’s pet idea); a theory is backed by empirical evidence and has withstood repeated testing.  The last non-scientific issue that really got both Debi and me as we watched this drivel was having “scientists” claim “this is a ‘natural’ event” and “science can’t explain it.”  Mr. Shyamalan can take a bow for contributing to the scientific illiteracy of the US, which now ranks below average compared to other OECD countries on science reasoning.

Alas, the damn movie made money, which means this retard gets to keep on making movies.  The only positive thing I can say about this movie is that I didn’t pay for it (except for with my time).  Combine this trash with Lady in the Water and I think I have officially written off M. Night Shyamalan as a filmmaker of any merit.

Title:
The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume 1: The Journey

Director:
Gary Rogers

Release Date:
2004

Rating:
1

Summary:
Since we all already know the story (having read the Book of Mormon multiple times, like good Mormons should), how about I give a very quick and dirty summary based on the depiction of the movie:

A well-muscled, naïve young man named Nephi has a schizophrenic father, Lehi, who talks to imaginary beings. Even though this is fiction, it is remotely cast as historic fiction, so Nephi and Lehi are alleged to have lived in Jerusalem around 600 B.C.E. Lehi, a paranoid schizophrenic who believes the world is about to end, decides to force his well-to-do family to leave Jerusalem with no idea where they are going to go. Where they got their money is anyone’s guess, as Lehi sits around having hallucinatory dreams all day when he isn’t preaching doomsday doctrines in the streets. Nephi has a couple older brothers, Laman and Lemuel. They look a little more Middle Eastern than the rest of the family, probably because Middle Easterners are currently depicted in Hollywood as being evil terrorists, so Nephi has to look anglo while his evil brothers look Middle Eastern (just the first of many racial/ethnic stereotypes). Ironically, Laman and Lemuel are also the only intelligent and sensible characters in the story. They question the crazed ramblings of their insane father, and don’t want to give up their nice lifestyle. For this, they are mocked and even chastised by angels.

Lehi’s hallucinations prevail and the family treks out into the wilderness (the wilderness being Southern Utah, which apparently passes for Palestine). While they are gone, the good citizens of Jerusalem don’t even consider burgling their home, which is very nice of them considering it is chuck full of gold and precious things. They haven’t been out loitering in the desert too long before Lehi gets another crazy idea – he wants a bunch of brass plates from some unknown historical figure who also happens to be basically the most powerful man in Jerusalem at the time (odd that he isn’t mentioned in any other historical treatises, not even the Old Testament). The guy’s name is Laban, and apparently he has it out for Lehi. Lehi is too big of a delusional pussy to go after the plates himself, so he sends his four oldest sons – Nephi and Sam (the good boys) and Laman and Lemuel (the bad boys). They screw things up, initially, then an angel intervenes when Laman legitimately criticizes Nephi for being a naïve idiot and thinking that Laban wouldn’t just take their gold when there was no one and nothing to stop him from doing it. (Still makes no sense why someone else would not have taken it sooner.) Apparently god supports idiots in their blind devotion. And, of course, this is used to make Laman and Lemuel seem irrational as they have seen an angel but they still don’t believe and follow their annoying, self-righteous younger brother. Show any skeptic alive today an actual angel and they’ll believe. The label of “irrational” is misapplied, of course, but this isn’t a surprise, is it?

Eventually Nephi sneaks back into the city, sees Laban (remember, he’s only the most powerful man in all of Jerusalem) drunk without any guards, laying in the street with a sword at his waist, ’cause, apparently , every powerful economic/political leader carried a sword back then when drinking. Why was Laban drunk in the street? Because, apparently, Jews invented bars? Why else would Laban be wandering the streets at night, drunk, alone, and singy bawdy Irish drinking songs. What does Nephi, the good son, do when he finds this drunkard? Help a poor drunk man home? Protect him from all of the thieving scoundrels who roamed the streets of Jerusalem at night in 600 B.C.E. but didn’t rob their house? Nope! He takes Laban’s own sword and hacks off his head. Why? God tells him to.

Laban, amazingly, doesn’t bleed during the process, allowing Nephi to put on his immaculately pressed and bloodless clothes and impersonate him, duping Laban’s #2, Zoram. Zoram falls for it and gives Nephi the plates of brass, then follows Nephi outside the city without so much as questioning why Laban would do such a thing. When they find Nephi’s brothers, Zoram realizes the deception. Nephi grabs him before he can run and says the most ironic line of all time, “Covenant with me to do everything I say and I’ll make you free.” How is that freedom? If he doesn’t do what you say you’ll kill him. And his freedom is doing what you say. That, my friends, is the clearest illustration of cognitive dissonance a Mormon has ever spoke. Of course, Zoram signs on (given his options, who wouldn’t?). Apparently as an indication of how big of an idiot he is, Zoram stays true to the covenant, joining Nephi and gang in the “wilderness” of Southern Utah (a.k.a. Palestine). Zoram even drinks the Mormon Kool-Aid when he proves that he can reconcile the cognitive dissonance by describing his coerced agreement with the following line, “There’s always a choice.” Hmmm… death or absolute obedience. I like those options… As if this wasn’t enough, Nephi uses thinly veiled temple ceremony quotes to reinforce the pact, “Do you solemnly covenant… blah, blah, blah.” The only part missing is the threat of beheading and disembowelment, which was removed because god hasn’t believed that since 1990.

So, Nephi and his brothers return with the plates and Lehi is amazed that they aren’t dead. Since they aren’t dead, he decides to send them back to basically get some women and men to use as breeding partners (apparently even Joseph Smith wouldn’t stoop to incest). This brings Ishmael et al. into the party and they all get along splendidly, having a regular Mormorgy in the desert. As part of the Mormorgy, the women decide they want to do a poorly choreographed Indian/Irish/Jewish folk dance. This culminates in a non-Mormon wedding – no patriarchal grip, no funky robes, no temple ceremony, no blessings of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, etc. Nothing. Apparently Lehi didn’t have the fullness of the gospel in this version of the Book of Mormon. But, in true Mormon fashion, Lehi’s 1950s American social conservatism comes out in his thinly veiled advice to the newlyweds, “Try to get some rest tonight.” So Mormon! Sex is okay as long as we don’t actually talk about it, see it, or make it seem pleasurable. Of course everyone blushes as a result of his advice, then they jump into their tents and screw like rabbits.

It’s around this time that Nephi reveals he does, in fact, have genetically inherited schizophrenia when he tells Lehi, “Dad, I just heard voices.” Lehi’s response, “I believe you, son.” Takes one to know one?

What follows next is an on-again, off-again cycle of everyone but Nephi wondering what the hell they are doing out in the desert, followed by Nephi behaving strangely only to have his strange deeds rewarded by amazing coincidences (e.g., finding food, building a boat without any training, shooting lightening out of his hands like Raiden from Mortal Kombat, and so on). The rewards keep Laman and Lemuel’s unexplained blood thirst at bay, but always temporarily. Apparently, deep down inside, if you aren’t a man of god (i.e., the god of Mormons), you are a raving lunatic who just wants to kill the men of god; who knew?

Nephi eventually builds a boat, with a little help from his brothers. They jump onboard and repeat the “We want to kill Nephi for no apparent reason other than he’s a self-righteous prick followed by Nephi being empowered by god to stop them” cycle. This round of the cycle, however, is probably the funniest. Nephi is really starting to show signs of schizophrenia when he condemns everyone for wearing skimpy clothes (an accusation the writers/producers made up as it isn’t in the BofM). The irony, of course, is that they haven’t change their clothes from the beginning of the movie. They were wearing the same clothing when they did their Indian/Irish/Jewish folk dance, and that just got Nephi off. Maybe the lesson to be learned here is that, just like modern Mormon leaders, actions are sins when they decide they are, but they can change their mind from day to day. Oh, and why the hell did Nephi need the liahona to calm the storm? My guess: Because, when Joseph Smith was writing this, he hadn’t gotten past his belief in magical devices, so a magical device was required to control god. Once he decided all that was required was the make believe priesthood, magical devices became passe.

Eventually they all make it to the “promised land” (a.k.a. whichever part of America the current Mormon apologists want to claim it is, or maybe some where other than America, who knows, just so long as it isn’t falsifiable by modern science). Once here, Nephi eventually realizes that Laman and Lemuel don’t like him (shocker!). Rather than piss them off, again, by being a self-righteous dick, he decides to leave. This frees Laman and Lemuel from the social constraints that kept them from turning into blood lusting savage lunatics who wear no clothes, cover themselves with paint and tattoos, and dance around fires – all in about 5 years. The writers/producers don’t explicitly come out and say it, but this is the point at which Laman and his friends are cursed with dark skin by god, because, apparently, the Mormon god hates black people, just like George Bush. This is probably about as close as you can get to being a prejudiced, bigotted asshole without actually admitting that the Book of Mormon is a racist piece of literature: imply it, but don’t actually say it. Well, Nephi’s “self-righteous” band finds out about this transformation, but what they do will only be revealed in the next installment of The Book of Mormon (working title: “Raiders of the Lost Tribes of Israel: God’s White People vs. the Devil’s Darkies”).

Review:
A movie has to really work hard to be this bad. Really, this isn’t easy. But the producers of this movie had a lot of help. They had a script that described by one of America’s most famed authors as “chloroform in print.” If I can make a small suggestion to the producers, “You might want to find a better script.”

Now, add to the script problems all of the production problems, and what you’ve got is a recipe for disaster. The best actor in this film is Laman, the guy we’re supposed to hate. And, frankly, I didn’t hate him. I thought he was the only sensible person in the film. Noah Danby, the actor who played Nephi, should go back to running for a general authority position by building up his business resume. His role in this film isn’t going to win him either material or spiritual rewards. Even Kirby Heyborne, who can be okay in Mollywood films, couldn’t make Sam a believable character.

I don’t think anyone is going to argue that the acting was terrible. But what about the casting? Try this one on for size – a guy named Bruce Newbold played Moroni. Granted, Mormon apologists would probably say there isn’t anything wrong with a dyed in the wool anglo playing a Native American Indian, since there is no way we can ever determine his genetic characteristics – he could have looked European. Right! And Winona Ryder would make a good Malcolm X.
Let me see if I can accurately capture the mentality of the producers of this movie when it comes to their chosen depiction of characters and the time period, “Hmm, let’s see, it will make the general authorities happy if we make all of the prophets look like general authorities. So, that’s probably okay. And, since we have no budget for this film because we don’t have the official support of the general authorities (who probably don’t really want people to read the damn book), we can’t afford to hire people who might actually look Jewish or Middle Eastern or Native American. So, we’ll just get BYU co-eds to play the roles. Oh, and because we don’t have the financial resources of Mel Gibson (and no one knows what reformed Egyptian looks or sounds like), we’ll have everyone speak in a mixture of 1830s and 21st Century English, just whatever the script writers decide to come up with. Our audience will be so moved by the Spirit that they won’t care about the production quality or inconsistencies. I mean, heck, they don’t know much about this stuff anyway. And those who do won’t be able to bring themselves to sit through it anyway, so no worries.”

There should be no question that this movie is awful. But let me just throw out a few additional things that make it terrible I understand they had a small budget, but filming in Southern Utah? Come on! Couldn’t you at least get out of Utah? The real camels almost make up for this laziness… For some reason Nephi is called “Master” by the locals in Jerusalem. Why? The visual effects are actually passable, except for when it is obvious that the boat and village are models, the mast in the storm scene is made out of styrofoam, the dead goat is fake, and the fruit on the tree is made out of marshmallows (salvation never tasted so good, especially when roasted). Nephi’s wife sounded just like about every good Mormon girl I ever meet in Utah. Quite an actress, that Jacque Gray – really pushed herself hard in this role. I was looking for her BYU shirt underneath her costume. Did anyone else think Jesus looked an awful lot like the Geico cavemen? The writers/producers of the movie obviously believe in the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon as there were no other people when Nephi and company arrived. That can’t make the apologists happy. Did anyone else notice that Lehi’s the only one who aged until the two groups split? Everyone else looks exactly the same age as they did when they left Jerusalem 20 years earlier, except for Lehi. The producers may want to budget some money in for continuity for their next film. Also, the music was over-the-top epic. Create an epic film and you can use epic music. This would have been better scored by Kirby Heyborne’s band Bentleigh. Speaking of Kirby, I really liked his Aztec outfit; I see Orthodox Jews wearing similar stuff all the time!

I also noted a few additional liberties taken by the screenwriters/producers: They created a back story developing the animosity between Laban and Lehi, which is not found in the BofM. Nephi’s sisters and Ishmael’s daughters are all given names. Apparently it isn’t politically correct to ignore women in 2004, even if you’re Mormon.

So, aside from being painful to watch, what are the take-home lessons from The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume 1:
-If someone questions authority (e.g., Laman and Lemuel), deep down they are ravenous, murdering lunatics. Oh, and they are also responsible for anything bad that happens. NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY!
-It’s okay to kill people when god says it’s okay. Just ask Nephi and Laban.
-Some people are cursed by god. You can tell who they are by the color of their skin – the darker the skin, the more god hates them and the more likely they are to behave like savages.

Title:
The Home Teachers

Summary:
Brother Parker is the anal, uptight, uber-TBM Mormon who has to get his home teaching done, every month, 100% of the time. Brother Blazer, on the other hand, is the “every-male-Mormon” who fails to see much importance in the home teaching program and would rather spend every spare minute of his time watching football or other sports on his massive home TV/theater system.

The movie begins as an Elder’s Quorum meeting wraps up. Brother Parker is taking meticulous notes on his PDA and laptop. Brother Blazer is fidgeting in the back of the room, hoping they’ll get out early so he can get home in time for that day’s big game. Agonizing through B. Parker’s closing Prayer, B. Blazer breaks for home as soon as the amen sounds. Snatching kids left and right, B. Blazer jumps in his (gas guzzling without regard for the rest of the world) SUV only to be stopped by B. Parker, who has to let him know they are now home teaching companions and, even though it’s the 31st, they still have time to do their teaching for that month. B. Blazer tells him to get back to him, then jettisons from the parking lot.

B. Parker calls B. Blazer later and tells him that he already set up all of their visits for that day. B. Blazer does what he can to get out of it, but to no avail (his Molly Mormon wife pushes him out of the house, kicking and screaming). What follows is about an hour and 20 minutes of the most improbable mishaps you can imagine: B. Blazer floods one house, ruining the house, the mother’s wedding dress, and their Sunday dinner; he then ruins a funeral they decide to (completely implausibly) attend in Vernal on the spur of the moment (remember, this is the same day); the trip to Vernal ends with B. Parker and B. Blazer wrecking B. Parker’s mother-in-law’s car off a cliff, followed by a bizarre hunting sequence that includes the requisite jab at non-Mormons (depicted, this time, as rednecks who, quite literally, are wearing the fake redneck teeth you buy during Halloween); B & B are then picked up by carjacking non-Mormons (’cause all non-Mormons are evil), only to be saved by a wacky, Mormon highway patrolman.

With most of the wackiness out of the way, B. Parker and B. Blazer eventually make it back home (somewhere in the Wasatch Front) only to realize they have one more visit to make. They go to an elderly lady’s home and try to breeze through it. It’s at this point that B. Blazer has his (over-the-top) character arc and realizes that home teaching can be helpful. He decides to double-check with the woman and finds out her dog died. They end up spending several hours there and all turns out well.

On the way home, B. Parker reveals that maybe he is too anal and that may be why his wife stayed in Texas when he moved to Utah. Presto, change-o, he has his character arc as well, and all turns out well in Never Never Mormonlandia.

Review:
I’m not sure why I continue watching these Mollywood films. It must be a form of masochism, ’cause it truly is torture to watch these. Anyway, watch them I do.

I really liked B. Blazer before his character arc. He may have still “believed” in the teachings of Mormonism, but he felt like other things were more important – even football. He was bored by the tedium of an incredibly intrusive, restrictive, quotidian religion. Honestly, who wouldn’t be? If you’ve never been bored during a Mormon meeting there is simply something wrong with you – honestly, you should go get checked out by a psychiatrist, because there are no more boring meetings on the planet than Mormon meetings (ask a Mormon; if they’re honest they’ll admit it).

Granted, B. Blazer’s honesty in being bored is exaggerated. And, I do need to admit that the idea behind home teaching is a good one – neighbors watching out for neighbors (though it is exclusive to Mormons, which means you’re overlooked if you’re not a member of the club). But the movie, while poking fun, does hit at the core of the problem: at least 80% of the people who receive regular home teaching visits absolutely don’t need them and don’t want them. It’s just one more busy-work task the leadership of the religion assigns its members to keep them too preoccupied to meet non-Mormons or study their religion (either of which might lead them to reconsider their affiliation). B. Parker and B. Blazer seem to draw closer to this understanding by the end of the movie in their terrible character arcs, but they still miss the point – they shouldn’t shoot for 100% visits but rather for 100% NEEDED visits and just visit the elderly lady who needs company and not the other young couples who have more important things to do.

Okay, so ranting about home teaching aside, the biggest strike against this movie is the absurd story. Even if the home teachers lived in Provo or somewhere near there, there is no way they could have trekked to Vernal (with numerous pitstops on the way) in the short afternoon they had, gave a lesson at the funeral, ruined the funeral, and then got lost on a backroad and still had any day light left. But in the movie they still had a good three or four hours of daylight – enough time to be hunted by rednecks and picked up by carjackers. All that, and they still made their 8:00 appointment back home. Yeah, right. So, the story is ridiculously implausible. I’ll give them the wacky stuff in the interest of (attempted) humor (i.e., broken toilets, ruined funeral, dog burial, etc.), but they don’t get a pass on the unnecessarily absurd.

Speaking of which, the carjacking and hunting, completely unnecessary. The whole subplot about the mother-in-law’s car being destroyed was also unnecessary. And the home teachers having to take the mounted deer head home is not a convincing set up for the 30 minutes of filler in the middle of the movie. This story could have been and should have been told in 1 hour, with all the junk in the middle cut out.

There was one redeeming character in the movie, B. Blazer’s daughter (or maybe daughters, but at least one of them had the right idea). She was “wise beyond her years.” For instance, B. Blazer didn’t bless his food. His wife insisted that the rest of the family do so. One of the daughters asked the perfect question, “Is dad going to get sick for not blessing his food?” The answer from the preening mother, “No.” The daughter, again, was right on when she replied, “Then why bother?” But they did it anyway. If all the time spent praying over food was spent preparing healthier food, maybe Mormons would actually receive some health benefits from their food (praying for it to be healthy doesn’t make the calories go away) and maybe they wouldn’t be heavier than non-Mormons? The daughter also recommended that B. Blazer fake an injury to get out of home teaching… An idea he tries, but fails to carry through. The daughter seemed to see the absurdity of it all. No one else did. I sense the presence of a future apostate!

There were a few other moments in the video that were humorous. At one point B. Blazer describes the scriptures on CD (which is what B. Parker sells) as “the sound of hell.” Never a truer statement was said (though Twain’s “chloroform in print” comes awfully close). B. Blazer also knows his scriptural defenses, that if you don’t do something with real intent, it doesn’t profit you in the end (granted, I think any argument based on scripture is hogwash to begin with), but I have to admit I remember thinking that exact thing more times than I care to admit (a lot, a lot, a lot). Finally, I think this last incident was intended to poke fun, but I’m not sure… B. Parker claims he forewent a scholarship at Yale because he thought BYU was better. I hope that was truly meant to mock the idea that BYU is better than Yale. BYU-Provo is better than at least one school, BYU-Idaho, but that’s not saying much. That’s like saying BYU-Provo is better than high school. (Okay, I’m just kidding here; I know a lot of professors at BYU and they do really good work. Even so, it’s not Yale… Mormons need to stop kidding themselves on this.)

Overall, I think I’m going to have to extend Richard Dutcher’s argument that movies like these are destroying Mormon cinema. He argues that they don’t take Mormonism seriously and that they aren’t art but poor forms of entertainment. While that is certainly true, there is a more compelling argument to be made. Movies like The Home Teachers take an element of Mormonism and mock it relentlessly (in this case, Home Teaching). They then try to turn the mockery into an object lesson in the end. I’m not Richard Dutcher and I no longer feel a connection to Mormonism like he does. That frees me up to see the slightly less obvious – that mocking ideas for object lessons lies at the heart of Mormonism. The mockery isn’t generally humorous, but it is absurd. The idea of caring after your neighbors is a good one. But Mormonism turns it into a burdensome duty for club members only. The idea of spending time with family is also a good one. But, again, Mormonism mocks this idea by claiming it is pro-family but then mandating far too many meetings and too much time spent in church and not enough time with family. The formula of these movies is not at all surprising because it reflects Mormonism – mock the good, miss the point, take things way too far, then claim there is something good in all of that. Mormonism in a nutshell.

Overall… The acting is awful, the script and story are terrible, the character arcs are absurd, and the cinematography is cheap and full of low-budget gags, but… the film quality is acceptable and the sound mastering is okay.

Do I recommend The Home Teachers? No. But I’m going to keep watching these Mollywood monstrosities. They say a lot about Mormonism, just not what their creators intend to say.

Then we topped off the night with the absolutely awful movie “The Polar Express.” Awful? Yep, awful! And I’m not just saying this because the whole idea behind the movie is to get people to believe something that is patently not true – Santa Claus (yes, I have issues with people believing things that are not true). A bigger issue is that the movie is just poorly written and not compelling. In the course of what could very well be 2 hours in movie time (not viewing time), 3 or 4 kids become best friends and all have character arcs that are completely unbelievable (the girl becomes a leader, the poor boy comes to trust in others, and the main character learns to believe… in Santa and ghosts – Wizard of Oz style). But there is no attempt to develop these characters to make the character arcs believable – no background development, very little talking, etc. The story is basically just a series of pointless conflicts designed to keep the audience’s attention because people could die, even though you know no one will die – this is a Christmas movie after all! All of the action sequences should have been thrown out and the story should have focused on the characters. But, no, instead we have unbelievable character arcs (because there is no character development) with lots of pointless action. Some of the sequences seemed to be included just to highlight the animation capabilities of the animators.

To top it off, there is a song in the film that is just offensive. The poor boy, Billy (his name is the only one I remember), starts singing about how Christmas sucks because he’s poor and never gets anything. The girl joins in, turning it into a duet. But, rather than sympathize with him, she says, “So what! Christmas is great for me because I have decorations and presents and food and family.” Really! Listen to the exchange. It’s a “I’m not poor so I don’t give a crap about your sucky Christmases and you should value Christmas anyway, regardless of your socioeconomic status” song. Touching, huh? I came away from the movie thinking, “Was this an attempt by retailers to create a new myth surrounding Christmas that encourages consumption?” The moral of The Polar Express: Christmas IS the new religion. What a dumb movie… It’s bad enough, though, that you can laugh at how bad it is and come away from the movie having enjoyed making fun of it. Even so, I don’t recommend it.

Title:
Mobsters and Mormons

Introduction:
This is another Mollywood movie I ordered through Netflix just so I could see how bad it was. But this time I was actually surprised – it wasn’t truly awful! Really, it had a redeeming quality – Mark DeCarlo, the actor who played the main character! If it hadn’t been for him this movie would have been almost as bad as Baptists at Our Barbecue.

Summary:
Unlike Baptists at Our Barbecue, this movie had a relatively coherent plot. And while it was poorly realized at times by the supporting cast, at some level the plot was believable… Carmine “The Beans” Pasquale (Mark DeCarlo) is a member of the mafia in New Jersey. When he is caught by the FBI roughing up a kid who stole some jewels from “the family,” rather than serve time he spills his “beans” on most of the rest of the “family,” landing his boss and some of his associates in jail.

Having turned state’s witness, the FBI agrees to put Mark in the witness protection program, along with his wife, Gina, and son, Vincent. As part of the program, they all receive new names (snicker!). Mark becomes George; Gina becomes Linda; and Vincent becomes Patrick. And together they are known as the Cheesemans (and, yes, that is cheesy, but so it goes).

The real tension comes not from the name change but from where they are supposed to live while in the program – Utah. The Cheesemans are moved into a suburban rambler in Utah that happens to be surrounded by a solid contingent of wacky Mormons… With one exception – their next door neighbors, the Jameses. Michael is the first counselor in the local ward and his wife, Kate, who is pregnant, is just really, really nice. Michael’s little sister, Julie, is living with them while her parents are on a mission, which is a convenient setup for her to meet Patrick. The Jameses are super, ultra nice people, and not in the syrupy sweet Mormon “we’re really nice because we want you to join our church” way but in a genuine, sincere, selfless way. The rest of the ward, on the other hand, not so nice.

Upon their arrival, the Cheesemans are harangued by members of the local ward who all want to meet them and get to know them – until they find out they aren’t Mormon. That deters them initially, but the Jameses seem genuinely interested in the Cheesemans (though why this is the case isn’t very clear). So, the Jameses keep inviting them over for Family Nights and invite them to church services and church activities. Gina and Patrick quickly get into things; George takes a while to come around.

Michael also finds George a job at a Home Depot-esque store; a job George does not take to quickly. The impression is that he has never worked a regular, 8-hour a day job. So, on the side, George returns to his old ways and starts a scam in which he steals money from scrapbooking companies (more on this below). But this is, at best, just a side plot used for filler. The main plot is the relationship developing between the Cheesemans and the Jameses, along with the rest of the Mormon ward.

Gina and Patrick really seem to dig the “family-oriented” Mormon lifestyle, but George will have none of it until the FBI agent, Agent Tuttle (I believe), who is the Cheeseman’s main contact and protector in Utah, visits George to tell him that the FBI recently found his father’s remains. George believed his father had left him and his mother when he was young and had just never contacted them again. Turns out his father was killed in a mafia dispute and buried in a well. His father also had on him three plane tickets to Los Angeles – a point set up earlier in the story. George always wanted to go to Disneyland (why? because all Mormons love Disneyland, right?). George’s father had never taken him and, apparently, this meant he should be a jerk to his wife and son. Upon hearing that his father was going to take him just before he died, George has a change of heart and decides to embrace the “family togetherness” gospel of Mormonism (I put that in quotes because I don’t actually believe Mormonism preaches “family togetherness,” but more on that below).

As a result, George starts spending more time with his son, Patrick, and becomes a loving, caring husband to his wife, Linda. This also gets the Cheesemans going back to church. But, thankfully, they don’t go to the Mormon church but rather to the Catholic church, where they are the only people who attend (a ridiculous idea that is supposed to be funny). In short, George has a change of heart that gets him to embrace most of the Mormon “family love” values that the Jameses have exhibited throughout the movie.

But just as George makes this change, his mafia connections catch up to him. As a coffee aficionado (the source of his nickname, “The Beans”), George orders his coffee from a specialty online shop. Magically, the successor to the mob boss he put in jail, hires a hacker who is able to hack the online store’s order history. They then use this to locate George in Utah (completely unbelievable, but whatever). The successor and another hit man show up at George’s house one day, but flub the first assassination attempt, resulting in a long, drawn out chase scene that ends up with Agent Tuttle (who drives a mini-van), catching them and saving George.

With their cover blown, the Cheesemans are going to have to move. But, having finally made friends and begun to fit in, they don’t really want to. The FBI insists. However, to prevent the mafia from tracking them down again, the FBI stages an explosion that makes everyone think that the Cheesemans are dead, including their neighbors (and the audience, for a moment or two). The Cheesemans are then ready to skip town but… Not so fast.

As they are getting ready to board their flights, Agent Tuttle shows up and tells them that there has been an incident in the Mormon ward where they were living. Michael James, who was the first counselor in the bishopric, was just chosen to replace the former bishop who is moving. However, when the stake president asked for a vote of confirmation for Michael, about half the ward voted against him. The issue – he befriended a member of the mafia. So, his confirmation as bishop is put on hold. A meeting of those who dissented is scheduled for that night. George, Linda, and Patrick decide to throw away the effort put into the staged explosion and show up at the meeting to speak for Michael. George gives a touching speech about how good a person Michael is and then they leave. They then stop by Michael’s house to let him know that they aren’t dead (explosion completely wasted – but good special effects). While they are there, the stake president shows up and informs Michael that the dissenters have mostly had a change of heart. He will be confirmed as bishop. With that, the Cheesemans say goodbye and the movie ends.

Review:
Yes, I did say that the movie had a coherent plot. And, I’m sticking to that statement. I thought the plot was, at least at times, believable. It wasn’t great and it certainly could have been improved, but it was ten thousand times better than Baptists at Our Barbecue. So, that’s one positive about this movie – a believable, though poorly executed, plot.

The other major redeeming quality about this movie is just Mark DeCarlo, the actor who plays George. Mark was funny. I mean, really, he was very, very funny. I think he, alone, got it – he understood what would make this movie funny to people who are not Mormons. As a result, he does some really brilliant stuff. For instance, he tells a version of the Three Little Pigs to some little kids that had me rolling over in laughter. It’s the best version of the story I’ve ever heard (Guinea pigs…). Certainly it was mocking of Italian mobsters, but it was still funny. He also hit on some women during a very solemn Mormon sacrament meeting that just cracked me up. These things are funny to people who understand Mormon culture but don’t think like Mormons. Hitting on other men’s wives in a solemn sacrament meeting is brilliant humor! Also, DeCarlo/George happens to mention the particularly apparent obesity epidemic in Utah, going on a lengthy rant about the super-fat people he’s seen in Utah since moving there. Whether he knew it or not, DeCarlo was actually just reporting the findings of a recent study that found Mormons are heavier than non-Mormons (so much for the religion encouraging healthy behaviors; reference available upon request). What’s more, DeCarlo is a good actor who played his character convincingly. He didn’t have the best material to work with, but he worked wonders with it. And even though he may be the only non-Mormon actor in the movie (at least, I’m fairly certain he’s not Mormon), I’m not singing his praises because of that. He really was just a good actor.

The rest of the cast was okay, but DeCarlo really stole the show. I do have to mention one other actress who I really kind of hope would give up on acting – Jan Broberg Felt. She played the Relief Society gossip and all around nasty woman in this movie. She was the ringleader of the dissenters siding against Michael James and was constantly backbiting and rumormongering. And, while I recognize we weren’t supposed to like her character, I think I just don’t like her as an actress. (She was also Tartan’s mom in Baptists at Our Barbecue.) She overacts, which makes her characters unbelievable and annoying. Ms. Felt, you may be a really nice lady, I don’t know, but tone it down a bit, please – it’s just annoying!

Having mentioned the two good things about the movie (the acceptable plot and DeCarlo), let me turn to the problems. My biggest problem with the movie is that it plays out as an advertisement for Mormonism. It’s as though the writers, producers, and director wanted to branch out of the strictly Mormon audience and attract a wider following with this movie. To do so they explained everything you ever wanted to know about Mormonism – from when they arrived in Utah to their theology to the role of bishops and stake presidents and mission presidents to how “family friendly” Mormons are. Most of these explanations are offered by either Agent Tuttle, who is trying to help the Cheesemans fit in, or by Michael James, who is just trying to be nice. The explanations just didn’t fit. It was like the writer was trying too hard to make the movie make sense. If this movie is primarily for a Mormon audience, which it really is, then there is no reason to spend so much time on these things. Awareness of such stuff should be assumed among the audience. What’s more, the way all of this stuff is presented it paints Mormons as though they are perfect – they all love their families, never have any problems, are morally superior in every aspect of modern life, and are all around perfect people. I probably should have double-checked the credits to make sure the movie wasn’t sponsored by the LDS religion as an evangelism tool.

In a weird contrast with the blatant propaganda, the movie actually does a number of things that I think illustrate just how weird some Mormons can be (not all Mormons do these things, but many do). For instance, when George decides to set up his scrapbooking store scam, he walks in to his first one and poses as a labor union representative. This illustrates far more things than I think the writers intended. First, the fact that George is pretending to be a labor union representative in order to scam people gives you a good sense of what Mormons think of labor unions – they don’t like them (primarily because the leadership of the religion doesn’t – unions encourage people lower down the hierarchical ladder to stand up to those in authority, which is a huge no-no in Mormonism). Little do they realize the benefits that labor unions have wrought for the working man. Statistically speaking, Mormons are far more anti-union than the general population of the U.S. (references provided upon request). Additionally, the woman running the scrapbooking store says she treats her employees really well – she pays them minimum wage. I thought that was also a great illustration of how some Mormons think – they are cheap and pinchy and don’t treat their employees very well (minimum wage is “fair”?). In other words, it was the inadvertent stuff that was really informative about Mormons (even though these things are not true of all Mormons).

The reason I say this movie is ultimately just for Mormons is because, despite all of the explanations about Mormonism provided for the non-Mormon viewer, the final scenes of the movie are all of Mormon meetings. Without an insider’s understanding of such meetings they just wouldn’t make much sense. The whole voting fiasco, which would never happen, just wouldn’t make sense to anyone who is not familiar with Mormonism. First of all, no one ever dissents in these so-called “votes.” The “vote of support” in Mormonism is a remnant of days gone by when votes actually used to matter. For the most part they don’t anymore. And even if there is a dissenting vote in a Mormon meeting it doesn’t usually mean anything – except that the leaders will talk to that person to see why they aren’t on board with the rest of the congregation. Unless the complaint is very serious, the dissenter’s views are disregarded. I’ve only heard of two instances when these votes actually meant something – once in the ward I grew up attending a member was called to a position without his knowledge and he was the one who dissented (hilarious in its own right!). And I’ve heard that a ward in California once voted against someone and they won. In summary, this whole sequence is basically meaningless to non-Mormons and unrealistic to anyone who knows anything about Mormonism.

Lest readers think this movie had the insight to forego including all of the typical Mormon clichés and stereotypes, I’ll point out just a few of the many, many stereotypes included in the movie. Obviously there is Ms. Felt’s character, the super nosy and rumor-licious relief society queen – a classic Mormon stereotype. Patrick Cheeseman is invited up to Julie’s room at one point and then is reprimanded by James when he is found in her room. This is another Mormon cliché – no members of the opposite sex allowed in your bedroom.

Of course, there aren’t just Mormon stereotypes in the movie. The movie also reflects stereotypes Mormons hold of others. When Linda Cheeseman first goes to church services in Utah at a Catholic church she is the only person there. There may not be as many Catholics in Utah as there are Mormons, but there are plenty of them – they number in the thousands (probably tens of thousands). So, the movie takes a swipe at Catholics in passing, hinting that they aren’t devoted to their beliefs (take that you 1 billion Catholics in the world!). Perhaps in a nod to the Simpsons, in one scene that takes place at a convenience store, the person running the store is Arabic and is even wearing a turbin. I lived in Utah for 25 years and never saw an Arab wearing a turbin, let alone an Arabic convenience store clerk. The people who work in convenience stores in Utah are white, just like everyone else in Utah (though there is a growing Latino population). Oh, and the guy who played the Arab, he wasn’t Arabic. He was just a slightly dark-skinned white person.

The worst stereotypes held by Mormons, though, are those applied to the Cheeseman family. From when they are first introduced they are a completely dysfunctional family. George is into gambling (playing the lottery), he drinks like a horse, drinks coffee, yells at his wife, cheats on his wife, and doesn’t spend time with his kid. Linda is an abused wife who finds solace in alcohol. And Patrick is withdrawn and lonely – he can’t relate to his parents and spends all of his time with headphones on. Oh, and he steals stuff without any remorse. The typical non-Mormon family! (Urrghh!!!) Now, it would probably be unfair of me to say that the writers of this movie think this is true of all non-Mormon families, but you kind of have to wonder… Certainly it isn’t true, but I’m guessing a lot of Mormons believe it is (not all Mormons, but many probably do). Mormons have just as dysfunctional of families as do non-Mormons (divorce rates are the same; again, references available on request). Being Mormon doesn’t make your family wonderful. In fact, despite what Mormons claim, I firmly believe that Mormons are only pro-family when all of your family is Mormon.

Mormonism is, first and foremost, pro-Mormon. Family is second to the religion. Don’t believe me? Just ask a faithful Mormon if they would remain married to someone who leaves the religion and then criticizes it… While there are some who might, most would say that their faith is more important to them. Yep, religion is more important to them than their marriage. I know a number of people who have divorced over this very issue and the numbers seem to be going up. Mormonism isn’t anymore pro-family than is any other religion or those who have no religion. It just pretends to be to attract adherents – many of whom have to cut off ties to their families to join.

Overall, this movie is a major improvement over some of the other Mollywood movies I’ve seen (especially Baptists at Our Barbecue). Thankfully, the Cheesemans didn’t convert to Mormonism in the end. If they had, I would have had nothing nice to say about this movie. As it stands, the plot is mostly believable and Mark DeCarlo delivers a performance that makes the movie watchable/tolerable. The movie has many other failings, preeminently its non-stop advertisements for Mormons. I wouldn’t go so far as to recommend this movie, especially for non-Mormons. But as Mollywood movies go, this is one of the better films to come out of that movement. Watch with caution, but do enjoy DeCarlo’s performance!

I don’t review most of the movies I watch these days, but I do review some and I rate all of them on IMDB. Anyway, this isn’t my review, it’s Debi’s. If you’re familiar with the premise of Lorenzo’s Oil, you can skip to Debi’s review. If not, here’s the quick of it:

A boy named Lorenzo is diagnosed with adrenoleukodystrophy, a nuero-degenerative disorder that ultimately leads to death. His parents, who are not scientists, are frustrated by the lack of research and information on the condition, so they hit the books and come up with a special mix of oils that seem to help. The movie is based on a true story.

So, why the review? Well, Debi, as you may well know, is a genetic counselor. We picked up the movie because she wanted to know a bit more about this condition and had heard of the movie from some of her patients (the condition is genetic). Besides Nick Nolte’s awful portrayal of an English speaking Italian and Susan Sarandon successfully portray a real bitch of a woman, the acting isn’t too bad (especially the boy who played Lorenzo). But the movie has some serious, serious problems. With that introduction, here’s Debi’s review:

I had heard that Lorenzo’s oil was no silver bullet, but wanted to know for myself because it was referenced on a listserv of one of the patient support groups for a different genetic condition. Someone was using it to spur parents on to help find their own cures. The parent was frustrated and felt the doctors working on that condition didn’t care enough about the patients and were not doing anything to find a cure for the condition. The parent started giving her kids vitamin supplements and swore that they did amazing things. I understand parents’ frustration when there are no answers, but I don’t think it is fair to state that physicians do not care. What really bothered my about the statement from the listserv is that the parent was making an unfounded claim: I can’t say one way or the other whether the vitamins help because there have been no randomized controlled trials, which brings me to my first point about Lorenzo’s Oil:

• I agree that Lorenzo’s oil is a “story of high hopes that a cure for an awful disease was at hand in Lorenzo’s oil… A side-effect was to make randomised trials impossible, so that a decade and more on we’re still guessing whether this treatment has any benefit for anyone with this condition. It is not possible to say that it does. It is possible to say that it does not, at least for patients with established neurological symptoms.€ http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/neurol/lorenz.html

Let me explain. Because of the publicity and approach of Lorenzo’s parents, the Odones, most kids diagnosed with adrenoleukodystrophy end up on the oil. Because it is not possible to compare their outcomes with outcomes of people not on the oil supplement, it cannot be stated for certain that the oil helps. It seems to, but without a double-blind, controlled, scientific study, that is not something you can say with 100% certainty.
This answers the question I had as to why Lorenzo’s oil has not been approved by the FDA. (Until it is approved, availability is limited and insurance often does not cover the cost because it is considered experimental). There is not enough clear evidence for how well it works. The limited research that has been done supports the following (for details see the link above):

• Lorenzo’s oil rapidly reduces very long chain (C26:0) fatty acids in plasma to normal or near normal levels.
• Very long chain fatty acids in the brain appear unaffected in postmortem studies (probably because of the blood brain barrier).
• In patients with neurological symptoms, use of Lorenzo’s oil is not associated with any reduction of symptoms or delay in disease progression.
• There is limited evidence that use of Lorenzo’s oil in asymptomatic disease carriers may (repeat MAY) reduce the onset of symptoms.

Now as long as something is not harmful (though there are many ways something can be harmful including physical harm, emotional harm due to false hopes, and even financial harm), I am not necessarily against it, even if it has not been rigorously proven. What I do have a problem with is that the movie Lorenzo’s oil vilified those people who raised concerns about the possible harm. This brings me to my second and final concern with the movie:

• Lorenzo’s oil, the movie, is harmful to science and medicine because it vilifies people who are trying to protect others.

There are several scenes in the movie in which the Odone’s are portrayed as the heroes while the doctors and the people who are listening to the doctors are villified. The doctors are portrayed as being solely interested in studying the children with the disease and not curing them. Additionally, the doctors and scientists are portrayed as not working very hard on a cure and are hesitant to accept the findings of the Odones. This is particularly irksome because science is, by its nature, skeptical. That is what makes it such a powerful tool. It basically says, “I won’t believe what you say until you can prove it. And, you have to play by my rules – because these rules actually result in proof.” The movie presents a one-sided critique of that model without pointing out all of the amazing benefits to human society that have resulted from the scientific approach to studying our world and ourselves. Additionally, the doctors wanted to help and protect people and did not want to provide them with false hope, which is kind of what the Odones did with their approach.
In short, while the movie is both provocative and touching, it does a disservice to science by negatively portraying the standards employed by science in conducting research. Sure, it’s an interesting story, but it’s also misleading and disingenuous.