sidunrau

I recently have read pretty harsh criticism of Mother Teresa and her ministries, mostly from a modern perspective. I own a Mother Teresa quote book and could not reconcile the criticisms with her words. I was delighted to find this movie, which is a well-done portrayal of a woman who had a clear vision and acted to bring it about.

The movie does not address the modern controversies, at all. It does portray Mother Teresa's attitude, faith, fortitude and myopic focus: caring for the poorest of the poor. Being a devout Roman Catholic, she (of course) did everything in the name of Christ - believing Him to be her direct inspiration. She stood up to her superiors in the Church, stood up to government officials, stood up to social pressures, and pressed forward in establishing refuges for sick, hungry, dying and leprous people.

She seemed to not understand business transactions, and when she was confronted with the fact that one of her main benefactors had contributed dirty money (from clients he had swindled) she simply resolved to give the money back (to those who were swindled) immediately.

For me, the movie is a perfect balance of tension, resolution (mostly through faith), and inspiration. Mother Teresa did not care to distinguish Christians from Muslims or Hindus - she just provided care for whomever needed it to the extent she could. Her attitude was: if things go well/quickly, that is the Lord's will; if things come to a halt/go slowly, that is the Lord's will. She simply did what she could and accepted the outcome.

The film at least gave me context for the controversies/criticisms of her work, but all in all, I believe she was a great blessing and inspiration to many. Her stance on abortion (completely anti) was briefly portrayed, and, of course, there are some who feel that such an attitude is misogynistic or worse.

The set-up for the central tragedy to be responded to was carefully set- up, almost as if a home-movie. But after the tragedy and crises of faith (people affected by the tragedy responded differently) the movie seemed to become 1) more professionally filmed and 2) more laboriously wordy, even preachy at times. I felt that there were too many words, and that the ties to religious heroes as role-models were too strong-handed. That said, the turning point for the main character, which included a lengthy poem (which was perfect for this moment of the film), was, in a word (or two or three...), excellent, inspiring, thought-provoking and, even, paradigm-shifting, evoking contemplation for the viewer. I had the pleasure of seeing the writer/director/one-of-the-main-actors and another main-actor after the screening, and even they were moved by the film - again - after having been involved in its making. Could use some polishing and could be a bit shorter, but it is great for the whole family.

I took a co-worker, who had never heard of the movie or anyone in it. I heard about the movie on my local morning radio station - the main radio star (Jimmy Chunga) is in the movie (albeit a bit part). I had no idea what to expect and was absolutely delighted that it was quirky, silly, ridiculous, campy and everything else I loved about Napoleon Dynamite, except this time set in Salt Lake City (unnamed in the movie) and featuring the clash of culture between Japanese-Americans and Japanese- socially-challenged-folk. It is not for wee ones, but there's nothing overly offensive in the movie. Funny thing: by the end of the movie, I actually cared about the main characters, and couldn't help but think how clever the writers were keeping the characters internally consistent in their interactions. I just couldn't stop laughing during the movie - or long afterwords as my co-worker and I relived our favorite moments.

"Dark Knight" is an apt description of the movie. As in "Batman Begins," throughout the film the bad people seem thoroughly evil and the good people seem either barely able to do anything to fight evil or are on the verge of turning to the dark side. Only a few are thoroughly good - and hold to their morals (whatever they are) regardless of the circumstances. Batman himself decides to infringe upon freedoms a bit - justified by the good intentions, of course - and seems to think it is perfectly justifiable. Even Batman's rescues, saving the day and power-plays are filled with misunderstanding (i.e., many observing think he's one of the bad guys). The message: being good looks bad. Sorry - I don't like that message, nor do I buy it. But that is not the worst message of all (more later).

The movie is action-packed from beginning to end. It is clever and twisty; tons of sight-gags, insider stuff, entertaining (or at least interesting) quirkiness displayed by several of the characters, and contains an amazing array of perfect moments underscored by, well, an excellent musical score. I was on the edge of my seat the whole way through. Plenty to applaud. The bad guys betrayed each other, easily fell apart when truly challenged (for the most part), and created such sinister situations that the good guys were constantly forced to choose between two evils rather than simply prevail. The message: doing the best thing isn't always the same as doing the good thing. I don't like that message, either. Not to wax too political here, but even though I prefer one presidential candidate over the other, if the other guy wins I certainly won't think that the bad guys won, and if my guy wins I certainly won't think that he is simply the lesser of two evils. Maybe - just maybe - there is some good in the world; maybe there is LOTS of good in the world.

Back to Dark Knight: some of the actor choices were amazing, and some were less than wonderful. Maggie Gyllenhaal - I like her a lot! - was simply too old-looking for the part (she's only a year older than Katie Holmes, but she came across as ten years older). She would've been fine for the part had Katie Holmes not created certain expectations. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two Face was brilliant - he seemed thoroughly good, and yet there was always an air of mystery about him that hinted at his maniacal leanings that were manifest in the end of the film. Christian Bale was, once again, perfect for his role - mysterious, human, torn by mental and moral dilemmas, fragile, strong, and, perhaps best of all, clear about his motives, even if imperfect in his methods. Delicious.

But the best actor choice of all, as I'm sure many have already pointed out: Heath Ledger as Joker. At so many levels he was more than perfect. Taking a step back, it seems almost out-of-place to think of a less-than-thirty-year-old in a role where his counterparts are older - typically grandparent age. His character fit in beautifully - there was no apparent generation gap between him and the other hoodlums. However, seemingly single-handedly (which is impossible for what he pulled off, but his fellow colluders remained hidden) he was a diabolical genius. Not sure how much was Heath and how much was Joker - it was an AMAZING act. The Joker was both extremely intelligent and yet humorous. The message: doing really horrible things, even killing people, can be laughed at if the killer is entertaining. OK, maybe that's a method rather than a message; I have to admit, the combination of evil mixed with humor (or at least apparent mental illness) was highly entertaining. To me Heath Ledger's Joker is one of the archetypal actor/role combinations of all time, in the same vein as Johnny Dep/Jack Sparrow, Anthony Hopkins/Hannibal Lecter and Oprah Winfrey/Sofia - to name a few (sorry Jack Nicholson - you were replaced for this one).

The message I liked the least: You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain. NO! I don 't like that one! And I don't believe it to be true (even if in the movie it was a self-fulfilling prophesy).

Yeah, it's a great flick - but it's dark.

Wow what a fun ride! First of all, when I was a kid growing up the popular groups were Rush, Kiss, Styxx, Kansas, J Giles Band, Blondie, Pink Floyd, etc. - and I loved them all, just like everyone else, but, having a German father, I had spent some time in Europe with my cousins and ABBA was all the rage. I loved ABBA, too - and still do to this day (have an iTunes playlist titled ABBA-mania) - but nobody else did (except for a nerdy girl). So all these years (I graduated in '81) I've held onto my love of ABBA, and, until the play Mamma Mia!, I was pretty much the only one I knew who even knew the music at all well.

Sitting in the theater yesternight (opening night, OF COURSE!) with my wife, having never seen the play (of course I have the soundtrack) I knew the general story from the previews - girl getting married/doesn't know who her dad is/invites all three possible candidates/ABBA music throughout. But I was unprepared for the emotional thrill-ride I was about to experience...

From the opening notes to the closing credits, the show was pure entertainment. Seeing the very-slightly-adapted ABBA songs in "video/story" form was amazing. The writers cleverly worked the lyrics into the plot of the story. Meryl Streep - perhaps a bit old for her role - was pretty much perfect as the mother of the bride; her voice was surprisingly delicious, but even better: her acting like a teenager (the character never grew out of it) was SUPERB.

The bride herself had the best voice of all, and ALL of the characters added emotion, passion, meaning and depth to the lyrics as the songs were sung.

I was moved to dance, sing along, weep, LAUGH, rejoice, clap, and otherwise SMILE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE MOVIE. In a sense, I felt my childhood love for ABBA vindicated as I saw so many audience members - young and old alike - experiencing the same. The renditions, though familiar, were fresh and performed excellently (mostly, see below).

My only complaints are these: 1 - The story ended too abruptly; not much follow-through on anything; seemed like a play rather than a movie - I feel the transition from play to movie should've been a bit deeper; 2 - Most critics I heard lampooned Pierce Brosnan's voice but that misses the mark - his voice was fine (not like a professional singer, but absolutely adequate for the part); the problem is: his facial expressions while he sings were distractingly uncomfortable; he looked like he had just swallowed a few spiders every time he sang - and the director should've given some more direction there,IMHO; 3 - The VERY FEW adult-oriented site-gags and bits of dialogue could've been toned down so that this could have been a more family/teenager-friendly movie; and 4 - It was over too fast; they could've fit a few more of my favorites into the script somehow (am I the only one who loves Dum Dum Diddle, The Piper, Knowing Me - Knowing You and The Visitor?); but hey, it wasn't MY show to create.

Cameos by Benny Andersson were also fun.

THANK YOU FOR THE MUSIC and the MOVIE to all involved.

This film is great. The perspective is from a kid's point of view, which accentuates the feelings and actions of the story in a delicious way. The frustrations of youth, from dealing with peer pressures to dealing with parents & siblings, are thoughtfully treated. In short, this film feels "real" - like it could have been a slice of my own childhood, albeit the lines between perceptions, imaginations and actualities blur, as such lines blur in real life. Although mildly violent, I think it's a family film. The themes, though somewhat adult, are real, and the sort of issues that kids really get to deal with, and the issues are resolved, so one is left with a feeling of satisfaction.

William Wilburforce was a man with a clear vision that did not allow anything to get in the way of creating his dream. He enrolled others, kept apprised of useful information, overcame nay-sayers and personal setbacks, and became a true hero - without shedding a drop of blood. I just watched this movie with my family again - probably the tenth time - and it is still fresh, moving and inspiring. The acting is superb, the subtlety of the various subplots is delicious, and the cast is extraordinary. Nobody pushes this historical picture into ridiculous surreality. Bravo, bravo, bravo - and my thanks to all involved. I give it a 10 out of 10.

(VERY mild spoilers) Where do I begin? First of all, the trailer promised an interesting movie - even a moving movie - based on an all-too-familiar premise: a loved one needing to be cared for in a nursing home. With a great cast in place and a beautiful setting, the movie fizzled from the word go. Ugh.

OK, I get it - we all get it - people who age may lose their minds and need to be cared for away from home. We also get: the other spouse/family members may not know how to handle it. Only Hollywood is warped enough to assume that such left-behinds have nothing better to do to assuage their loneliness than sleep together.

Was this the same marvelous actress Olympia from former great movies? I couldn't tell; this performance lacked umph, energy, interest and life.

I can think of worse, so I'll give this film a 2 - but on the low side of 2. What a waste of time and money. If this review inspires even one potential movie-goer to avoid this junk, I'll feel it was worth spending even more time remembering this cinematic doo-doo to write this review.

This is a fun movie. The main character is convinced, against his will, to go home to Danmark to accept financial benefit for his soon-to-be-gone Indian orphanage. While there, he discovers that the money is not guaranteed and that the would-be benefactor desires for him to attend the wedding of his daughter. At the wedding the fun begins as people recognize each other, time lines are compared, and it turns out that the original set up of the movie is simply a red herring. I won't give anything else away except to say that it is a fun movie with very little nudity or crudity (especially for a Scandinavian movie, in my experience). I speak and understand Danish, and one of the main characters speaks Danish with a strong Swedish accent, which was also fun (the Danes probably don't think much of it, but I found it charming).

This movie isn't great, but it's clean and entertaining. The feel of those caught up in the multi-level marketing closely parallels the feel I get from some I know actually involved in such things. The borderline deception, the outright deception, the self-deception and the avoidance of facing reality are pretty well demonstrated. But the acting - almost all of it (except for Mr. Hoppe, who seemed eerily perfect for the part) - was just too "high school drama class" rather than artfully portraying characters, for me. Had the actors taken their roles just a bit more seriously so that the audience could at least believe just a bit more - and therefore care a bit more - this could have been a fun hit movie. The subject matter is familiar - too familiar, in my opinion - to virtually all Americans, so all the elements were there for a good fun comedy. Better luck next time, people!

This film is hilarious. The set up is a bit unbelievable, but the actors make it work - and mostly believably. The model in the film is refreshingly genuinely nice and not a caricature of a "supermodel." The depth of the main unwitting character, the valet himself, is a bit lacking - but hey, he is charming, as is the rest of the cast. Besides, since he is lovesick, perhaps his lack of depth is at least understandable. The feel of the movie is also quite uplifting - the bad guy loses in the end, and the good guys win. The ride is just fun, and filled with twists and turns, most of which the audience gets to be in on. The only character that was TOO shallow was the valet's girlfriend - she just didn't seem to be worth all the fuss, to me. I don't understand the PG-13 rating - it is not vulgar nor is there any nudity.

This movie is difficult to adequately describe. Many movies cause me to ponder things - especially as the movies resonate with my own life. In this movie there was much to resonate with - either from my own personal life or in the lives of close personal friends. Themes of loneliness though surrounded by people who care, of not knowing what to do to get "un-stuck," to feeling certain about certain things even though nobody around seems to agree - such themes in this film resonated with my soul.

But this movie inspired me beyond thinking. I was inspired to FEEL - to really experience the emotions evoked by the themes of the movie. Here we have a movie with no nudity or sex, yet with an authenticity in its presentation that is rarely present in other movies.

I praise the filmmakers and hope the R-rating won't scare away too many; it is a valuable thought-provoking ride.

(MILD spoilers) This movie works on so many levels I just loved it. Although some things were added to the Biblical story, and some parts of the Biblical story were molded to fit popular misconception, the overall effect was truly glorious.

Added to the story were logical extensions of the story, such as the legal reality of a betrothed woman pregnant prior to officially moving in with her husband, and the reciprocal situation of a husband claiming to be the father of a child prior to his official time to be a father.

A bird (not a dove) was ever present near angelic visitation scenes, presumably to insure understanding (think: Touched by an Angel). The angelic visitor was well done - seemed real yet other-worldly.

The acting was splendid - especially Joseph & Harod. I also enjoyed Mary, her parents, Elizabeth and the quirky wise men.

The Magi, though not appearing at the birth according to the Bible, were interestingly portrayed and added comic relief (mildly) and depth to the story.

I was sad by the lack of dramatic portrayal of two scenes. The first was the meeting of Mary & Elizabeth; it seemed less than powerfully portrayed, although Elizabeth's enthusiastic delivery of her lines was excellent. The scene simply lacked the majesty and umph I get from the Biblical account.

The other disappointment was the annunciation to the shepherds by the angel. In the Bible we read that the angel was joined by a multitude of heavenly hosts singing "Glory to God in the Highest." No choir of angels in this movie; I longed to see that portrayed.

Nevertheless, musically the movie was astonishingly wonderful. The score had all the orchestration and "feel" of a typical dramatic movie soundtrack, yet the underlying melodies were familiar Christmas carols, which immediately added emotional power at a level impossible for unfamiliar soundtracks, in my opinion. From the "O Come, O Come Immanuel" in the beginning to "Carol of the Bells" dramatically enhancing the urgency of approaching Bethlehem to look for a place to birth a baby, to "Silent Night" as the Holy family travels to Egypt, the fusion of music to story was superb.

This is truly a movie for the whole family. I don't understand the PG rating - all violence (which is REALLY minor) is off-screen or implied, and the story itself is so familiar that most preschoolers I know are familiar with it.

I'll definitely buy this one and it will become part of our family Christmas traditions.

(Warning: MILD spoilers) I loved the character development in this movie. Unfortunately, the historical events depicted were VERY Luke-warm in their presentation. The most disappointing scene was of the Kirtland Temple dedication. The event was amazing for those who experienced it - and even some saw angels and others, outside the building, thought the building was on fire because of the glow. But in the movie there was nothing but mediocre singing with a voice-over of the Prophet reciting part of the prayer; very ho-hum.

Some of the effects were lousy due to the low budget (night scenes shot in the daytime, for example).

Overall, the story is excellent and it is an uplifting beautiful work; just not as polished or powerful as I would have hoped.

(Mild spoilers) This is a movie that has good ideas, but is poorly acted, filled with plot holes, and is unbelievable all the way around (especially if you're LDS and know anything at all about missionaries). Nevertheless, the movie had it's (intentionally) funny moments.

The cowboy "investigator" seemed too insider to truly be an investigator - and his desire to be baptized coupled with the dialog, only a few minutes later (in the same scene) about how the bishop had spoken with one of the fake missionaries' fathers is too inconsistent for the weak plot to reconcile. My only concern is that non-Mormons might get the idea that anyone can just "fake" being a missionary (why one would want to is beyond me), because Mormons are too stupid to catch on.

Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted.

UPDATE: Sometime in 2011 the movie was re-worked. I've heard (from missionaries serving on Temple Square) that the new movie is 65% new footage - and I've heard that it is 65% old footage. Regardless, many of the scenes from the first version of the movie are intact, and many are new.

The most significant difference is the story itself, and the impact of the story. Here is a brief comparison:

OLD FILM: Story narrated by a convert who was sharing her excitement about her new faith with her non-Mormon father as she traveled to Nauvoo. She unfolds the story of the life of Joseph Smith to her father, and when they finally arrive at Nauvoo, Joseph is on his way to be martyred, and she ends her narration with a line, "you don't have to have seen the Prophet to know he truly was a man of God" (or something like that).

NEW FILM: Narrated by an older woman's voice, it turns out to be the testimony of Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, and as she tells the events of Joseph's life she is able to make it very personal since she was an eye-witness to much of it. Her identity is not revealed until the end, when it shows her closing her testimony

I wasn't sure what to think about this movie from the previews. I think I expected an inspiring story of a rock star-turned-Mormon. That's not what this film is about.

Arthur Kane was part of a band, the New York Dolls, that was ahead of its time and, though never receiving too much glory, apparently inspired many other bands re: sound, image, energy, look, etc.

Kane was part of this band, but was even more part of the world of alcohol-induced avoidance of reality and responsibility, as were his fellow bandmembers, and the band broke up, seemingly in its prime.

Years later, somehow, Kane requested a Book of Mormon and found out that the Mormons don't just send you a book in the mail - they send missionaries to bring it, too. Kane explains that he received a revelation from God in answer to praying about the Book of Mormon - and compared that experience with getting high without the drugs. But by that time in his life he had lost most everything of value in his life - his fame, his wife, his wealth - and so it was lucky, in a sense, that he found the Church to give some meaning to his life.

Sprinkled throughout the film are members of other bands, Mormon church leaders, Mormon co-workers (Kane volunteered at a genealogy library), and others who, all, give beautiful kind remarks about the man Arthur Kane.

The film shows some healing that went on in Kane's life, in conjunction with reuniting with the rest of his band at the invitation of Morrissey. It was truly inspiring to see that Kane was able to mend fences with some estranged friends.

Was the movie inspiring? Somewhat. Was it interesting? Absolutely. Was it sad? That's what gets me - it is a sad movie, overall, as it weaves the tale of a spent fellow human who found faith later in his life but never returned more than a fleeting sense of the glory days of his youth, which he explains were the best times of his life. It is a good story, lovingly done, but I am left with a sense of loss for wishing that Kane could have recovered more thoroughly.

Just got back from "States of Grace." Truly an amazing film. It was not what I expected. Much less "Mormon" than "God's Army" in some ways. I was moved. Dutcher, in a way that reminded me of the evocative Sacrament scene in "Brigham City," ended this film with a very moving, personal experience shared by all the main characters in the film, which ingeniously had a powerful-yet-different meaning for each of them.

I was surprised at how long it was - just over 2 hours. If you're going to see a feel-good fluffy movie, this is not the one. It is PG-13 for good reason. Very faith promoting, but not "sweet." It is difficult to evaluate such a film for technical aspects; there were too many overwhelming moments in the film that skilfully drew me in.

One last observation: the film is excellently Christ-centered. Dutcher beautifully weaves a coherent fabric of the love of Jesus for all people out of disparate strands. At times I almost didn't want to see how a scene would end, because of the heaviness, but in the end it was all worth it. Mixing typical Mormon symbols and sentiments and typical Christian symbols and sentiments, the feel at the end ameliorates much of the pain displayed in the movie, and demonstrates how hope can prevail.

This second installment of the series based on the "Work and the Glory" books far exceeds the first effort. The music, cinematography, story line, acting and general "feel" of the movie are all great. I have not read the underlying novels, so I have no idea how or if the story details in the movie mirror the books, but I can say this: this movie is moving, inspiring, and dramatically (though slightly fictionally, since the main family is fictional) portrays a slice of true American history.

I do not believe the movie is preachy, at least not about Mormonism. I think most Americans (and others), who take for granted such notions as a free press and upright civil authorities who can be trusted to uphold the law, will easily recognize how different such things were back then.

Mormon history buffs will be a bit disappointed that some of the details were glossed over or left out. My only complaint is that, in an attempt to make this movie appeal to non-Mormon audiences, some of the more dramatic mythic stories from Joseph Smith's time, though alluded to in the movie, are not satisfyingly portrayed.

Not for young children, this movie gets a 9 from me; just a bit more coherence in the story line and some other such movie "polish" would have garnered a 10.

Bravo to all involved! And thanks for a family-friendly, beautiful, moral story that all who see can connect to.

This movie is great fun! The actors are great, the points for both Mormons and non-Mormons are great (and not preachy, except maybe to some uppity Mormons, who are given a great picture of themselves), and the story is just hilarious.

I was glad to see some new actors in this one. Yeah, some of the same-old recycled typical Mo-actors were there, but there were some great new faces to enjoy, and not at all bad actors.

My only complaint: the filming was WAYYYyyy uneven. In the beginning and sprinkled throughout some of the scenes seem to have been shot on a hand-held standard (i.e. not movie-quality) video camera, and it shows.

Yeah, it's cheesy - but it's good clean fun. I gave it a 7 because it's definitely a good movie, family-safe, though not a great classic.

Not really a great movie, or a great use of talent, and the portrayal of the Church and the situation in the town was unbelievable and ridiculous, BUT: it had its very funny moments, and was clean. The underlying theme of getting along and resolving differences by bringing people of varying ideas together was apt and even noble. I'm a Mormon and I know my Baptist cousins are taught at we (Mormons) are going straight to hell, but they are still accepting of me and my family. Hence, to an extent, the movie rings true.

Just a note to the critics: This isn't a statement about Mormon doctrine or the grander social wars in our world or in American culture; this movie is, obviously, mostly an insider (to Mormons) poke-fun-at-ourselves type of movie. No reason to get all uppity about whether the movie took upon itself the most appropriate disparate subcultures of Christianity, or whether Mormons could truly accept anyone but others so (from the outside) similar.

I just got back from seeing this movie with three kids. The movie had appeal for everyone: - for the kids, because it was kid-oriented and clean; - for the adults because there were sprinkles of nostalgia throughout; and - for anyone else because it was just a good clean fun movie.

There was no great script or acting here, just some real fun for all. We could all relate to the main character, who had to struggle with finding out what he had and deciding what he would do with it, who his friends were, where his loyalties lie, and how much integrity to demonstrate.

The violent scenes were mostly slapstick or cartoonish enough so as not to distress small children (I say mostly because there is some violence, but no blood or gore; just people smashing into or through things, etc.).

I especially liked that Lynda Carter gave a nod to her Wonder Woman character, and that Clois Leachman - one of my favorite actresses - was involved, once again, with superheroes - and with Lynda Carter, too (Clois was Lynda's mother in the original Wonder Woman movie).

Also, although only caricatures, the script-writers and kid actors were true to the typicalities of high school. The social divisions, the crushes, the nerds, the cool kids - it was all there. And the only annoying characters were supposed to be annoying.

I sincerely wish the script had been better written, so that the actors had had more to work with. But they did their best with what they had, and overall it was just great, good clean fun - so rare in today's movie world. Unlike Willy Wonka's current incarnation, there was no odd bite or double entente's to worry about. Take the kids - especially your inner child - and enjoy!

I had read nothing but negative reviews of this movie. I went with a friend out of sheer boredom, and we were both laughing our heads off the whole time. He and I had both been boy scouts and had both had our share of pinewood derby experiences... perhaps that added to our glee.

I think the critics missed the mark because they are adults looking from an adult perspective, but this movie is from kid perspective; nothing adult about it.

The movie is a caricature about family relationships, midlife crises, childhood rivalry carried into adulthood, unexpected triumphs, and unexpected defeats. It is truly good clean fun - no cusswords, no sex, nothing but silly antics. The kids acted like kids and the adults acted like kids, just as one would expect from a kid's perspective.

This is no epic - it is completely silly. But it is fun, funny, entertaining, and family friendly. THANKS, Hollywood, for the rare non-offensive to anyone (that I can imagine) movie.

VERY mild spoilers.

This movie has some great funny parts. The friends I was with kept saying "where's the plot?" Well, the plot was done in, well, chick-flick style - plenty of relationship touchy-feely stuff, and not much action. But that's what I expected.

For me the strength of the film was in the development and interaction of the characters. The writers spared no silly jokes in virtually any conversation - which is why I wanted to see the film in the first place.

Kevin Bacon as a fake German gay hair-salon owner was a bit disappointing; when we actually saw him try to work he didn't seem to know anything about the how to do hair - which contradicts the premise of his character. He could have been a competent hair-dresser and still been a total jerk.

Queen Latifa, as usual, was wonderful, witty, funny, delivered her lines perfectly, and simply knows how and when to do things just at the right moment. I'm sure the editors, director and others also deserve credit for her performance, but she shines in whatever she's in.

OK, I don't mean to make this out to be a great movie; it isn't. It's entertaining, touching and funny - but it's mostly just "there" and doesn't really move me beyond the moment. When it was over I was ready to go home.

This was a fun movie. One of my favorite film critics really trashed it so I had low expectations. This movie has action, slight romance, adventure, and a pair of lovable lead characters.

The eccentricities of the main characters provided most of the entertainment for me, including the female lead. Each had a different agenda, different talents, and distinct flavors to add to the mix. I loved how all those elements blended together in the context of the underlying story.

There are two story lines - both of which are hinted at in the trailers. One is a mysterious hidden plant in the desert; the other is the main character's obsession with finding a lost Conferate iron-clad ship - also in the middle of the desert. With the "desert" connection, the story unfolded in a very satisfying way.

Yes, the whole thing is implausible (no way a Civil War ship could cross an ocean, get up a river and end up under all that sand - especially without anyone noticing; also, no way the "danger" was so absolute and universal - well, I guess that's the way many Hollywood flicks put things - the characters have to save the world). But implausible as it is, it refreshingly and fantastically entertaining.