What's new
By:

LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!

Reed Cowan's (supposedly) reaction via the comments section:

Jeff. Are you a journalist? Seriously! You obviously didn't see the film, much the same as the church you work for admits they have not. We did solicit the participation of the LDS leaders and we do show in the film that they repeatedly turned us down. We play a phone interview with LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah for Heaven's sake. I invite you to be a journalist and not a sniper for the church who writes your paycheck. So so disappointed in you. See the film. Then have your say. it is CLEAR you did not see the film before reviewing it. If you did, you obviously had extended pop corn/bathroom breaks and missed that which you write about. Your readers might also be interested to know that after my co-director Steven Greenstreet questioned your review you deleted him on facebook. Tremendously sad.
Click to expand...
 
The Thriller said:
I apologize, but I wasn't directly calling you ignorant, but just the assumption that because of Vice's position his review of this film is tainted any more than other film critics is ignorant.
Click to expand...

Why? The measure is relative instead of absolute. Vice's paper is owned by the organization that is being attacked. The Deseret News, like it or not, has more of an interest in how the film is perceived than, for example, the Los Angeles Times.

There is a significantly greater risk that Vice is subject to editorial control with respect to reviewing this particular film than any other newspaper in the country. It's not specific to Vice. If the church owned a newspaper in Boise, that paper's movie reviewer would be subject to the same scrutiny.

Think about it this way: it's difficult to take the review at face value for the same reason that it's hard to take a review of the film by a rabid anti-mormon seriously.

I believe that Vice does his best to review films from an objective standpoint rather than a mormon standpoint. That objectivity, however, has to be harder to maintain in this instance than it is when reviewing Brokeback Mountain.

Hell, why even review it? He could have passed this movie by and probably 99.9% of readers wouldn't have noticed.
Click to expand...

This argument cuts both ways. Why review it? Maybe to discredit a movie that attacks the paper's owners? Frankly, the review reads more like an argument against the viewpoint presented by the film rather than a review of the film itself.

Here's another one, have you seen this movie? Religulous? How accurate is Vice, just out of curiosity? https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700004997/Religulous.html
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it. I like Bill Mahrer generally (I think he makes John Stewart look like a simpleton), but I do remember that his anti-religious speech at the Oscars was pretty obnoxious.
 
Steve Salles (Standard Examiner reviewer) gave it three stars out of four, for whatever you think that's worth. I happen to like Salles' work, so I would be likely to agree with him.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Reed Cowan's (supposedly) reaction via the comments section:
Click to expand...
Jeff. Are you a journalist? Seriously! You obviously didn't see the film, much the same as the church you work for admits they have not. We did solicit the participation of the LDS leaders and we do show in the film that they repeatedly turned us down. We play a phone interview with LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah for Heaven's sake. I invite you to be a journalist and not a sniper for the church who writes your paycheck. So so disappointed in you. See the film. Then have your say. it is CLEAR you did not see the film before reviewing it. If you did, you obviously had extended pop corn/bathroom breaks and missed that which you write about. Your readers might also be interested to know that after my co-director Steven Greenstreet questioned your review you deleted him on facebook. Tremendously sad.
Click to expand...

"OMG, you like, totally deleted me on FB!!!1"

Ho Lee Snotballs, what are we, twelve year old girls?
 
I just finished it. I'll say this right off the bat: I initially thought the claim that the reviewer hadn't seen the movie was pretty ridiculous. Obviously that stretches the boundaries of credulity because it's an integrity issue and one that essentially goes to whether or not the person and the publication can be trusted.

Having seen the film, the Deseret News review does have an extremely significant factual error: one that would be completely inexcusable unless the reviewer failed to view several minutes of the film. While I'm not willing to completely say that he failed to view the film at all, I will say that it is questionable in my mind if he viewed the whole film or if he paid attention during a full segment of the film. While he may not necessarily be dishonest, he certainly did a poor job in this instance. Frankly, I think I'm being charitable.

Also, I had no idea Chris Buttars was an LDS Bishop (twice apparently). How long ago was this? I can't seem to find a time frame on his service anywhere. Certainly, I'd be troubled if this was at all recent.

I have further thoughts but will reserve them for now while I let it percolate.
 
Raspberry Delight said:
Originally Posted by Sirkickyass I put it on. My first comment: I'm annoyed there's hardly any graphic nudity.
Click to expand...

Well in that case I think I'll skip it too. I'd rather watch that 80's classic: "Making Love." Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin swapping spit, Kate Jackson as the spurned wife - what more can you ask for? I highly recommend "the poster formerly known as Skellington" try to find a copy somewhere. Oh yeah, and "Zorro, the Gay Blade" with George Hamilton is classic comedy at it's best.
 
The Thriller said:
This is a stretch in my mind. What is Vice referring to? It's never stated whether the filmmakers tried to get LDS Church Officials input... "It" in this sentence could be a million things. Their position on gay marriage, their position on prop 8, baptism (whether homosexuals can or should be baptized, whether homosexuality is a choice or not, what the "breaking point" is for homosexuals since probably some church members are homosexuals but haven't come out of the closet, financial issues, voting, etc. "It" is too broad.
Click to expand...
My son, this is a terrible argument. I command you to repent immediately.
 
The Thriller said:
Brokeback Mountain, a movie about homosexuals, nearly a perfect rating.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...-Mountain.html

Yet, this movie was banned by theaters here in Utah.
Click to expand...

Um, no. No it wasn't. It was rather outrageously pulled the night before it was scheduled to open by one group of theaters. Larry H. Miller. Every other local theater -- the Centuries, Cinemarks, etc. (at the time they were two different things) -- played the movie as normal. That's when I vowed to never spend another dime at Larry H. Miller theaters, so I remember the situation quite clearly. The CEO of Cinemark ended up in a small controversy when it was revealed that he had donated several thousand dollars (I forget how much) to prop 8.... but.... that doesn't quite hold the same weight, on the outrage meter, of the cowardice and backwards thinking that Larry H. displayed on that night.

I only point this out because Utah should not be tarred with the acts of cowards. There are good people in Utah; it deserves a better reputation than it gets.
 
That's what, $875 per screen per day? So in its opening weekend it sold 100 tickets per day (per screen)? 20 tickets per showtime? That is pretty horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top