Witnesses

I really enjoyed this film.

First, it was not cheesy like many can be in this genre.

Second, the acting, cinematography, music, editing, sets, costumes, etc. Were all very well done and professional. This was a very well-built film.

Third, the story jumped around a lot chronologically. While that can make for a more interesting film - and people already familiar with the origins of the Church probably followed the story just fine - those who are less familiar with the founding of the Church will probably be confused at times.

For example, why is Joseph Smith falling? Oh, never mind; it was just a dream. Wait, he's dead? Was that from the fall or something else?

The scene only makes sense if you already know the story.

But perhaps my favorite thing about the film is that it didn't shy away from the controversial parts of Church history. Rather than gloss over them or skip them altogether, the film showed how those events impacted the decisions of early Church members and leaders.

The film gives color to the black and white understanding many of us think we have of these people.

As a result, I have so much more appreciation and respect for David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery.

If you are a Latter-day Saint, this is a must-see movie.

I'm looking forward to owning it when it comes out on disc.

"Historically accurate!" "Honest!" "Amazing film!"

These are how positive reviews are framing this story of a two-bit conman and his hapless marks.

If you're unsure if this movie is worth your time - ask yourself... do you trust positive reviews from people who believe a conman's story about speaking to god via a stone he was hiding away inside of a hat that only he was allowed to look at, along with golden tablets he received (but didn't let anyone else see and mysteriously disappeared never to be found) and translated as the word of god himself?

If you trust the positive reviews coming from people who believe this obvious conman spoke the truth - then this movie is for you.

If, however, you are capable of thinking about something without drooling all over yourself then you probably won't enjoy this movie.

The film focuses on real people as they live through extra-ordinary events, The history aspect is more a backdrop in the lives and emotions of the characters. Too often, Church History genre of films are overshadowed by speculation, conspiracy, or are too focused on depicting key points in their portrayal of historical figures, actions, events and their context. Refreshingly, this film did not go there, leaving the audience to be entertained rather than schooled. This movie is about people, not a Prophet, nor a Church, nor a book (though these 3 things play a crucial role and are portrayed with painstaking historical accuracy in my opinion.) But as such, the film may leave unfamiliar movie-goers with lots of questions about the Prophet, the Church, and the Book of Mormon. For example, my wife asked whether the early Church didn't baptize woman.

The church use to excommunicate people for teaching that Joseph Smith translated from a hat. Most of this is white washed history.

I wish I could give Witnesses a higher rating. After all, it means well, and the acting is good. However, as a film, it's a little messy. First of all, it's a frame story, so there's that element, and then they have three different accounts they're trying to tell at the same time. Plus, in addition to all that, they also jump around in time within those accounts. It gets confusing. And I feel like they tried to cram too much into the movie. I'm fairly familiar with the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I imagine Witnesses would be quite confusing for someone who isn't.