New Temple Movie Review

DISCLAIMER: In this post I present my biased opinion as to the way it was filmed and put together. I also like to throw a bit of humor in just to lighten it up. This is not meant to disparage the Endowment or the film. Also I don’t discuss anything I have covenanted not to. I hope there’s no hard feelings from any of my L-DS friends(if they read it).

After a brief pre-recorded introduction the officiator sat down. I was surprised how few people were in this session because of how many cars were in the temple parking lot. I had joked with my wife that, “All these people must be here for the premier.” Then lights in the creation room dimmed and the movie began. The first new thing was the music. It had some good oomph to it, but the violin parts made it seem really small for an epic expansive space shot. Then multicolored nebulae appeared on the screen. However they seemed a bit to stiff and motionless, I was hoping for something a bit more epic.

As we panned through another nebula white streaks of light appeared from the bottom of the screen. Then in a bright flash there was God, Jehovah, and Michael. Their bright white clothing was a significant improvement over the plastic shower curtain style of the previous films. God looked Jewish and Jehovah had effeminate lips accentuated by his white mustache and beard. The whole scene was brightly light with glowing effects. The hardest part to make out was what they were standing on. It was like a big glowing rock.

After some dialogue, heaven disappeared and in a bright flash and we were back with the nebula. As the dialogue of the formation of the earth progressed we saw several shots of the earth forming. A ball of gas; a molten planet; then the planet cooling. They definitely did a pretty good job of incorporating modern scientific understanding of planet formation.

fantasy-the-lord-of-the-rings-fantasy-art-artwork-HD-WallpapersThen as they planned the formation of land we saw a “Lord of the Rings”-esque planning shot with drawings of water, mountains, volcanoes and rivers appearing on a parchment-like background. When we got to the stage of actually carrying out the plan(“we will go down”) we saw actual shots of volcanoes, rocks, rivers, etc.

If I recall correctly it was at this point that we went back to heaven in a bright flash. Then I realized just what it was they were standing on. I noticed that this “rock” has an opalescent quality. I also noticed diamond and glass-like qualities to the surface. BING! That’s supposed to be like the “sea of glass” mentioned in revelations. It was kind of cool but also a bit disorienting. They were just standing on this blob of glowy, glassy, shiny stuff.

The creation continued with Lord of the Rings parchment planning scenes and the live shot “creating” scenes. The dialogue hadn’t changed so it didn’t seem any more open to evolution than any of the previous versions. The only big difference is that we saw the earth form as I mentioned above. Also something new happened when they were creating the lights, the greater to rule the day, the lesser to rule the night; when they got to the stars we all cast our gaze skyward as LEDs which had been installed in the ceilling, lit up to engross us in the experience.

Then when the earth is pronounced finished we saw a huge wave crash dramatically over a rock, probably filmed somewhere in the pacific. It was a nice shot.

Then we went back to heaven and prepared for mankind to be created. When they started discussing it, we get the parchment drawings again, but this time of Adam and Eve and a pair of hands holding the forbidden fruit. The actual tree of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was rather small. It was dwarfed by the palm trees behind it.

We went down to the tropical paradise garden(Really, why is it always a tropical paradise? Why not a north American forest or something?). As Adam was formed the camera panned past some rocks with a small cleft where we briefly caught a glimpse Adam laying down. Then it moved past the rocks and we got a clearer view of Adam. He was laying down with his upper body propped up against a rock. Everything below his neck was covered in mist. I noticed that some light chest hair could be seen on our Adam. Behind Adam was something like a thin rock wall. Elohim and Jehovah were standing behind the rock wall. This was one of the corniest shots, because it looked like Adam is snoozing in a hot tub.

40330_proAdam was a Josh Brolin look-alike. He was in his late 30’s. He didn’t necessarily have white-white skin, but his black hair and eyebrows made his skin look white. However Adam’s voice wasn’t what I expected, it was slightly high pitched and nasally.

After Adam got up, Elohim and Jehovah presented Eve to him. Adam and Eve looked off into the distance at the Garden as they are about to be introduced into it. The lights went up and we moved from the Creation Room into the Garden Room.

Eve was also in her later 30s and not as attractive as many have been hoping for. The blonde Eve in the previous film was probably the most attractive. Our Eve was a Miriama Smith look-alike except she looked older and less attractive. Of course for all I know it could very well have been Miriama Smith who would now be older and maybe less attractive than when I saw her in “Other Side of Heaven.” (I don’t think she really is, but then again I don’t follow celebrities).

I spent the rest of the endowment trying to remember what movie she looked like she was from.

I spent the rest of the endowment trying to remember what movie she seemed to be from.

NOTE: I know some may find discussing the attractiveness of the actress who plays Eve to be distasteful. And I find it a bit superficial myself. However I’ve noticed it is one of the topics discussed about the new temple movie. So I feel it is appropriate to include it.

In the Garden Room with the lights dimmed the film resumed. We saw various shots of Adam and Eve walking through the Garden. We literally NEVER saw ANYTHING below the shoulders. Thankfully though, instead of the only employing the miraculously placed flora trick to hide Adam and Eve’s naughty bits, they were carrying baskets woven from plants(I thought there was no death before the fall. So how could they kill the leaves of a plant to make a basket?). They were gathering leaves and fruits in these baskets presumably to eat.

Adam was carrying one such basket when suddenly he saw a red robed man crouched near the Tree of Knowledge. This was of course Lucifer who then stood up and offered Adam some fruit. Adam refused the dried-ornamental-pepper-strawberry-tomato fruit(I would too. It looked all dried and disgusting. I prefer the triple-lobed-pear-plum fruit of the previous film.).

Lucifer in this film was easily forgettable compared to Micheael Ballam’s Lucifer. He was a

For Lucifer just imagine Jim Parsons but with less hair.

For Lucifer just imagine Jim Parsons but with less hair.

small mousy man. He was clean shaven and balding. The only thing that gave him any screen presence was his wardrobe. He wore bold reds contrasted with dark blacks. Golden embroidery adorned his apparel. As the film progressed Lucifer, Adam, and Eve’s attire changed, presumable to represent the passage of time. It was a nice touch that helped the story feel like it was moving along.

Next we saw Eve sitting down, her naughty lady bits covered in the latest“modest is hottest” woven baskets. Lucifer approached her from a distance. Slowly he snaked his way closer, tempting her. Then he knelt before her with his head bowed, offering the fruit to her as the only way to become like God. She paused and contemplated. She stood and looked towards the tree. You could see on her face that this was a difficult decision. Then, almost tearfully, she took the dried-ornamental-pepper-strawberry-tomato fruit and took a bite.

Lucifer kind of seemed like a nice guy up until this point; but after Eve partook his demeanor changed as he knew he had succeeded. He told Eve to get Adam to partake. In the next shot Adam was sitting by a tree with bushes that just happened to be blocking the camera view to anything below his shoulders(the camera man couldn’t have moved the camera?). Eve tearfully approached Adam and explained what happened. She told Adam that he will be left alone in the garden. He knew what he must do to remain with Eve. A tear rolled down his left check as a took the fruit and ate it. Then they embraced to show their unity and solidarity through this situation.

They did a really good job at eliminating the mindlessness of Eve. They were portrayed as much more active and loving to each other.

Then Lucifer came back his face was partially obscured by shadows so that it looked almost grey. Another negative against Lucifer was his “Dark Knight” voice. However instead of gargling marbles he just hissed all of his lines in loud whispers. Gone are the days of an operatic Satan bellowing his lines boldly! Now his lines quietly hiss forth out of his mouth.

When Elohim and Jehovah returned, after Adam and Eve had supposedly cover their naughty bits in fig leaves, we saw probably the most campy shot in the film. It is from the perspective of God looking at Adam and Eve. There was literally dense foliage EVERYWHERE. Then in the center of the screen were two little heads poking up out of it. The foliage near Adam and Eve looked like CGI, or they were standing so close to it that was casting odd shadows. I mean seriously, why are Adam and Eve going to be standing around, nearly naked, in dense, prickly plants. They already covered their naughty bits in fig leaves so God wouldn’t see their nakedness. Maybe they didn’t have enough time to weave fig leaves so they just ducked into some brush. Nevertheless, I want to see some fig leaves!

The lights went up and we moved into the room representing the Lone and Dreary World. As the film resumed we saw Adam and Eve get cast out of the Garden. Now when they say cast out into the Lone and Dreary world, they mean LONE and DREARY! They contrasted the lush garden, not with sparse forest and dead trees like the previous film, but with the Grand Canyon. We’re talking DESERT! In some wide angle shots of the canyon you can see a tropical lush mountain in the distance(Eden?).

Then Peter, James, and John came onto the scene. Peter was an older, bald, white guy. James had greying hair and seemed almost middle eastern. John looked like a Filipino American.

Eve doesn’t just stand around during this part anymore, she has a little more to do. At one point Lucifer threateningly sat down next to her and she bolted to her feet to get away.

Finally when Satan want on his schpiel about ruling everything he was standing on a cliff edge with montage of shots of him filmed from a circling helicopter.

Overall, I would say this film is an improvement. The visuals are vastly improved. Yet, I would say there is still a touchy of campy-ness that makes you feel at home. The acting is WAY better. However their casting leaves much to be desired. Adam came of as bit of a sissy; Eve was alright but won’t give the men much their much craved eye candy(not that that is her purpose); Satan was forgettable; Jehovah looked like the bearded lady; and Elohim is about that same as in previous films, meaning he doesn’t do much, just gives commands.

On the drive home I was talking about it with my wife who also agree that the actor for Satan was the most illogical choice. But then I thought that maybe it was on purpose. the most common comment you hear about the previous endowment films is that Satan was the star. So perhaps they intentional cast this guy so that people would like Adam and Eve better. Just a thought.

This entry was posted in Church and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to New Temple Movie Review

  1. Panda says:

    My dear idiot friend. Why go to the endowments if you don’t take them seriously. Get in or get out woman. It doesn’t make you cool to go pretend in there and the come out and be the siskel and ebert of Mormon temple films. As a Mormon, you are pathetic. As a critic, your writing is on 6th grade level. Please stop

    • Patty says:

      This comment is offensive for many reasons. Why do you call the writer a “woman” when he so clearly is a man (he mentions speaking with his wife after the ceremony, and we know you can’t enter the Temple is your are a woman married to another woman). So, it seems to me that you are insulting the writer by calling him a woman. That insults me.

      Also, as another commenter said, your “get in or get out” comment is very offensive to the many, many LDS members who are struggling with very valid concerns.

    • MormonHistoryBuff says:

      Panda, you should check out this YouTube video on Mormon History. I learn something new each time I watch it!

    • Cortez says:

      Panda, you are embarrassing me. And yes, I’m a Mormon. Get yourself together and stop being a bigot. When being religious becomes extreme, it is difficult to distinguish it from fanaticism. Help me out here.
      Our temple recommends are as good as yours and I’m sorry that you have no authority to take them away from us because our thoughts don’t please you.

    • Kittychemist says:

      Panda these are soon to be antis “itching” and moaning. 🙂 You’ll never get a fair shake here. Most of these comments show immaturity and the HS mentality of wanting to “fit in.” These are people who are, unfortunately, on there way out of the Church. This isn’t a pick and choose Church. This is the true Church and it requires sacrifice and obedience. This generation is rebellious, as all generations are. I like you Panda!! Don’t worry, second coming is closer than we think.

      • zo-ma-rah says:

        There are a variety of commenters here. I can’t speak for everyone, however a large number of people here are not anti-mormon. Many of use deeply treasure Mormonism and we reject the traditions that have been built up around it that are not founded in scripture. Such is my position. I do rebel against all those things that contradict the Word of the Lord. Many of us consider ourselves IN the church, but on our way out of the corporation. We reject the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Corporation is not the church, the people are the church.

      • jcee says:

        sacrifice and obedience hmmmm. that sounds like the law of consecration that you covenant to live in the temple. so why don’t you live it??? kittychemist don’t kid yourself that you do. how many poor have you seen through the past week?? you pick and choose the law of chastity but set aside consecration as we all do. there is no zion on earth it is all Babylon. don’t judge others for picking and choosing. consider the beam in your own eye first deary. ps; I understand your way of thinking, I was you some time ago.

    • Sounds like someone is embarrassed about their religion and beliefs. The truth cannot be harmed by inquiry, in fact Reuben Clark, a general authority even said (referring to the lds church) if we have not the truth, it should be harmed.
      It is the duty of every man, so far as his abilities extend, to detect and expose delusion and error. You’ve been detected. You’ve been exposed.

      Oh, and 5/5 stars for a such a christlike comment.

    • scott says:

      Panda is just jealous because she doesnt get to view the new movie. Or is Panda he? O-well, I’ll just call panda she out of sexism.

    • NerfHerder says:

      Judging movies… judging people. It all comes out in the wash.

  2. vikingz2000 says:

    The intent in this new film with regard to Lucifer is to plant in the subconsciousness of the patrons impressions so as to ensure they will come to declare the eternal truth, “OMG, Lucifer has to be gay!”

  3. DMS says:

    @ Panda –
    Why shouldn’t he give a critique of the “movie?” After all, it is a “dramatization,” and the church is all about keeping up with the latest trends in our society. We know that blockbusters tend to sell well, so it’s obvious we are hoping for “big returns.” I’m just surprised that our 10% doesn’t get us free popcorn.

    The problem is that instead of seeing ourselves in the presentation (originally, those going through the endowment actually played the parts of Adam and Eve), we think we are the audience and it is another movie, except we “do stuff” along the way. Sort of like a Celestial Rocky Horror Picture Show, but instead of throwing things at the movie screen, we make gestures and stand up sometimes (less than we used to, though. Makes it more movie-like to sit).

    I think getting a review of the performance is very appropriate. After all, our church is all about performances. Unfortunately, we haven’t realized that outward performances have been done away in Christ. But whatevs.

    Secondly, you say to “get in or get out.” It is this mindset that is leading a LOT of members to leave. This is AFTER they do everything to the letter (going “all in”) and realize it leaves them empty. Because they can’t reconcile our history or our embrace of Babylon or live up to some nebulous definition of perfection or one of a hundred other things, they hit the road. We should welcome the differing thoughts and approaches, instead of making accusations and insults, or labeling them as lacking faith, becoming apostate or getting offended. So Panda, I would ask you, who really is doing the “pretending?” Seems to me like that’s all the endowment movie is… 2 hours of make-believe.

  4. Crystal says:

    Get in or get out woman.

    That is some majorly Christ-like behavior.

  5. Jim says:

    “through a bit of humor in”???

  6. anon says:

    Just FYI: The new Satan is played by the “dad” actor in the ‘stop whooping cough’ commercial…

  7. FUbrigham says:

    Wow, you are evidently a dirty old man.

  8. Jim Holmes says:

    So, have the put back in the part where Satan will buy up Popes and Priests, Armies and Navies and rule with Blood and Horror? Have the put back in the minister and the hymn? Have the restored the Five points of Fellowship through the veil?

  9. Kittychemist says:

    I agree this review sounds like a fifth grade, not 6th. Man up and leave the church if you think we are not cool enough to hang with. I’m a biochemist jewish convert to the church( many years ago) I find you seriously lacking spiritual depth. Just a guess: but usually men in the church who don’t have the Spirit are porn attacks. Not saying you are though:) Seriously, I saw the film tonight, I felt the Spirit very strong and thought it was intelligent and well cast. My IQ is 145, I think I’m pretty deep and spiritual ( ok not very humble)lol. I just would like you to make a decision: either you respect our religious beliefs and don’t critique the sacred, or get out of the church and critique away.

    • Not Kittychemist says:

      IQ of 145 and you named yourself “Kittychemist”? Wow.

    • Stormin says:

      IQ of 145 and can’t tell lies from the truth. God raised Adam and Eve like his own children and obviously had a personal relationship with them, but they relied on Satan versus God to say partaking the fruit was the only way ——- Give me a break!!! Are we saying God is as deceitful as LDS church leaders and tricked/lied to them so they followed Satan instead of obeying God?? Adam and Eve Fell and caused this fallen world —– learn the truth about the Word of God (Bible) and the Gospel of Jesus Christ before it is too late! The bible doesn’t mention doing endowments with silly white clothing and making promises to a corrupt church versus God —— because the Temple was used to offer sacrifices not do revised Masonic rituals that probably had a lot to do with Joseph’s death along with polygamy and polyandry!

    • Bris says:

      Most of the smartest people in the world are Atheist. IQ has nothing to do with ability to know the veracity of religious truths or not. I find your comment to not be very Christlike.

    • Rick says:

      amen, amen, and amen

    • DB says:

      Thank you so much for your comments…I don’t even remember how I got to this horrible page after seeing the new movie for the first time today and leaving the temple with my heart so full of joy! People forget that no matter what you believe or not, you should try always to imitate Jesus and these guys claiming they support Mormonism must be nuts! It makes me wonder how on earth they can actually get a temple recommend? And then, of course, I realize…THEY ARE LIERS!!!! They are lying to their leaders to get a temple recommend to go to the temple and write this 5th grade review about the new movie…Don’t like the church? Follow Jesus then! And stop working for free for Satan!!!

    • Michael says:

      @Kittychemist –

      For a person with an IQ of 145, your sentence construction is lousy, as is your spelling. And, what does being a “biochemist jewish convert” have to do with anything?

      As far as the review, I thought it was appropriate and well thought-out. All you’ve successfully done is attack. Again, where is the purported high IQ???

  10. Kittychemist says:

    That addicts not attacks lol

  11. So the new film has Lucifer getting down on one knee and proposing to Eve, and she tearfully accepts? Interesting symbolism.

  12. eastcoaster says:

    You seem preoccupied with “naughty bits” as we got the rundown on exactly how they were covered in every scene. Dude, seriously? What exactly were you hoping for – a little more flesh? Are in you middle school?

    • zo-ma-rah says:

      We Adam and Eve naked in the garden or not? If so, why do we have to cover them up as if there is something bad about human genitalia. Our society could benefit by removing some of our cultural repugnance toward the human body.

    • Naked New Yorker says:

      Right see that is exactly a middle school thing to say. The immature and imbalanced feel the need to cover everything up. I mean it shows it right there in the Temple Drama. It was Satan’s suggestion to cover up and find fault with nakedness. You think you’re mature talking down to Zo-ma-rah that way…but you aint mature nor holy…you are just programmed.

  13. Xathena says:

    Wow. You completely are lost. This is not a movie review it’s about sacred ordinances. Not to mention how in appropriate to take the reader through the film. These are sacred, but you seem to ignor that fact.

    • zo-ma-rah says:

      The original endowment was much different than the current endowment. The most obvious is that there was no film. All of these changes to the endowment are corruptions. I have no problem explaining something that is corrupted. Additionally there are only certain select things that those going through the endowment covenant not to discuss. Everything else can be discussed.

      • leejae says:

        I agree that there are some real problems with moving to film. I think a lot of symbolism is lost. First, a live re-enactment reminds us that throughout the eternities, the players change, but the roles and titles remain the same. Also, a live re-enactment forces us to observe the players attempt to fill their respective roles despite their weaknesses: two-layers of symbolic awesomeness that help us examine how quick we are to judge anyone who is undertaking a mortal experience. Third, the changing players keep us from becoming complacent in our interpretation of what they are portraying, and no single party (or corporation) can tell you how to interpret what you hear and see. As a performer, I am extra sensitive to what it means to emotionally manipulate an audience, and how a director/producer/corporation projects it’s agenda and/or interpretation into the production. But when we go to a regular movie, we are expecting to be moved – entertained – drawn in – and we’re paying for that emotional response. We also shut down the critical function that keeps us measuring what we see – we are more accepting. So with the temple re-enactment, I think it’s particularly dangerous that we are forced to observe one “entertaining” interpretation, over and over and over. Fourth, we are made uncomfortable by the immediacy of what is going on when it’s happening NOW…rather than being emotionally removed into TV land. I think that makes us think harder.

        I’ll keep the rest of my personal opinions to myself (and my mom – you gotta chat about it to someone, right?)! I can’t imagine how hard it would be to be one of those people in this film. Just think about how intimately they are being judged, for what they most likely put all their hearts into.

        PS I’ve always been bugged since I read that “Peter, James and John” were inserted by Brigham Young to eliminate some narration. They originally were just messengers! I pondered for YEARS on the doctrinal implications of the fact that Peter, James and John were sent. Such a waste of time and effort!! Does anyone know any good resources for reconstructing some of the earliest versions of the endowment? From what I have read, BY reconstructed it himself, because Joseph didn’t write it down? I have to say I don’t trust grandpa BY as a source as much as I once may have…

      • zo-ma-rah says:

        leejae my post here attempts to reconstruct the Nauvoo Endowment

        You pointed out a huge issue; it all comes through Brigham Young. I do believe Joseph Smith created the endowment but it has been changed by Brigham Young. However that are only a few places we can definitively say come from Brigham, such at the Oath of Vengance which has since been removed.

      • Diane Henry says:

        Yes. Did anyone notice that Eve’s reprimand was completely missing?

      • DB says:

        Please explain how you get your temple recommend then! I would love hear that one!!!!

      • DB says:

        Oh no, but wait, something tells me you are not going to show my questions here, are you? 🙂

    • Jake says:

      Nope. Not sacred to ME at all. Do YOU feel ashamed when you eat a hamburger? Cows are sacred to about a BILLION Hindus. One mans sacred cow is another mans hamburger.

      Do you work on Saturdays? GASP! Saturday is the SABBATH for Jews and Seventh Day Adventists.

  14. xenawarriorscientist says:

    Deciding to rework the film so Satan wasn’t the star of the show anymore– makes me LOL. Thanks for your review.

  15. The Sun King says:

    It’s amazing the lengths humans will go to to make their particular myth the most appealing. But hey, when you have to pay ten percent of your income to see the show, it had better be good.

  16. Llenrad says:

    To all the haters out there….why are you out searching online about the new temple film? Isn’t it taboo for TBM’s to research temple stuff…..especially online?

    Also, before making stupid comments like claiming someone has a porn addicion while bragging about how smart you are, please read a few more of his articles. He has a wealth of information that has been well thought out and studied and should be read and shared by more Mormons.

  17. arisofsky says:

    In my personal opinion, the actor who played Satan (Corbin Allred of Saints and Soldiers fame) was an improvement. The previous actor was loud and showy and obvious. But satan doesn’t work like that. He is subtle. He gets to you in small ways. He doesn’t usually go about in such an obviously “look at me! i’m definitely the bad guy here! listen to my haughty, loud, voice!” kind of way.
    Corbin brought the subtle, nearly appealing feel to his character that is perfectly appropriate. Because, let’s face it, sometimes sin looks appealing. That’s how he gets us.

    As for Eve: I thought she was beautiful. She looked normal. She looked REAL. She was believable as a person.

    I, too, found Adam to be a little whiny sounding. But perhaps this stems from the fact that he was practically a child from the get go. Brand new in an adult body. It could have been a Director’s Choice. Who knows?

    Overall, VAST IMPROVEMENT over the old film.

  18. david says:

    What temple was this?

  19. Just left the Portland Temple where the new movie was just dabuted. I quickly dialed my friend and almost repeated your comments exactly! I expected so much more considering modern technology. Casting was obviously filled with nepotism! How else can you explain how bad it is? Oh, and all those planning to send hate mail, this movie was not created by God! The doctrine is the same but come on, it’s bad!

    • PS- don’t remind me that our leaders are speaking for God, I get it, but kicking symbolism aside, just from a “film” pov, it should have been better. I get that in the big picture that isn’t the important thing.

    • Toni says:

      Actually, I really liked the movie. I thought it was a great improvement. Now, if they’d only bring the preacher back . . .

  20. Brigitta says:

    I get a kick out of reading all these comments. Critiques honestly are innocent and what we all are thinking. But despite all the critiques, I’ve never been in a session when I heard people weep. Including both my husband and I. We were still taken-in despite the cheesy parts. It took me on a new level with Adam and Eve being real people with real feelings. I think it’s all forgivable considering the church can’t really solicit auditions, and film it in the middle of Hollywood studios. I loved it and look forward to going back.

    • Toni says:

      Ditto. Adam and Eve became real people with real feelings and thoughts. Before, they were rather “flat” characters. I liked the movie much better than Zomarah.

      And to the person who took issue with his fixation on shoulder shots and thought he was a dirty old man, I always thought of Zomarah as young. But, yeah, he seemed a little too fixated on the above the shoulder shots. Got a little old. Still love ya, though, Z.


  22. seVEMes says:

    What about the voice that sounded like Leonard Nimoy and sometimes Liam Neeson? The whole time I was thinking ‘there is no way Leonard Nimoy is a member of the church.’

  23. 2 thumbs way up for using the phrase, “naughty bits”!

  24. Randy says:

    The acting was so over the top while the dialogue remains the same, this movie was a big misstep as far as I, and my wife are concerned. One should not have the feeling one is watching a silent movie with the exaggerated expressions and schlocky music contained therein while in fact participating in a sacred experience, or which should be. This new film is a direct response to post modernism in which we must give more notice to feelings and our emotions and in an attempt to attract and appeal to younger audiences. Eve’s expressions are made with an attempt to convey that she always understands what is going on and is more of an equal partner, again in response to postmodernism. Unfortunately, regardless of whether this is theologically accurate or not, the “acting” brings attention to the acting and not what is being taught. In addition, the language is the same, so there is a total disconnect between emotional expressions and what is being said. We are very happy we live in SLC at the moment and can attend live sessions. If I never see this film again, I will be quite happy. Two more things-Satan is a smooth operator and a great salesman. That’s how he convinced a third of Heaven to follow him. He is not how he is portrayed in the Garden in this film. And, the endowment film version moves very slowly. Ponderously would be a good description. Bring back the Moes.

  25. Bryan says:

    I know how I felt watching silly movies in Temples years ago. Nature and or meditation work much better for me to this day. How people can not find the whole Temple thing not weird and Unnecessary is beyond me. I would rather go to the Dentist.

  26. JRSG says:

    Another site spoke of the film but there was not as much detail given as was given on this site. The person on the other site also was accused of doing something wrong by critiqueing the new film. The person on the other siite thought the film was an improvement. Personally I am disappointed that the Brethern keep changing things concerning the Temple. I feel that much as been lost. Were things changed because some people did not like the experience? If a person is ready for the Temple then the Temple experience is not wierd, or creepy. The Pistis of Sophia has some interesting information. Everyone should read it.
    God’s people have always been a covenant people. The Jews no longer make covenants. God does not change. Hence the need for a restoration. The LDS people are the only ones who make covenants with God.

  27. jill says:

    They definitely should allow Adam and Eve to be naked in full view. That way more men would really be excited to go to the temple! And if Adam was hot say like Daniel Craig, or Chris Helmsworth, the women could really get excited too! And everyone could go out for ice cream to cool off afterwards!

  28. Anne says:

    In the new video does Satan still say, “If these people do not live up to these covenants they make in this temple, this day, they will be under my power” ? That used to give me the chills. I really need to know if he said that in this one so I can decide if I want to renew my recommend.

    • DJ says:

      Anne, even if he does say that, you don’t have to believe it. Satan is the father of all lies after all. What if he only wants you to think that is the case so you’ll be encumbered with guilt for not being “perfect?” Why don’t we question these things, but just take his word for it, along with all our leaders? The Book of Mormon has a lot to say about this subject if you read it without the correlation lens.

    • Steve says:

      Anne I hope you take the temple ordinance more seriously than your comment implies. To base your decision about holding a recommend on whether or not the presentation has a single sentence in it seems a little shallow.

      • Tachikoma says:

        “Anne I hope you take the temple ordinance more seriously than your comment implies. To base your decision about holding a recommend on whether or not the presentation has a single sentence in it seems a little shallow.”

        actually thats a very common feeling and is one of the reasons the temple ceremony has been dumbed down. people were offended for instance by the old death tokens so they got taken out. truthfully its a very common idea in religion that there is no hell but there is a heaven. one of the reasons God lets Satan brutally assault Joseph before the first vision is to dispell the ever common myth that there is a God yet no Satan. the truth is people need to be in fear of Satan and know that that he is real and a very evil dude waiting to devour us all. and if we don’t live up to our covenants that is serious business.

        I think the church truthfully needs to have more lessons about Satan for petes sake the guy gets mentioned endlessly in the book of mormon unlike the bible….if you are a general fighting a war and we are indeed at war with Satan your best tactic is really to know your enemy.

        i’ve met Satan on countless occassions and I will say we’d all be well advised to study his strategies that are quite plainly laid out in the book of mormon.


  30. Abe says:

    I loved your review so much I had to include a link to it on my blog:

  31. Suzie says:

    Satan’s over the top acting was a major distraction for me. His facial expressions, whisper-talk and always being hunched forward with his hands always clasped together made me laugh inside.

    Some shots also made him look even smaller than he actually was. It was a very comic book like representation of a sniveling, vengeful little man with a Napoleon complex.

    I think if we must have a movie (I personally believe we shouldn’t) to portray God’s sacred ordinances then by all means make Satan a very likeable, smooth talking man in a Mr. Mac suit, other wise just let the words speak for themselves and leave the acting on the cutting floor.

    I am forever learning patience and charity.

  32. tjr says:

    You are warned to take covenents seriously or there are heavy consequences in the film. How dare you mock God. Shame on you for discussing and criticizing him. You will be held accountable I pitty all of you doing this.

    • zo-ma-rah says:

      There are only very select portions of the Endowment that participants covenant not to discuss. I’m also curious what evidence you have that the Endowment film, or even the Endowment itself in its present form, is from God.

  33. Patrick says:

    Does it NOT bother run of the mill Mormons that their most sacred ordinances have been reduced to a movie??

  34. Cathy says:

    Went to the New York temple last week (1st week of Jan 2014) and saw the movie you reviewed. Went again today and they have introduced another new movie with new actors and different emphasis’ and the officiator said there will be a 3rd movie coming out in the next few months. So there you go !

  35. Tachikoma says:

    I havent seen the new film yet but this doesn’t shock me. Ive heard members rave about it but I somehow knew it was going to cheesy. in fact the first time I saw the film when I first went through I thought wow this looks like a C rated budget cheesy film….and I am a guy that loves his low budget cheesy movies so I can spot them quite easily. that said there are good C rated movies and there are bad ones. there are even average ones. given what this one is trying to portray it is a bad one.

    I also remember the first time i went through I remember thinking there is dialogue missing. almost like a person isn’t there that should be. low and behold later on(a year or two when i went googling for information) I found out that there is in fact a priest missing and some other dialogue has been taken out.

    while I do understand the whole naked people suddenly = porn mentality…the fact is that adam and eve were ya know naked and covering up all hints of that nakedness just adds to the cheese factor. Satan never looks like anything resembling Satan. given the fact I’ve seen Satan I can testify that their portrayal of Satan remains beyond wrong. the only thing right is that Satan does indeed have an apron of priesthood power he wears. its one thing I noticed the first time i went through as i was shocked that the temple seemed to know that. Satan is a black spirit figure and far more menacing than what we see.

    speaking of Satan isnt it a serpent that tempts Eve? not a man….and to my truly whacky(because few people accept this theory although I’m inclined to believe it) bible followers that subscribe to the Lilith theory it was actually another woman…in either event it wasn’t a grown man.

    the three apostles/messengers aren’t born at this time….so they cant have bodies which means they cant shake hands either the hand shaking scripture of D and C is total bogus.

    the whole part where God asks them who told them they are naked continues to come off as a childish scene of “HE MADE ME DO IT” finger pointing round. I realize there is more to it than that but it seems to always be acted out like that.

    Jesus and Elohim seem to repeatedly come off in these movies as lifeless beings dishing out orders. They seem to just be there giving off commands and distanced from everything else. Im also not entirely sure the point in Jesus repeating things back to Elohim constantly as my understanding is Jesus creates the earth and seems to be the one in charge of things so the constant need to repeat things back to Elohim is weird not to mention Elohim would already be quite aware of the message to start with especially so since they make up two members of the Godhead. I suppose one could argue that Elohim is the one in charge and this is indeed true however its portrayal comes off poorly.

    my point is the temple endowment movie seems to not portrayal the creation story as we have it in three places in scripture in any kind of accuracy. the temple movie seems to be a 4 version of creation that is oddly enough in stark conflict with the scripture versions. this conflict isn’t helped by the fact that the movie or play has been changed many times over the years either. it makes me question how accurate this movie and ceremony is. the corny acting certainly doesn’t help matters either.

    i really do hate to rip apart the endowment movie given is sacred nature but it really is just terrible.

  36. Heidi says:

    Why are you discussing this sacred film? I don’t get it!

    • Tachikoma says:

      but its not sacred. the only sacred part of the endowment ceremony is the signs and tokens. furthermore the movie is at best a C rated low budget film. its very poorly done….its logically improbable….and even contradicts some scriptures. it’s also a retelling of the creation story. the only really sacred part is as stated the signs and tokens but for something that is so sacred I have to ask why the death tokens were taken out? if the film is so sacred why have we taken out characters? it seems the sacredness of the endowment ceremony got lost and bastardized by the LDS church a long time ago. not to mention the version Joseph gave us of course didn’t even have a movie which again brings into question exactly how sacred a low budget C rated movie truly is.

      really see my post above yours.

    • zo-ma-rah says:

      I don’t mean to sound flippant; but I would say a film can be sacred only as much as you can call a movie theater holy.

  37. nonewname4me says:

    lol i loved the review,im a mormon but have always refused to go to temple as theres things i dont agree with,il put the getting free popcorn for our 10% on my list! and for the over use of naughty bits wat did u want him to call them! also didnt relize there was an iq test before we commented on here,as for get in or get out,we can have opinions and still belive in book of mormon and the church,we dont have to fall into line!And belive me alot of mormons do have opinions.good on u for the review!

  38. zo-ma-rah
    Since the film is shown in the temple does that make the temple a movie theater and therefore, by your logic, not sacred?

    • Tachikoma says:

      “Since the film is shown in the temple does that make the temple a movie theater and therefore, by your logic, not sacred?”

      yep thats completely what he said /sarcasm.

  39. Dan says:

    I enjoy a good doctrinal discussion, including the underlying symbolism in temple ordinances, but regardless of whether or not the movie or other elements of temple ordinances have been explicitly or implicitly included in the ‘non-disclosure’ covenants, I question the appropriateness of describing and discussing them in such detail and with such flippancy on a public forum. As attested by many of the reader comments, it doing so invites contention and implicitly calls into question the sacredness of temple ordinances in general.

    More than once I have seen people come away from the same sermon, one commenting how inspirational and uplifting it was, another commenting how boring it was, and another commenting on the speaker’s poor grammar or the number of times they said “um” or “ah”. Clearly the differences in their perception had nothing to do with the speaker, and everything to do with their attitude, pre-conceived notions, expectations, and personal taste. If a speaker gets up and someone thinks ‘Oh no; not him again. He’s so boring’ then that’s most likely what he will be; to them.

    The same principle applies to movies. Some people will enjoy any movie simply because they find the main actor/actress s attractive, or because it’s based on one of their favourite books, regardless of the quality of the acting or the plot. Others will dismiss any movie off hand simply because they don’t like a particular actor/actress/director, or genre. Yet others will enjoy a movie for the message it portrays, regardless of the actors or acting. So many people, so many tastes, so many attitudes.

    I personally really enjoyed this new temple movie. I found the acting so much more believable and moving than any of the previous movies. I thought the portrayal of Satan much more in keeping with the sly and cunning deceiver that he is, and I was particularly moved by the very realistic emotions portrayed by the actress playing Eve, (whom I consider to have a very naturally sweet and beautiful appearance). The love between Adam and Eve was apparent in every expression and gesture; I almost expected them to kiss at some stage, which in my opinion would have been a very natural and appropriate display of affection.

    Although the fact that Adam and Eve’s nakedness is of course also a very natural thing, and certainly nothing to be ashamed of (as Satan would have them believe). However, publicly displaying their nakedness, or even unnecessarily attracting the viewer’s attention to it, would be just as inappropriate as any other kind of public display of nudity. In fact, I personally felt that the frequent panning away of the camera just before inappropriate nudity in the previous movie, was unnecessarily titillating and distracting.
    Perhaps one day, if we manage to put off the carnal man and become sufficiently perfected in and through Christ, nudity may no longer affect us. But for now it remains one of Satan’s most powerful weapons against us.

    The purpose of the temple movie was never to provide the viewers with temporal entertainment or “eye candy”. In fact, as your comments attest, providing too much “eye candy” would distract from the actual message it is meant to portray.

    I believe this and any temple movie and ordinance can be experienced as uplifting and spiritually enlightening by anyone with the sincere and righteous attitude.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s