The Other Side of Heaven By Mitch Davis Genre: Film
Reviewed by: D. Michael Martindale

[MOD: This isn't a formal review, and in fact Michael talks about how this isn't really a review at all. I've added "Review" to the thread title, though, because it seems to me that in addition to focusing on a few specific points, it makes the kind of summary evaluation of the film that -- for me -- makes this a review, rather than not. (If Michael strenuously disagrees he can have Terry Jeffress not include this in the review archives on the AML-List Web site, I guess . . . )]

Having now finally seen Other Side of Heaven, I can react to Eric Samuelsen's earlier comments about the film.

Eric said the main character, John Groberg, was weak and nonvolitional -- weak because he was nonvolitional. Groberg had one (made up) scene where he showed great heroicism trying to learn the language. But a later (also made up) scene ruined that perception and the whole film: the one where the minister and the branch president stand up to some girl-trolling heavies and get beat up. Groberg just stands by and does nothing.

Eric said this was a missed opportunity, a great deal of talent agtehred together to tell a fascinating story, but with a script that blew it big time -- with the usual results. The easily "inspired" Mormon audience loved it, and the rest of the world's audience saw the film for what it was: a failure of mediocrity. This, in summary, is what Eric said.

Everyone take note: this doesn't happen often. I agree with Eric 100 percent.

I had planned on writing a review of the film, but Eric said it much better, so I won't bother. After hearing others' reactions to the film and before I'd seen it, I had already picked out a title for my pending review, assuming I agreed with the prevailing opinion: "Seminary Film, Hollywood Style."

Were I to write that review today, I wouldn't use that title. Other Side doesn't even make a good seminary film.

Where are the conversions? We hear about them, but never see them. Barely any teaching happens on screen at all -- in a missionary movie no less. Where are the blessings for the sick? There were ample opportunities to anoint afflicted people -- did Groberg keep forgetting his consecrated oil or what? Instead he massages a boy as he chants the ridiculous: "in with the good air; out with the bad," and this saves his life. Maybe I should name the review "Loony Tunes, Mormon Style."

At least we had a baptism.

The film was very episodic. This is okay, unless each episode is shortchanged. Every episode in Other Side was. Well, except for the rat-chewed feet. That tribulation seemed to go on forever. But for months I'd been hearing about and seeing clips of this big hurricane Groberg had lived through. How many minutes of play did that exciting climax get? Precious few. A couple big waves thrashing Groberg about, then voila! He's lying prone on the beach like every other castaway film ever made.

As so many others have said, the characterization was pretty much nonexistent. Groberg just did stuff as the script needed. As Eric pointed out, everyone cried when he left and said what a great guy he was. I didn't cry. I didn't care. He was a weenie missionary who never seemed to do anything useful except let rats chew his feet (useful for a good laugh for the audience and the natives) At one point he handed his mission president a stack of documents to prove all the things he had been hard at work doing. Maybe he forged them overnight, because we sure never see any of those alleged good deeds in action.

How does someone sleep through rats chewing one's feet anyway? And how does lying in the Western natal delivery position with one's feet pointed at the sky heal them? And why is that such an inspiring scene when he finally walks for the preacher, proving he's the messenger of Jesus or whatever? Why did the filmmakers seem to think sun-healing was more inspiring than a blessing? This is a missionary film, isn't it? No one among all the Saints of the island thought to administer to Groberg and his bloody feet?

Other Side can be summed up in one word: bland. Nothing especially enjoyable about it. Nothing so terrible as to hate it. It's just there taking up space where a good LDS film should have been, sapping energy that should have gone to something that could have advanced LDS cinema.

Perhaps that's more than ample reason to hate it after all.

-- 
D. Michael Martindale
dmichael@wwno.com