Day of Defense (2003) User Reviews

Too many critical critics...

[notyourordinarymoviecritic · 6/10 · 12 September 2005]

I have not seen Day of Defense. It must have not been very widely advertised. I have only seen the trailer via the movie's website. The acting did seem poor. Nevertheless, in the movie makers' defense (no pun intended), I applaud anyone that attempts to make a movie. That is extremely hard work to make a movie of any size, whether it's a short or full-length feature.

I get irritated by the responses of people who are highly critical of other filmmakers' efforts, even beginning filmmakers' efforts, when they themselves, in many cases, have never made a movie themselves, let alone been on a production team for one.

I liken them to people who are highly critical of pro basketball or football players, etc. when they themselves can barely dribble, pass or punt much less score in those respective games. For example, I would value John Stockton's or Jerry Rice's analyses of an athlete's skills before some guy "off the street" who had not been "in the trenches."

But, then again, I guess that is why these people are called movie "critics" and not movie "praisers", right?

Insulting to the intelligence and, worse, tediously boring

[talshiarr · 1/10 · 8 March 2004]

This should stand as a warning to all LDS filmmakers about the perils of crafting films that can logically serve no other purpose than to bolster the belief of those who already believe. I can't imagine a single non-Mormon viewer of this film not coming away as having felt like missionaries had just been in their home. The gaps of logic in this film are so great as to make me question just how faithfully the script writers who adapted the book practice the religion. No missionary would knowingly be sent by the church blindly into this ridiculously perfect little Christian town as some kind of "challenge" if it knew of the strictures on proselytizing, and if the church did know of such a rule, it would never rely on mere missionaries to fight the battle for equal preaching rights. Since the whole point revolves around the missionaries being put on trial to prove they are "Christian" enough to proselytize in the town, it makes me wonder what kind of place has never heard of the First Amendment's freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses? Indeed, where did the two Mormons go to school that they didn't know it.

And all that is to say nothing of the illogic of the actual trial and methods of "defense" itself. But do yourself a favor, don't go there.

Embarrassing: Not an LDS Movie

[santa_vaca · 1/10 · 24 October 2003]

I am writing this review as a member of the same church as the people that made this movie, and as such I can tell you for a fact that this movie in no way expresses the views of our church or the vast majority of its members. Every Mormon I know who has seen this film, the trailer, or read the book upon which it is based, is disgusted by it.

Some background: the book "Day of Defense" was written in the '60s by a lay member of the church, and is considered a prime example of anti-anti-mormon literature. In other words, it uses the same tactics, logic and style as anti-mormon literature, but it is turned in the other direction. It is no more convincing than the average anti-Mormon literature, and even the people that are amused by it would never take it seriously.

The contents of the book consist of a context-less courtroom debate that goes something like this:

Christian church leader: The Bible says here that your church is wrong. Wise Mormon elder: Oh, yeah? Well here's where you're mistaken. Leader of another church: But what about this passage? Wise Mormon elder: Here is another glib reply. JUDGE: Well, it looks like the Mormons proved their case. I will now join their church.

It's entertaining, but ridiculous, and one of the most ill-suited books ever written for a movie translation.

The film fills in the plot holes with a town of mindless Christian straw-dogs, and plenty of bad dialogue, bad acting, bad directing, bad haircuts, and a type of synergy that somehow makes the movie worse than the sum of its terrible parts. It isn't even as amusing as the book it was based on. It's just terrible in every possible way. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

If you're a Mormon, don't see this movie. It will make you doubt your faith because of the people that share it. If you're not a Mormon, PLEASE don't see this movie. It is the absolute nadir in the mostly embarrassing culture of LDS filmmaking.

God's Army was a pretty good Mormon movie, but if the man who made that film knew what would happen to the genre he popularized, I'm sure he'd have burned his camera and taken a job at Taco Bell for the good of humanity. Avoid this like Rabies.

An obvious attempt for first time writers and film makers

[serendipityoflife · 1 December 2004]

Day of Defense was more than good intentions gone bad, it was poor judgment and lack of experience by the filmmakers, terrible continuity, bad casting and very bad filming. The script was poorly adapted from a book; this isn't an unusual scenario in the film industry. The story was true so it wasn't all that far fetched, it just happened to a different religious sect than the Mormon's and was written by the judge that dealt with it.

Are Mormon missionaries hated and ran out of towns: every day. If this film shakes your testimony of the Mormon religion, you don't have a very strong testimony. If you found it ridiculous and boring, so did the rest of us, but so are a lot of other films.

I don't think that anyone was trying to make a political statement, I believe the filmmakers were trying to share their religious beliefs that there is a God who loves you, only it was so painfully and poorly done that the message never got through.

I wouldn't recommend the film even on the most boring day, I know that it can't be found right now on video for whatever reasons, and I hope it stays that way. But if you accidentally see it some day....it certainly shouldn't shake anyone's faith in anything....after all, it's just a movie!

Another LDS proselytizing movie!

[Elginon · 1/10 · 12 October 2003]

As a non-Mormon I found this movie to be highly offense in its attack on mainstream Christianity, its obfuscation of facts and appeal to emotion. I would highly recommend this movie to Christian denominations as a training aid to show the LDS Church's true feelings towards historic Christianity have never changed, how it glosses over its radical redefinition of terms, how it publicly denies it doctrines when convenient, and how the LDS Church continually attempts to divert attention from those attacks by wrapping itself within the claim that `they're persecuted!'

Entertainingly awful

[ejonconrad · 1/10 · 11 July 2018]

There was a popular movie trope a few decades ago in which young people are passing through a hick town and run afoul of the corrupt local law enforcement. This movie was kind of like that, except instead of a broken tail light or a planted joint, the kids were caught with something much worse: The Book of Mormon. The sets the scene for one of the worst and weirdest movies I've ever seen.

The movie opens as our heroes, two Mormon elders, arrive in a small town that they have been warned "doesn't like outsiders". They hit the streets looking for victims - eh, I mean "converts" - and literally within seconds, the sheriff pulls up and informs them that in this town, you can't preach without a license from the Christian Town Council (CTC). When they propose applying for a license rather than simply leaving town, they are immediately arrested.

This is apparently the biggest crime that has ever happened in this town, because the sheriff hauls them directly into court, interrupting a trial that's already in progress and announces "We got us a couple o' Mormons here". Instead of having the sheriff immediately ejected, the judge clears her docket so she can focus on this grave infraction and the two are quickly put on trial.

Exactly what they're being tried for is kind of vague and nonsensical. They seem to be simultaneously charged with preaching without license, and applying to get such a license. In fact, they are effectively on trial for "not being Christian", and the plaintiffs are ALL the members of the CTC, who represent a bunch of other Christian faiths, which the makers of the film can't actually tell apart.

At this point, we are introduced to the other main characters, the two lawyers in town: THE prosecutor and THE defense attorney. We are given to understand that up until now, they've spent their entire careers engaged in egregious violations of legal ethics, in which the prosecutor dictates terms of plea agreements to the defense attorney, which he accepts without consulting his clients. In this case, however, the judge orders them to try the case.

I trust that everyone with half a brain realizes that if something like this actually happened, the ACLU would descend on the town and crush the CTC like a beer can under a redneck's boot, but the fact is that neither our intrepid elders nor the makers of the film are bothered in the slightest by this jawdroppingly unconstitutional law *per se*; they're just upset that Mormons aren't invited to the party. Indeed, the entire message of the movie seems to be that Mormons are Christian enough to join in persecuting non-Christian faiths. If anyone involved senses the irony, they don't show it.

As I mentioned before, this is the biggest thing that has ever happened in this town, and the result is way more drama than can possibly be believed. I guess the defense lawyer has never defended anyone convicted of an actual crime, because all people in town - including his own wife - are completely disgusted that he's defending two clean cut, extremely polite young men, who are accused of nothing more than sharing their personal mythology.

Now movies often get a lot of things wrong when it comes to the legal system, but they generally get the basics right. For example, they know you don't put two witnesses on the stand at the same time, allow your clients to cross examine witnesses, or a bunch of other bizarre things that happen in this movie. Seriously, it's bananas.

Without giving away any spoilers, they throw in a pretty serious tragedy at one point, and the characters respond with the sort of profound anguish usually reserved for a picnic getting rained out.

The guy playing the defense lawyer is a halfway decent actor, who does his best with a terrible script. All the rest are varying degrees of terrible, particularly the prosecutor, who's badly in need of some basic enunciation exercises.

In the end, there's a certain charm to the naive idiocy of this movie. I imagine the author lives in a small town in Utah - or possibly a bunker - and based the entire story on tales he's heard about lawyers, courts, and religions that aren't Mormonism.

In summary, this one definitely passes the "so bad it's good" test.

Send for the American Civil Liberties Union

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 12 December 2014]

I normally give passing if not good reviews to the Mormon cinema films, especially those chronicling the development of the church in the 19th century. But Day Of Defense is one frightening film in its concept and story.

Two young Elders one just finishing his two year hitch and another getting started come to a small white bread and I do mean white California town which reeks of red state family values.

This place attributes its Stepford like existence to the fact that they have a religious council acting as an extra legal body which issues license to preach. The Elders John Foss and Allan Groves no sooner start spreading the LDS message than the sheriff demands to know where their license is. They have none so off to the pokey they go and then to court before Judge Joan Peterson. When they demand a jury trial over the issue of licenses. The DA Brooks Utley prosecutes and the judge appoints Public Defender Andrew Lenz to defend the Elders.

The trial turns into a philosophical debate on just what constitutes Christianity. As for the outcome, well let's leave that alone.

I think the Iranians would get this film, but not any American who believes in free speech and freedom of religion. Note there's no synagogue or mosque in this town, I guess they didn't get any license or knew better not to apply for one. You'll look in vain for any Oriental, black, or Hispanic faces the last really interesting when you consider this film is set in California. And I sure wouldn't want to be a gay kid growing up here.

I guess all the citizens here got over their problems with Mormons that they had in 2003. I'm sure Ronald Reagan got 98% of the vote in his two national campaigns. And I'll bet Mitt Romney carried this place overwhelmingly in 2012.

The idea of religious council isn't really attacked, it's just that they're being too strict. Where's the American Civil Liberties Union?

Gentiles like myself will find this one frightening film.

I thought it was alright

[nancydarmon · 8/10 · 14 June 2005]

I don't see a lot of movies but I thought that this film was pretty good in comparison to the other films of this genre. I am surprised by the fear or harshness of some of the reviews and think that maybe they relate to the book or some fear of the purpose of this film. I believe the filmmakers were trying to show what is obvious in this country and that is intolerance of others, whether it be religion or race. I liked the heartwarming affection for the little girl in the film and the way the main character's angst for going against his friend and town caused him internal and family problems.

I had no problem with the validity of the doctrine and religious dogma, because I saw the film on more of a personal scale than worrying about what scripture was quoted where.

I recommend this.

Very dramatic

[kerristein566 · 9/10 · 27 May 2005]

I am surprised at some of the other comments about this film and that is why I write one. I saw this with my fiancé (now husband) and I served a mission before in the south and it was exactly how the movie portrays. I noticed that a lot of the comments shown are from people in Utah, which doesn't surprised me as normally such people have blinders on about the rest of the world. Try venturing down to Portland Oregon or the deep south and see the world.

I get away from my point. This movie was a depiction of how religion is sometimes prejudiced in certain parts of the country (yes even in UTAH), and while I didn't think it was a super movie, it was thought provoking and did remind me of my own mission and how I dealt with some people of alternate faiths.

Haven't found it on video yet, but I look forward to seeing it again, unlike the people who are afraid of their own shadows.

Controversial and Interesting

[kyrtstein · 10/10 · 27 May 2005]

I saw this film while on vacation to Las Vegas and I thought it was controversially appealing. Although I wouldn't say it was one of my favorites (some of the scenes lacked closure for me), the concept was so interesting and compelling I enjoyed it. The ending surprised me a bit, since not being a Mormon, I was sure how it would end, and it didn't end how I thought the writer would Beasley make it. There are some weak points but in I found the arguments good enough to keep my attention.

One thing I didn't like was that the relationship between one of the missionaries and the girl didn't go very far. I would have liked to see more of that, maybe.