Writer/Director Richard Dutcher's film "God's Army" is considered the first entry in the new wave of 'Mormon Cinema' and (ironically, perhaps) also one of the most polarizing.   Most that see it have either loved it or hated it--very little "eh...it was okay" middle ground.

It could be said that the difference of opinion about "God's Army" is representative of a truly great film; extreme 'love/hate' responses are almost always a sign of a movie that's ambitious and challenging, which "God's Army" is. (By way of comparison, I felt Richard Dutcher's follow-up work "Brigham City" was actually more ambitious but less challenging, which is why you won't find the same 'love it or hate it' split for those who have seen it.)

I had heard from several members of the 'hate it' group that it wasn't worth my time, and in fact when I did see it I was roped into it reluctantly without an opportunity to back out (long story).  I'm not sure exactly when the movie started working for me--probably at the beginning when Elder Allen is having his first conversation with his mission president ("So, Elder, I bet you're wondering what in the world you're doing here...").

Giving "God's Army" a high grade is easy; explaining why the movie deserves that grade and why I liked it is more of a problem. A movie such as "God's Army"--if it works at all--works because it connects with you on some personal level.  If you can identify with one or more of the main characters; if you can nod your head knowingly when someone says or does something in the movie that resonates with you on an intellectual or emotional level, then the movie is 'working' for you.  Unfortunately, personal connections like that are hard to quantify--it either happens or it doesn't, hence the 'love/hate' relationship people have with the movie.  Ultimately, one can't explain why one likes "God's Army" without describing the personal feelings or experiences that found resonance within the movie. To that end, here are some brief experiences I've had in my own life which may or may not provide insights into why I liked "God's Army":

(1) My girlfriend in high-school had divorced parents, and her mom later remarried a humble, decent guy.  She HATES her real dad, but despite the fact her step-dad was clearly a better guy, she found it difficult to accept him as a 'father'.  He wasn't really her dad, and even temple sealings weren't going to change that.  Direct blood relationships bring with them a certain bond that is not easily destroyed, nor copied.

(2)  In the mission field, we attended a new member discussion for a woman who had been baptized the month before. The stake missionary mentioned the principle of eternal families and said if the new member was willing to work at it, she could one day be sealed to her (then non-member) husband for time and eternity. The new member immediately responded, "Why?"

"'Why....?'" The stake missionary was a little shocked.

This new member went on to explain patiently and dispassionately that while her husband was a decent guy and she wanted him to accept the gospel for his own benefit, she had no interest in being sealed to him for eternity.  The stake missionary was speechless, while my companion and I had to stifle a laugh (this was not a surprise to us).

(3) We had many missionaries in my mission who testified that they really didn't know what they were doing and why they were serving a mission when they first started. Most of them came from member families and went on a mission because they were 'supposed to'. It took a while--and quite a bit of struggling--but most of them figured it out and served effective and honorable missions (though, not all...)

While I was in the MTC, we had three elders go home after the first month. One of them came back, though, a year later--and had the opportunity to be trained by the elder who was his original MTC companion.  He told me a little about his experience, and said those that go home from their missions early take one of two paths: they get better fast, or they get worse fast--very little middle ground.  He said it was more or less impossible for him to be a good missionary when originally scheduled, but after 'getting his life in order' essentially, he came back a year later a more sober, mature person--and a better missionary than many others in the mission who had been there since the beginning.

Each of these experiences has complementary scenes or dialogue within "God's Army" that brought these thoughts to mind while watching. (Note the blank look Elder Allen gives his mission president when the president tells him his 'step-dad' is really his 'dad' now, since they've been sealed. It's not quite that simple...)

Typical movie critic discussions of 'acting', 'plot', 'pacing', and 'cinematography' are ultimately irrelevant to the success or failure of "God's Army" (although there aren't any major problems in any of those areas). In the end, your opinion of "God's Army" will depend on how much of the movie resonated with you in some way--how 'real' the movie felt to you. I would imagine those who have served a mission themselves will like it more than those who have not.

Dutcher deserves credit for taking risks with a movie that could have been done in a 'safe' and 'happy' manner without offending anyone, but then wouldn't have the authenticity of what life in the Church is like in the 'real' world.  Even if you only see it once (and I have yet to return to see it again...) "God's Army" is recommended viewing for all Church members.

Final Grade: A-

Analysis and Other Comments (possible spoilers):  

Many people found God's Army "offensive", and obviously this was NOT from the traditional 'profanity/sex/violence' standpoint.  ("God's Army" earns its light PG rating, but nothing more...).  Let's analyze it further:

"God's Army" portrays a slightly-less-than-idealistic picture of missionaries--elders in particular--which many people found objectionable. While I can understand the objection, I find it hard to sympathize for a number of reasons:

(1) The missionaries in God's Army aren't actually all that bad.  The worst behavior is what?, practical jokes, reading anti-Mormon literature, saying the 'D' word?    That's pretty tame. (One person I talked to found God's Army offensive because it "showed an elder turning over a table in anger". Uh, oh...better go talk to the bishop!)

Ask anyone who's served a mission, and he/she could tell you stories about actual 'bad' missionaries, who have casual sex, drink alcohol, etc...  My mission was pretty good, all things considered--we had a companionship who went bowling at 3 AM once, and another one that attended a rock concert--both of which are still technically worse than anything the elders in "God's Army" do.

There's a tendency within the Church to assume that sending a 19-year-old boy on a mission automatically turns him into a man when in fact he becomes...a 19-year old boy with a name tag.  Many high school and college-age guys naturally act a little rowdy and irreverent--even immature. (This isn't an excuse, just an observation)   Many of them don't 'sober up' until well after their missions.  Want to know if "God's Army" has a fairly realistic view of how four to six 19 year old guys act when they're together? Just ask any elder who's served a mission. Even better...ask a RM sister how elders really act in the mission field.  You may still complain that God's Army shouldn't have shown ordained elders being irreverent, but you can't say it's not realistic.

(Side Note: those wishing to see more 'idealistic' portrayals of missionaries can see the Church-produced "Labor of Love"--which I personally can't stand and which for some reason doesn't offend as many people as "God's Army".   Fun FHE activity: watch "Labor of Love" and count how many mission rules the elders break. I counted at least four....)

(2) In my not-so-humble opinion, the 'idealistic' picture of missionaries that detractors of God's Army seem to prefer is better off being discarded anyway. Another common tendency of Church members (particularly young girls of marriage age) is to assume that any elder who completes his mission:

• is temple worthy
• has a strong testimony
• is mature and a hard worker
• honors his priesthood
• would make an excellent husband and father.

Again, for a glimpse of reality, ask any RM sister whether she knows of any elders from her mission who served the entire two years but fail in one or more of the above areas.

The fact is that very few missionaries commit a big enough sin to get sent home early (and this is a purely subjective judgment call of the mission president anyway), but that doesn't mean all missionaries who finished the two years are 'good' missionaries, or even temple worthy.

Sure, it's great to have faith in the Church's missionary corps, but when young women say they want to marry a faithful Church member in the temple, and automatically grab the first RM they can get their hands on--assuming from the sole fact that he is an RM that he is a faithful member of the Church without checking--then this idealism causes some serious problems. The road to the celestial kingdom is littered with the corpses of marriages where the wife finds out too late that her husband's standards aren't quite as high as she originally--and naively--thought.

If there are, say, 18-year-old girls who feel 'disappointed' and 'disillusioned' by watching "God's Army", I would say "Good!" Now perhaps they'll spend a little more time getting to know their future husbands and seeing if they're really worthy of them, instead of just looking for the virtual nametag on someone's chest that says "Hi, my name is _____. I'm an RM!".

The other issue that has sparked concern and debate within God's Army is the portrayal of 'holy ordinances', specifically priesthood blessings. Latter-Day Saints are properly sensitive to holy and sacred things being treated with disrespect and disdain (the 'pearls before swine' principle), but in this case too, I don't think the concern is warranted. Why?

(1) Priesthood blessings aren't 'secret'--not like temple ordinances, for example. There's no rule against non-members being present when a priesthood blessing is given, and thus the fact that some of the actors in God's Army are non-members shouldn't matter either.

(2) The portrayal of the blessings is entirely respectful and appropriate for the situation. This is hardly a 'mockery' of priesthood power, but rather an accurate representation of how real missionaries would have acted in the situation given. While some of the elder's actions are irreverent (as noted above), when it came time to be serious, though, they all treat blessings with the gravity they deserve, and I can't see why anyone would conclude that any of the blessing scene were 'inappropriate' or 'disrespectful'. (Note also the blessings also serve a purpose in the plot by showing Elder Kinegar's loss of the Spirit...)

In conclusion, I don't believe any one element of God's Army's portrayal of missionaries is either (a) inaccurate, or (b) inappropriate.  I believe Dutcher and company were respectful of the things that deserved respect, and accurate and realistic in everything else.