D H I'm LDS, with a significant interest in history, and although this film was OK, and I enjoyed the cast, the story was inaccurate and somewhat glossy in many places.In contrast to some of the other reviews, I'd note that Joseph Smith was arrested on a legitimate charge. He destroyed a newspaper press and the papers in Nauvoo. Freedom of the press is protected in the US under the constitution, so he broke the law. Further, having read that edition of the Nauvoo expositor I find that although there is hyperbole within it the basis of its claims are founded in fact, revealing that Joseph taught polygamy long before it was openly announced. Having read Richard Lyman Bushman's 'Rough Stone Rolling', and Todd Compton's 'In Sacred Loneliness' Smith is also acknowledged by Church Historians to have married 11 women that were actually married to other men alive at the time - some of which he had sent away on missions before proposing to their wives whilst they were away serving. So if anything, this movie underplays it.Brigham Young, was a strong leader, and he did indeed establish SLC, and build a thriving community there. Our history is far more troubled and nuanced than is portrayed in this movie. The story did little to portray a well rounded view of the harsh reality both within and without the church.

bkoganbing The completed product of Brigham Young was not the film Darryl F. Zanuck envisioned. Originally the film was to have been an actual Hollywood biography of Brigham Young starring Walter Huston. Huston would have been grand casting in the role. But he backed out and Zanuck was stuck without a leading man. He decided to use Dean Jagger who he had under contract, but who was not a leading man. Zanuck then had the roles of the young farmer and his gentile sweetheart upgraded and cast Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell in them who had done so well in several films and built those parts up.Several LDS reviewers have pointed out the glaring inaccuracies of the story so I won't repeat them. Nevertheless Henry Hathaway does a fine job making this motion picture move. He certainly captures the grit and determination of the early Mormon settlers in Utah after they are run out of Illinois.Two of the minor characters in the film that I liked are Marc Lawrence as the prosecuting attorney of Joseph Smith and John Carradine as Mormon scout Porter Rockwell. Though Joseph Smith was not tried for anything before he was murdered, Lawrence's attorney is quite typical of the demagogic politician who made the Mormon residency of wherever they settled so much grist for their propaganda mill. As for Carradine, part frontier scout and part religious zealot, he fits the conception I have always had of Rockwell. A truly colorful character, he was as well known as Brigham Young himself in his day. He'd be a good subject for a biographical film himself.One of the great enigmas of the last two centuries coming down to this one is the fact that there still has never been one shred of archaeological evidence to prove the existence of that western hemisphere civilization that the Book of Mormon speaks of. Yet for a people that built their faith on a myth there is no denying the civilization they created in Utah. And in the climax when those seagulls came and ate the locusts destroying the crop the Saints planted that first year. No seagulls have ever been in the state of Utah before or since. That was indeed something of a miracle.And from the LDS reviewers here I see they are well pleased with this film.

georgereaganbush Good flick. I thought the acting was good. Linda Darnell, tyrone power, and all the others were good. The seagull scene was powerful. Compare this film to propaganda like michael moore's evil documentary or garbage like eyes wide shut or so many poor films out there today.I thought this film had adventure, philosophy and drama. Polygamy was addressed in when a person said polygamy would lead to many children and would greatly expand the size of the religion because obviously there would be many more mormons because of polygamy. I do not know if this was the real reason but I think for me it is interesting.Whatever you think about mormons, they are a very respectful and nice group of people. The mormon tabernacle choir is one of the best in the world. Mormons are clearly in the brotherhood of great Christian religions and some mormons will be standing in heaven like other Christians. in conclusion, this film stands as a fine film in many ways. And if America had moral messages and insightful philosophy like this in modern films, the world would be a much better place.

Scott Stevens I enjoyed Brigham Young-Frontiersman immensely, however, I would not characterize the movie as an accurate portrayal of the personalities in the film. Although the events are accurate enough, the film does not do justice to the historical figures. Immediately noticeable is the positive light that Mormons are cast in, and I think this is necessary to make the film work given the subject matter and historical events portrayed. Nevertheless, being a card carrying Mormon, and having read a great deal of history and biography on the leaders of the Church, I cannot say that the personalities are true to history. I thought that Vincent Price cast as Joseph Smith was very strange, though my reaction to him in the role was heavily tainted by his later roles in the Roger Corman adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe's works (The Pit and the Pendulum, The Raven, etc.). Still, I felt that Price was not charismatic enough, and did not have the forceful presence that Joseph Smith surely had in life. Dean Jagger cast as Brigham Young was more tolerable, but not really as convincing as say Brian Keith in the Wind and the Lion, or George C. Scott in Patton. Furthermore, Brigham Young had a very powerful, direct, yet unrefined manner of speech that had it been carefully followed or mimicked, would have made the character much more convincing. His manner of speech is entirely unique and really gets a reader's attention. It is often very humorous as well. Hearing it in the film would have greatly improved the script, but the writers would have needed to immerse themselves thoroughly in his discourses and writings to carry it off.Moreover, there are a host of perspectives or ways of looking at things that are unique to Mormons, not to mention a very distinctive manner of speech and phraseology regarding religious matters that the film failed to capture. As an active Mormon, I would have to say that as I watched the film I felt like an insider observing a film written by outsiders who had not properly done their homework. The film has many fine qualities and I give it a good rating. If the writing had been more true to Mormon thinking, speech patterns and their leaders unique personalities, it would have been all that was necessary to raise the film from good to great. All of this aside, I give the film three stars out of a possible four.