887. DESERET (1995)

Running Time: 82 minutes
Directed By: James Benning
Written By: James Benning
Main Cast: Fred Gardner (narrator)

IT CAME FROM YOUTUBE

Man, just when you think the worst MUST be behind you, when you realize that you made it through films like "Dog Star Man", "The Color of Pomegranates" and "Chimes at Midnight" and that it couldn't get much worse, just when you think you're out of the woods, something like this comes along and makes you realize that it's not over till it's over. Suffice it to say that "Deseret" bored me to tears, figuratively speaking.

I can't write a proper review for this movie, because as far as I'm concerned it's barely a movie at all. In fact, I could've made this movie and no one would be none the wiser. The film is directed by experimental filmmaker James Benning, who, for a period of eighteen months took various shots around Utah with his 16mm camera. Once he was finished, he edited them all together to create an eighty-two minute film. From there, he sampled articles from the New York Times, dating from 1852 - 1992, that dealt with the original Utah settlers and the history of Mormonism and had Fred Gardner read them aloud, over his images. That's all folks.

As far as I'm concerned there was absolutely no artistry on the part of Benning. He filmed nature and he read from the New York Times and somehow his "film" got so recognized that someone thought it would be a good idea to make "list hounds", like myself, watch it when they put it in the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book. In fact, they're probably laughing their asses of at people like me, who read their text and follow it so diligently, realizing that we actually have to sit through this tripe.

Look, it's not that it was bad, it's just that it barely constituted a film and it was just so boring! I don't usually like throwing that word around either, but in the case of "Deseret", I'll make an exception and say, hands down, "Deseret" is the definition of a boring film. I have no idea why THIS was included over such gems that would be considered sins of omission and it begs the question, why doesn't THE BOOK take the time to explain why they chose each entry, why it is so important to the history of cinema and why we must see it? They really should, because if I'm going to be forced to sit through this stuff, I'd really like to have some justification.

RATING: 1/10  And that's your worst movie of the season, so far and while I don't deal in definites, this one has virtually no shot of making it to the TOP 20.

MOVIES WATCHED: 555
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 446

October 18, 2012  4:00pm