अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA college hockey player and a female journalism student struggle to find common ground with their spiritual faith and scientific studies.A college hockey player and a female journalism student struggle to find common ground with their spiritual faith and scientific studies.A college hockey player and a female journalism student struggle to find common ground with their spiritual faith and scientific studies.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
फ़ोटो
Fred Thompson
- Judge Hardin
- (as Fred Dalton Thompson)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
This is an excellent movie and I would recommend it to anyone, it was one that challenges the way we think about the very way we were created. I loved the way the film tugged at topics that are rarely discussed in any setting other than a church pew. I liked that it was a film based in a secular world with real life issues that were presented with a Christian viewpoint. I appreciate that this wasn't just another movie at the box office designed to provide us with a cheap laugh, it took real life questions and gave real life answers. When you go to the theater you think its about going to sit there and be entertained for an hour and half, then you get into your car and probably laugh about some parts later but in general it lends nothing to your life, this movie won't be like that! This movie will make you think, make you question what you believe and why you believe it and it will answer the one question that has perplexed humans from day one, where did I come from???
Not only is this waste of film boring but also inaccurate. Aside from what I believe to be complete misunderstandings of science and evolution this movie does not offer anything meaningful, only a sappy, Christian story. I never had a "Worst movies list" until now, and this one tops it. To say that the acting in the movie is bad would be a gross understatement. The dialogue suffers in and of itself. The story itself is unoriginal and lacking in depth, a "quality" shared with the characters in the film. Unfortunately I cannot give this film a 0 out of 10, giving it a 1 is, in my opinion, being quite generous. This is not only an opinion of mine, my feelings are shared by many in the Christian community where the film was shot.
I guess I can't call this film "manipulative," because most people read the plot before seeing it, and know it's a Christian movie that's going to promote the religion. Although the appearance of a few old stars and an Ultimate Fighting star in the cast make you wonder to what degree.
The female protagonist looks the part. She has a very wholesome persona. I believe her. The male looks like the quarterback of the football team, not a hockey player. He's too pretty. He looks almost exactly like a young Brat Pack Andrew McCarthy.
You've already read the plot. Two college students meet. One's a hockey star and one's writing for the school paper. She wants to do a bio on the athlete, but he's guarding his privacy. They have a little chemistry, but with both going through life crises simultaneously, they never get around to any real romance.
I didn't believe that part. Just because she is a Christian does not mean she would not kiss, cuddle, and whatever else. They were two gorgeous young folks in the prime of their life. Christians have relationships.
The film is used as a vehicle to either help young folks who are on the fence about their faith, reinforce the faith they already have, or to teach parents, teachers, and clergy how to minister to the "unchurched" or confused.
The central conflict is science vs. religion and the centerpiece is a way too long, yet mildly creative lecture done in a planetarium by a group of physics students who want to reconcile the story of creation with science. Why not just forget the movie, and have the whole thing be a youtube lecture? They would save a lot of money.
No one mentioned that C. Thomas Howell directed. I generally like him. I didn't know he was a Christian. Well, it was too slow and contrived. The actors while good, showed very little emotion. The worst aspect of the film was a role given to Catherine Hicks.She did show emotion and played an extremely awkward role well.
The film makers have contempt for the secular elitists who run the modern universities. So the Hicks character, a PhD academic adviser spews a monologue about the silliness of faith, and how it will block the way to our protagonist finding liberated bliss in the "post modern" world.
Even at liberal schools, which is virtually every one, she would probably get fired for that. The girl just sits and listens and doesn't fight back at all. Was she turning the other cheek? I didn't believe that she would remain silent.
They have the adviser say all the buzz words that characterize the type of liberal that conservative Christians can't stand. She expresses her excitement about serving the "New World Order," joining the "elite," and moral relativity. This scene was painfully forced. Even the dumbest university liberal egghead would have found a more nuanced way to say all that.
My favorite part that made me laugh, was placing a minister, a professor and a hockey player in a shooting range, while they discussed God. They managed to squeeze in God, Guns, Hockey, Weightlifting, Football, and contempt for elite academics in one movie. Ha ha.
The best aspect was the acting. Despite the lack of strong emotion, I did feel their pain at times. There is some genuinely good dialogue, but again I think they would have been better off just doing an interesting and informative youtube video, instead of forcing some contrived plot.
Or someone could do a video about how the early Christian fathers purposely mistranslated Hebrew in order to prove that the Torah was wrong and the Jews are evil. Read the scriptures. Those points are emphasized on every other page.
The female protagonist looks the part. She has a very wholesome persona. I believe her. The male looks like the quarterback of the football team, not a hockey player. He's too pretty. He looks almost exactly like a young Brat Pack Andrew McCarthy.
You've already read the plot. Two college students meet. One's a hockey star and one's writing for the school paper. She wants to do a bio on the athlete, but he's guarding his privacy. They have a little chemistry, but with both going through life crises simultaneously, they never get around to any real romance.
I didn't believe that part. Just because she is a Christian does not mean she would not kiss, cuddle, and whatever else. They were two gorgeous young folks in the prime of their life. Christians have relationships.
The film is used as a vehicle to either help young folks who are on the fence about their faith, reinforce the faith they already have, or to teach parents, teachers, and clergy how to minister to the "unchurched" or confused.
The central conflict is science vs. religion and the centerpiece is a way too long, yet mildly creative lecture done in a planetarium by a group of physics students who want to reconcile the story of creation with science. Why not just forget the movie, and have the whole thing be a youtube lecture? They would save a lot of money.
No one mentioned that C. Thomas Howell directed. I generally like him. I didn't know he was a Christian. Well, it was too slow and contrived. The actors while good, showed very little emotion. The worst aspect of the film was a role given to Catherine Hicks.She did show emotion and played an extremely awkward role well.
The film makers have contempt for the secular elitists who run the modern universities. So the Hicks character, a PhD academic adviser spews a monologue about the silliness of faith, and how it will block the way to our protagonist finding liberated bliss in the "post modern" world.
Even at liberal schools, which is virtually every one, she would probably get fired for that. The girl just sits and listens and doesn't fight back at all. Was she turning the other cheek? I didn't believe that she would remain silent.
They have the adviser say all the buzz words that characterize the type of liberal that conservative Christians can't stand. She expresses her excitement about serving the "New World Order," joining the "elite," and moral relativity. This scene was painfully forced. Even the dumbest university liberal egghead would have found a more nuanced way to say all that.
My favorite part that made me laugh, was placing a minister, a professor and a hockey player in a shooting range, while they discussed God. They managed to squeeze in God, Guns, Hockey, Weightlifting, Football, and contempt for elite academics in one movie. Ha ha.
The best aspect was the acting. Despite the lack of strong emotion, I did feel their pain at times. There is some genuinely good dialogue, but again I think they would have been better off just doing an interesting and informative youtube video, instead of forcing some contrived plot.
Or someone could do a video about how the early Christian fathers purposely mistranslated Hebrew in order to prove that the Torah was wrong and the Jews are evil. Read the scriptures. Those points are emphasized on every other page.
This is utter horse ca-ca (I'm terribly sad that Mr Muphy's involved), which tries to make an utter mockery of science.
I wish everyone involved in this were to get seriously ill, and then see what happens to them when praying does nothing to save them. They only option left is the 'evil' science - Ana the wonders of modern medicine, to help save them.
These utterly misguided, uneducated, and thoroughly indoctrinated people see no connection in how far, how destructive their (il)logic is compared with those people who commit horrible acts of murder in the Middle East, all in their claim of doing it for 'their' god.
If you've got children, religion and education are two separate things. The people who make such garbage as this would be laughed at, by ANY religious overseer - Christian, Catholic, etc, even in the Middle Ages!!!
Dumb Iis 'dum', and if anything, this amateurish, homemade piece of garbage shouldn' should be used as an example of how dangerous being uneducated can be.
I wish everyone involved in this were to get seriously ill, and then see what happens to them when praying does nothing to save them. They only option left is the 'evil' science - Ana the wonders of modern medicine, to help save them.
These utterly misguided, uneducated, and thoroughly indoctrinated people see no connection in how far, how destructive their (il)logic is compared with those people who commit horrible acts of murder in the Middle East, all in their claim of doing it for 'their' god.
If you've got children, religion and education are two separate things. The people who make such garbage as this would be laughed at, by ANY religious overseer - Christian, Catholic, etc, even in the Middle Ages!!!
Dumb Iis 'dum', and if anything, this amateurish, homemade piece of garbage shouldn' should be used as an example of how dangerous being uneducated can be.
Not Great, Not Bad. Better than most of these type films. My issue is with these reviews that ridicule the Science. If the Science is flawed please explain how. Using "crackerjack" Box and such explains nothing I am curious if you know this for a fact or in typical Liberal fashion you just hate religion and people who have Faith. I personally believe that God and Science are not at odds. The scientist who lead the team that cracked the Human Genome believes in a Creator and his book is called "The language of God". Im not making the argument that there is or is not a God. Just the point that Science does not necessarily disprove a Creator
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe first director, Patrick Read Johnson, was fired and C. Thomas Howell was brought in to finish the film. DGA rules required that Johnson be given a shared credit.
- भाव
Marc Wells: Time itself is actually different for observers in different frames of reference when one frame is in motion relative to another.
- साउंडट्रैकA Soldier's King
Written by Kenny Horton and John Jarvis
Performed by C.R. Lewis
Arranged by Bill Wandel
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is The Genesis Code?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $51,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 18 मि(138 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.78 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें