The Genesis Code

This movie was a pleasant surprise. Let's get one thing out of the way. It has both quality acting and a driving plot. So, from the aspect of watching an entertaining movie it hits the mark. But, it moves far beyond that. It is difficult to put on the big screen a challenging topic on an issue nearly all of use hold a strong position. This movie will allow you to open your mind to how science and religion are not necessarily in conflict. It is easy to see how many people will either hat or love the movie, because it forces people to think and step out of their comfort zone. As I said, it will allow you to open your mind. The question is how many people will approach with an open mind.

In fact while I really admired what The Genesis Code tried to do, I had a somewhat mixed view on it. For me, while it is not a movie worth a perfect 10, it is nowhere near bad enough to warrant a 1. I thought the production values were quite good, looking almost real at times(with the exception of moments of monotonous photography), and while stereotypes I did find myself sympathising with the lead characters and the priest, particularly Blake. Logan Bartholomew and Kelsey Sanders are very likable in the lead roles with a sweet chemistry and Jerry Zandstra also acquitted himself nicely. There are however a number of things that let The Genesis Code down. The concept was good and really quite ballsy, but the execution of it seemed rather muddled. The script is rather talky and often doesn't seem to know what it's talking about which is likely to confuse people like it did me. Where The Genesis Code is going to cause polarisation(and I can see through the reviews and the useful votes that there is already some going on) is how people are going to find it thought-provoking and how many are going to find that it talks down to them. For me, I can see both sides, I thought there were some decent ideas that later were poorly explored or convoluted in execution. The story is also confused, eventually does get tedious- sadly a lot of the movie does drag on and on- and even manages to short-circuit the initially touching love story to falling flat. Blake's heartache with his mum was actually quite affecting though. Actors like Ernest Borgnine, Louise Fletcher, Lance Henrikssen et al. immediately show some kind of promise, but a number of them only have a couple of lines or have appearances that would class as a walk-on. They're fun to spot and do what they can with what they have, but they deserved much more. In conclusion, a good idea that came across as muddled yet well-intentioned, making it a movie I neither loved or hated. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.

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