Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA 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.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Foto
Fred Thompson
- Judge Hardin
- (as Fred Dalton Thompson)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
If you get your science updates from the back of a cereal box, and your ability to discern truth from a Magic 8 Ball, then this movie is for you. Tokenism is running amok as the yarn is presented with the point of view of only the white Christian perspective and those from another cultural background are as flat and two dimensional as the plot and it's unfounded but humorous scientific 'melding". This film will appeal to those who want to believe that they are seeing beyond the Biblical errors, but a true deep thinker will only shake their head and ask for their money back from the theater. If C. Thomas Howell had changed a few lines and scenes, the film would have come across as a parody instead of simply a silly adventure to explain what does not exist. Creationism is not based on science, and well funded propaganda like this to justify the notations of 2000 year old nomads, to fit modern science theory and fact is a wasted effort.
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 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???
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe 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.
- Citazioni
Marc Wells: Time itself is actually different for observers in different frames of reference when one frame is in motion relative to another.
- Colonne sonoreA Soldier's King
Written by Kenny Horton and John Jarvis
Performed by C.R. Lewis
Arranged by Bill Wandel
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Genesis Code?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 5.100.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 18min(138 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti