mabraham1

The documentary presents compelling evidence and intriguing photos of real giants, making for an interesting watch. The visuals alone are enough to capture the viewer's attention, and the topic is undeniably fascinating. However, the constant sound effects and overpowering music were more distracting than immersive, making it hard to focus on the narration. Instead of enhancing the experience, the repetitive background noise became grating, making it difficult to stay engaged for the entire runtime.

It's strange that the documentary used spellings like Kanzas and Arkanzas instead of Kansas and Arkansas. That kind of mistake makes it seem less credible, as if the filmmakers didn't bother to fact-check basic details. It's possible they were trying to mimic older spellings from historical documents, but without any explanation, it just comes across as sloppy or careless. If they can't get simple things like state names right, it raises doubts about how well they researched the bigger claims in the film.

Additionally, while the documentary raises some intriguing questions, it fails to provide sufficient evidence for some of its claims. For instance, the assertion that the Smithsonian removed giant bones is mentioned but not backed up with any concrete proof, leaving that conspiracy theory feeling flimsy rather than compelling. If the filmmakers wanted to make a strong case for this, they should have included historical records, testimonies, or expert analysis. Without that, it feels like an empty claim rather than a well-supported argument.

Another puzzling aspect was the supposed connection between sloths and giants. The film introduces the idea but never fully explains how the two are related. Were giant sloths being mistaken for giant humans? Was there some kind of shared history? The lack of clarity on this point made that section feel out of place and disjointed from the rest of the documentary's narrative. Weird.

Overall, while the documentary offers some fascinating material and visually intriguing evidence, the excessive audio distractions and lack of thorough explanations for some claims prevent it from being a truly compelling or convincing film.

While I had expected this to be a thrilling documentary, it turned out to be a drama of guys finding spiritual fulfillment, but no ark. If this was billed as a documentary, why not ask Gary Sinise to narrate what's happening throughout the whole movie, rather than the brief synopsis at the end? What about name graphics for the scientists, theologians, and lead explorers?

I found the chaotic storyline a bit tough to digest-requiring suspension of reality to weave in plot fragments like this one: about 30 minutes is spent trekking the long arduous journey up Mt. Ararat, where many holes were drilled, but found empty. Then somehow a Sherpa runs to what appears to be an outlying gift shop, picks up a diamond-studded hollow excavation bit for extracting wood sample, and returns in record time to attempt extracting some gopher wood in the same afternoon? Who forgot to bring that seemingly extremely important bit?? Well why not just rent a few earthmovers and backhoes from the local Cat dealer and hire Turkish sherpas to haul it up?

The other odd scenes involved the explorers on the Mr. Ararat dig site calling the boss back home via sat-phone for him to say obtuse things like, "well, just keep digging more holes", etc.

I believe the ark will be found on Mt. Ararat, and my faith in God couldn't be any stronger if they found the ark or not. But what would have made the movie memorably funny would be if they plunged the bit into the glacier field and pulled up a jelly donut from one of the previous explorers.