8 November 2013 | dansview
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.