Reviews

This movie is difficult to review. The director and main actor does (almost) not show any transgressions, by not adding extrabiblical elements to the story. He does tell a background from 'his' childhood which is added to the Bible and therefore problematic. But the remainder of the dialog is true to the Bible and possibly not far from His real character. One could argue that Jesus did not speak with a more intense and dramatic voice, but those of us who know the Bible, know better.

But I have a serious problem with the whole concept, to show Jesus at a dinner table. He certainly could do this, in a similar form He appeared in the Old Testament long before his incarnation as the Messenger of Great Counsel, better known as the Angel of the Lord. We do not know how many or few times He actually appeared, but we know that he appeared without doubt to many people and did even go before / behind Israel during the Exodus, meaning that he was seen at the same time in some form by hundreds of thousands of people.

But still, this does not give us the allowance to create such an image of a Jesus, who just happens to sit in a restaurant. Jesus works today in visions, e.g. Muslims often have those dreams and visions before they come to Christ. This is how Jesus appears.

Many people would argue otherwise, but there is a real catch. This movie gives us the example of goodness (M. Teresa) versus evil (H**ler). Now Jesus in the movie answers 'alright', which is rather affirmative to her assertion of MT being good. He continues to say that 'she did many good things', which might be even correct in a limited sense.

But Jesus would never affirm the goodness of Mother Teresa, and appearing today, He would tell us how we got fooled by the Catholic Church and by the media in believing she was a saint. He would warn us that we have to develop a better discernment and not trust what the world calls morally good.

Jesus knows that Teresa lied in 1994, when she argued that the abuse allegations against Jesuit priest Donald McGuire were untrue and when she successfully enabled years of further abuse. He knows that she lied, when she defended him again, right before he was convicted to 25 years of prison after 40 years of horrific crimes. He knows that she committed idolatry when she called Mary our patroness and our Mother, and when she claimed that it is her who is always leading us to Jesus.

While the movie correctly states that there is only one way to Jesus, Teresa would have never believed this, being a Universalist. She rather said things such as "All is God - B's, H's, C's, etc., all have access to the same God." This woman went as far as to directly worship Buddha.

Now we have the catch. People watch this movie, their picture of Jesus is transformed away from the holy, and they wrongly assume that He would call good what in reality is evil.

This is NOT Jesus.

Having watched this movie today, I am somehow surprised.

Surprised about a beautiful movie, and a magnificent storyline I did not expect. But also surprised why this movie has been, and is being endorsed as a Christian movie.

Yes, there are some scenes inside a room with a statue of Christ and the name of 'God' is mentioned. Yes, there is quite a transformation of an arrogant and selfish guy toward a person he himself did not even know that existed within him. There are a lot of elements that are morally good.

But moral is, although being part of Christianity, equally found in the world. Moral does not make someone a Christian, but only the proclamation to follow Jesus. Now Jesus is not even mentioned in this movie, neither does the main actor find any kind of salvation in this movie. He became a better person, but spiritually not an inch closer to eternity with THEOS than before. This might be a hard pill for some, but the Bible does not teach us, that becoming a better I than you had been before, makes you a Christian. Such stories are beautiful, but to be really saved we need to accept the offer for salvation from JESUS CHRIST.

No amount of good deeds and charities and donations will bring you into Eternity. Only to follow Him, and then of course plus the good deeds that follow this decision.

PROS

+ The movie puts the spotlights on opposing selfishness, and is today more relevant than 22 years ago. Our culture is now saturated with those types of 'me, me, me'. I do that mountain on my own, I am my own boss in life, I, I, I. What a wonderful lesson Jason could learn in this movie, and is able to teach many others trapped in that selfish mentality today.

+ It elevates the family and the responsibilities of a father. At the same time it elevates the role of a father of the bride and shows how good protection looks alike, but also how biblical forgiveness should be alike.

CONS

• I never saw in a movie such a blatant endorsement, even including a closeup of one of his books. Billy Graham was one of the biggest frauds of Christian history, and this is also the reason why I sadly cannot promote this overall very good movie. (He was a great admirer of the 33° Mason Norman Vincent Peale; had a strong tendency towards Universalism; key figure in the ecumenical movement; used Roman Catholic lay people as supervisors and altar workers; close collaboration with the Vatican and the Pope; endorsement of female pastors)

• The advice Ned gives to the then girlfriend of Jason, when she was trying to get out of fornication, was 'we all go through periods like that'. This is a deeply troubling advise, which has contributed to the notion that it is ok in younger years to commit some 'mistakes', and then simply ask later for forgiveness.

While it might be true that THEOS can (and will upon repentance) forgive any sin, there is no assurance that we are ever drawn to the awareness of those sins and to the respective repentance. The further down the road, the more a miracle it requires getting out of it. But to the credit to this movie, this bad advice is obviously (and at least in parts) 'overwritten' by the later repentance of Jason.

• When Jason repents, he asks Jesus to come into his heart. This is a formula foreign to the Bible and part of the evangelism scheme of Billy Graham, to enable him to count the 'conversions'. Another part of this scheme is the lifting of hands and then counting those lifted hands as saved people.

PROS + Teaches some good values and Christian principles.

+ Strong example for a unity in villages, when it comes to holding together and helping even a stranger.

+ Good example how to obey and follow the wisdom of older and more experienced people.

NEUTRAL

• No redemption of the main actor, but a beautiful restoration.

CONS

• A bit too American and over the top.

• Too much driven by performance thinking.

• They play with money. Although not specified as such in the Bible, it has a negative taste.

• They endorse rodeo, which is already problematic by worldly standards.

Overall a good movie, but not one that I would recommend based on gambling and rodeo.

It is strange that this movie was being recommended as being Christian. It shows a good message of a social gospel, but nothing else. No restoration, no redemption.

PROS

+ Great example how to help homeless people. He did it while being a professional, but still with some heart and persistence involved.

+ Great production quality and story-telling.

+ Perfect acting.

CONS

• Initial quote by Sigmund Freud.

• 2x SOAB, F-word.

• Use of the name of God in vain.

• Blasphemy through 'GDa'.

• Although being clear that Nathaniel could have only been helped by THEOS, the movie actually ridicules the efforts of the Christian musician who prayed for him.

• The movie goes as far as to have Steve being proclaimed god by Nathaniel, then the journalist 'commands' him in his name and answers him that he is granted eternal life by him. Outmost blasphemy. The director of this movie has a serious problem with THEOS.

What a beautiful surprise of a movie. A tremendous story which could have been perfectly written by THEOS.

PROS + Great lessons for life, no matter if you believe or not (yet).

+ Great example how to treat homeless people with respect and love, knowing that each one has his or her own story, which is often not by election. We will be surprised in eternity how many homeless people there will be and how few majors.

+ Great production, great and very creative script.

+ Wonderful teaching of the Good Message (just a little bit too much focussed on heaven instead on a renewed earth, but a truly secondary issue here). The inclusion of her book is so very special and the Good Message can hardly be told in a more beautiful way through a child. What a memorable scene. Also very beautiful how he then framed her book.

NEUTRAL

o She was a bit too optimistic if you see her character from a worldly perspective. But seeing it through spiritual eyes, she could have indeed had such a joy in the midst of suffering and violence.

O A good example of caring neighbors, but I would have inserted at least a scene where they intend to talk to the mother. They were caring but also well aware of the consequences. Overall a good lesson and warning for single parents who are about to get into a similar pattern.

CONS

• She prays once to a statue of JESUS. It would have been better for this scene to have her pray sitting down on a bench.

• Sadly no redemption of him, but a real transformation.

• Sadly no redemption of her mother, but her restoration would have probably filled another movie.

It is a sad testimony for the world that we need such movies. A world which assumes to have become smarter, has become much more drawn into their sin, into self-centered lifestyles.

It would be very easy for evolutionist to accept the other, much more logical side. But they would never, at no cost. Because that would mean to let go of that lifestyle of endless 'possibilities', of freely being able to chose between evil and good.

But what the people don't see is, that while coming to THEOS, they could still chose between evil and good. With the huge difference that they would not be drawn anymore to do evil, but would find fulfillment in their purpose, to not only live for self, but for the well of others.

We don't know if one of the coming generations will wake up to the lie of millions of years. Maybe. Then people would look back and would say, how ridiculous their parents or grandparents had been.

Sadly we are at the moment at the point of people looking back in ridicule at their grandparents, saying how narrow-minded and religious they had been. Yes, they had been sometimes a bit too legalistic, but what is better, a bit too legalistic (or let's say spiritually cautious knowing very well the dramatic consequences there could be) or being drawn to an extreme which has no precedent in any past millennia.

Humans have believed much things we would call today funny at best. But what society believes right now, that we came from fish and monkeys, is not funny anymore.

Look at yourself. Are you not a wonder?

This documentary starts out to denounce false prophets from the past, who employed vague prophecies, but curiously enough falls just minutes later into a very similar pattern.

1. One key message of this documentary is the fig tree prophecy, and that the end times are to begin with the rebirth of Israel.

First they say in one sentence that many scholars believe the fig tree to be Israel. One sentence later, now from another commentator, they suddenly change to "Now understanding that the fig tree IS Israel" ...

They confuse a UN declaration done in 1948 with the -SPIRITUAL- rebirth of Israel, while ignoring that people in Israel are currently far away from THEOS and little to no spiritual rebirth as biblically specified has taken place. The vast majority of people still denies JESUS and some Jewish denominations even plainly deny THEOS.

Then they calculate 80 to 120 from that date, exclusively based on the very generic statement of Psalm 102:12: "Let this be recorded for A GENERATION TO COME, so that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord"

They now state that the word usually translated with 'TO COME', means the 'LAST' generation. But looking at the Greek text, which is the text the 1st century church received as authoritative, we find a clear contradiction to this, because it uses the word 'HETEROS', which -as we all know very well- means 'ANOTHER' or 'DIFFERENT' (Strong's G2087)!

Greek text (here Psalm 101:19): Let this be written for ANOTHER generation; and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord.

Even the KJV translates the verse with "... remembrance unto ALL GENERATIONS."

It is abstruse exegesis to use this generic verse, to inject 'LAST' into it and then connect it to the fig tree prophecy!

2. Later they state that 3 specific countries will be attacking Israel, but they do not inform us how they see those countries in the biblical context (especially Russia, probably extrapolated from 'Gog').

3. They justify in minute 45 a nuclear war through Ezekiel 39:12, supposedly including a command to leave the bodies alone for 7 months, which in their opinion is an indicator for a nuclear war. But this is a plain lie, because the text states that the people of Israel will be in the very place being affected, cleaning it up for 7 months.

4. When it comes to the 'kings from the East' that wage war, they accuse the big players in what we commonly know as East. But this is based on a bad reading of the world's map. The biblical map almost certainly connects the world at the Bering Strait, meaning that the East is America!

This movie is difficult to review. It has the Christian element of restoration. But sadly there is no restoration when it comes to the main actor.

PROS + Great actors.

+ Great script.

CONS

• When he looks for a Christian testimony, he gets to Bono. To mention him as a Christian, is ridiculous.

• The pastor states that the other candidates are horrible actors, which is a strong anti-Christian attitude.

• They quote the Catholic Assisi.

• They allow him to take communion even though he is obviously not a Christian. This displays a very bad example for churches in America.

• They play the scene of the women caught in adultery, a passage that is foreign to the original Bible.

• At the end of the movie the pastor's daughter falls in love with an unbeliever who would probably lead her in real life away from church or cause serious problems, if no conversion occurred. Worse than that, they offer him indirectly new roles in the church.

This whole movie has some beautiful elements, but is laissez-faire in many regards and puts pressure on American churches to rather not chose the "boring and real" Christians to play a role, but to put up a show no matter what.

It is hard to write those words, because the movie causes positive emotions. But from a Christian perspective and for the sake of building up healthy churches, stay away from this movie.

I am a bit skeptical when it comes to visions, but Stephen's vision of the real Stephen is obviously not being sold as something that indeed occurred. Not to say that visions cannot occur anymore, which would be far from the biblical truth. But we all know how much abuse had been done.

This being said, we see a great idea behind the movie, to have the boy go in his dream through a quick time travel throughout Christian history. A low-budget movie, but well-made and without any expectation for more. It fulfilled its purpose in a wonderful way, to educate both children and adults about our history, and not to repeat (or at least to a lesser degree) the endless accounts of Christians going on a holiday trip to Rome and coming back with a big smile, knowing little about what place they had been.

This movie did probably a more important job than many other lengthy movies and dozens of books written without discernment and watering down the boundaries of the church.

It is very important in our times of increasing ecumenism, when we are about to forget the past of the 'church' and think that everything is at peace, just right before the other side will show one day its ugly face again.

This is a great journey back in time, right into Early Christianity. It does leave out the real brutality which happened in that time, but still gives us a good sensation how the dynamics in that time had been, and challenges us to stand firm in our faith, no matter how big or -compared with those events- rather small our opposition might be.

PROS + Great representation of Early Christianity.

+ Great plot.

+ Great screenplay.

+ Great actors.

+ No problematic theology, but a wonderful proclamation of the Good Message.

CONS

-Many scenes are obviously rendered on a computer. Usually this is not visible (and generally not problematic at all), but sometimes details are missing in rendered materials (e.g. The doors of the government building appear very plain and perfect) and/or the movement of the picture is unsteady. Probably the worst scene is minute 68, where Polycarb is about to escape and stands in front of a poorly animated backdrop of a hill. It is painfully obvious that the actors stand before a huge screen / animation, and it would have been very cheap to film this scene in the setting of an actual hill.

Rendering should be used when it comes to complex buildings that are expensive to actually reproduce, but never to avoid the trip to the next hill.

• It would be more authentic if the language throughout the movie would be Greek with English subtitles. All the people in that place and time, including the Jews, spoke Greek. It is a bit strange to watch such a movie in English language.

I am surprised how many emotions a short movie of half an hour can include. This movie is challenging in many aspects, to both believers and unbelievers.

It leaves the unbeliever with the choice if to continue making fun of those Christians and of THEOS, or if to take those warnings about our destiny serious.

And it challenges the believer who is too comfortable, who maybe is rather a nominal Christian.

And it challenges the Christian church to become more serious about the business of THEOS and less about money, signs and miracles. The overall image of the church is very important and we have to cleanse the church be a proper discernment of false teachings which leave such impressions on unbelievers.

This movie surprised me greatly. The cover looked like a primitive movie, and the beginning of the movie seemed flat. But this movie became 'better' very quickly, and turn out to be a very great movie.

+ Great Christian theme which develops after a third of the movie.

+ Great teaching of Christian values (how to care for your body, how to obey a leader, how to obey parents, how to restore relationships with parents, how to overcome opposition, how to be faithful, how to stay sexually pure and most importantly how to trust Him ...).

+ A good reflection on the unhealthy pressure many parents not only in the US are generating, and how their interference -if tolerated- could lead to results contrary to the ones desired. A beautiful reminder to parents to sometimes let go and trust teachers and coaches, instead of being overly demanding.

+ Highly inspirational and enjoyable.

+ No questionable theology, quotations or endorsements. No objectionable clothing.

+ Probably the first review I do not find anything to object. This says a lot. My sincere compliments to the director and the crew.

PROS + Very good plot.

+ Very good music.

+ Very good acting.

+ Overall well made.

CONS

• It is fundamentally wrong to display God in such a way. It is not blasphemous, but has the great potential to permanently damage a believer's journey and relationship with Him. I watched the movie, but intentionally only listened to the scenes with 'god'. Even this was partly disturbing because of words and attitudes the Lord would never display.

• Contains some erroneous theology. It is stated as fact that Jesus repeated only 6 out of 10 commandments (probably to justify Catholic idols, because precisely the commands I-IV are excluded in their interpretation). But JESUS affirmed every single command repeatedly (I-Mat 22:37; II-1Joh 5:21; III-Mar 3:29; IV-Luk 14:3; V- Mat 19:19; VI-Luk 18:20; VII-Mat 5:27-28; VIII-Mat 15:19; IX-Mat 15:19; X-Rom 13:9).

• The first opening quote comes from William Cowper, an Anglican.

• The second opening quote comes from Henry Ward Beecher, a Presbyterian.

QUOTES

Quote in minute 72:

"sono l'unico vero dio" (I am the only true God).

Your Italian is very good.

Loyola Rome, junior year abroad.

Well, that's time well spent."

>> Loyola Rome is a Jesuit University.

Quote at the end of the movie:

"Having faith is not worth much if you don't really believe."

>> They turn it upside down. Believe is first. Even Satan believes. Faith is much more than belief.

It had been a while since I cried at a movie, but this one got me. It is not easy to watch, as it shows in a quite natural way the consequences of broken families and the ugly facets of conflict and drug abuse. But so worth it.

PROS + Overall good acting, just sometimes the changes in mood were a bit forced and over pronounced.

+ Overall quite authentic.

+ Very encouraging, especially for those who had been involved in such drug abuse.

+ A strong Christian theme, although the conversations related to Christ did not always flow naturally. The theme includes restoration & salvation, and restoration of others.

CONS

• Some scenes came across a bit artificial (the scene where he visits her at her office, but still beautiful).

Overall clear recommendation.

Has this movie the potential to bring the viewer closer to the Lord?

Yes, it has.

Has this movie the potential to bring those close to the viewer closer to the Lord?

Yes, it definitely has.

Is this movie biblical?

Rather not. We cannot play Lord nor go back in time. BUT we are definitely in power to influence our future and the future of others.

Therefore, although being based on an unbiblical concept and with a great creative license, it is a good movie which stimulates the minds of the viewers in a very powerful way.

The music is sometimes a bit overly dramatic, but the concept is well-elaborated and fulfills its purpose.

Clear recommendation.

I do not understand why this has been recommended as a Christian movie.

The opening scene includes a scene where paramedics cut open the shirt and expose the bra of a young women.

Then there is a scene where evolution is promoted, while the professor mentions inteligent design as an afterthought as an 'and if you believe in that' option.

Then soon after the main protagonist is found to participate in fortune telling.

The main protagonist wears inappropiate clothing in nearly every scene.

Then there is the first scene of extramarital sex, followed soon after by an even more intimate scene.

That was 30 minutes in.

Those scenes alone have the strong potential to lead someone away from Him.

Later the movie endorses Nietzsche (well known to have hated God by declaring: "God is Dead"):

"Nietzsche is arguing that we have peeled God off and put ourselves in his place. Now the magnet in the story is ridiculed by the people in the marketplace for making his search for God known, they laugh at him and make sarcastic excuses."

The warfare displayed is also not a spiritul warfare which could come from the Bible. It is just a copy of the paranormal stuff we find in secular movies, with a touch of God in it and with a happy end.

The whole story might include some good elements, but it is the last I would recommend to anyone I want to bring to God. This movie rather brings people away from Him and builds a very bad foundation for someone who becomes a Christian.

His work is a dangerous potpourri / blend of ideas. I go as far as to say that it is more dangerous than what Darwin has written or said, because it pretends to endorse the Bible while it plainly contradicts the Creation Account. His bizarre version of the creation account implies billion-fold death before Adam.

While Strobel generously allows God to have come into action with creation day 1, he assumes a passive role of a spectator who had to wait until the big bang had made Him the earth and other collisions formed the moon and so on.

This is heretical. The Bible clearly states that God laid the foundation of the Earth, and the act of 'laying' is contrary to watch an accident happening. And it says that He created bodies like the moon.

While Strobel enlightens us with a good defense of special creation (at least in minor sense), he appears to have been intimated by his cuma laude friends. Why is he not asking how they can be certain about the materials the sun consists of, or why it should be billions of years old? Why did he not confront them with Bible verses that state that God laid the foundation of the earth and created the sun?

It is hypocrisy to have an investigative character and boldness when it comes to opposing certain lies of the more obvious enemies of God, but to leave this same character at the door when meeting with his special friends of worldly prestige.

Another fatal point is the blatant deception regarding the Cambrian explosion. When he brought this topic up in the book, it pretty much sounds like 5500 BC (Adam) or 3300 BC (Noah's Flood), when all the animals suddenly appeared at the same time. It is then a huge surprise to read at the end of the book and after having been left with this totally false impression, that this explosion in his reality lastet 5 million years and took place 530 million years ago. He tries then in a silly way to compare this to 5 minutes of a 24hrs day (which would make 1440 million years!!!), in order to water down the obviously close similarity to the concept of evolution. Who cares if 5 millions or a couple of million years more. Both concepts are outmost heretical when compared with the Word implying 6 ordinary days.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Strobel certainly makes a very good overall case for Christianity and defends it well in many aspects.

But both the book and movie should not have reached the audience of the average churchgoer, and rather remained within academic circles. I am certain that it is not in the will of God that someone spends all that time for going through such intellectual banter, no matter how sophisticated and meaningful it might be in parts. That time could be much better used to serve the church in a practical way, than being drawn in a parallel world of intellectual prestige and academics while endlessly listening to their oh-so-impressive credentials.

Humans cannot be convinced by truth and arguments alone, they are convinced by truth combined with example and passion. And most importantly and Strobel does not even see this, it is the Lord who needs to take away a veil in order for us to see those truths. No matter how smart and right and good many of his arguments might be, if he shows no heart to at least pray and call the viewer to pray for those veils be taken away, then his work is useless.

This biography is truly remarkable and well recommended to watch.

What a beautiful testimony of a family that converted from violence, deceit, abuse, drunkenness, hate, suicide and near murder to a widely restored family of forgiveness, love, compassion and most importantly of faith in Theos.

He allows a lot of suffering when every member of a family is rejecting Him, but only one member of the family changed already the whole trajectory.

Theos obviously loves to write stories as such, with some stark contrasts between evil and good, making a powerful testimony to the world and a further motivation to seek him.

PROS + Very powerful testimony

+ They put a lot of effort into adapting his different stages of life with the proper settings

+ Just about right length

CONS

• It was kind of shocking to hear in such a testimony the two evil names of C. S. Lewis and Billy Graham. This is very sad, but hopefully it was simply a lack of discernment and not a conscious endorsement of the evil within the 'Christian' world.

While the beginning of the movie appears somehow flat, it becomes increasingly deeper and more meaningful.

PROS + There is actually a lot of Christian talk and content, and not just one of the many 'faith-based' movies with maybe five Christian phrases.

+ It generally displays good morals to strive for.

+ No heresies.

+ No blasphemy, just once he took the name of Jesus with his friend in vain, but not in a negative way.

CONS

• Improper dress of the main actor which could lead to other Christians adopting such a provocative style.

• It is not understandable why she did not choose a marriage with the father of her child at the moment when he asked her to move together.

• Her boyfriend is talking to his dead father at the grave, which is surely not a biblical practice.

• The background music is partly problematic.

• The end is very abrupt.

Great documentary for that time. Not high quality in picture and low budget overall, but this makes it more authentic and does not take away anything. In fact, considering the small means, it is a great documentary.

He goes into the key places and shows ordinary people (who sometimes make interesting faces behind his back). More importantly, he teaches the Good Message in a simple and compact, yet comprehensive way. And he traces the way of Jesus Christ all the way back to the Old Testament and then connects to the one who announced him, John the Baptist.

It is a wonderful documentary which I can highly recommend.

CONS

• Endorsement of Martin Luther King at the beginning of the movie (he was not a Christian at all)
• Jesus did not died on a Friday, but on the penultimate day of the Passover week (the 2nd, not the 1st Day of Preparation).

• Reference to the Catholic Christ-mas.

PROS + Great comparison of OT prophecies, having been fulfilled in the time of Christ.

+ Great outlook into our future, the Second Coming of Christ.

+ Overall a wonderful testimony for Christ.

CONS

• They claimed that Christ died before the Passover Lamb was eaten and before Judas died. This firstly contradicts the narrative thread in Matthew 27, where Judas' death and the final purchase of the potter's field both happened before JESUS' death and even before His first trial before Pilate. A field could not be purchased without the involvement of Roman officials (plus payment of taxes) and therefore took time (impossibly some hours in the night; in our societies usually days or weeks). It also does not seem plausible to have Judas die on the very same day as JESUS and therefore to take away significance from JESUS' death, but he rather died in the hours after he knew that JESUS was going to be condemned - and several days before JESUS.

• A Fast-Track trial is not biblical. Jesus died on the penultimate day of the Passover Week - on the second, not the first Day of Preparation.

• Amnon Shor states that Jesus prayed at the Last Supper the jewish Hamotzi prayer: "Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth." There is no scriptural basis for this and it would have been unusual that He spoke such prayer in Hebrew and not in Greek. The NT specifically points out the rare instances something was uttered in Aramaic / Hebrew (see Mar 5:41-42, Mar 7:34, Act 22:1-2, Joh 20:15-17), and then translates this into Greek, clearly affirming the niche existence of Hebrew in that time. We should abstain from injecting things into the Bible that are not there, and especially from Judaizing.

• Almost exclusively academics being interviewed.

• Involvement of Focus on the Family, Greg Laurie, John Bloom (Calvinist) and Paul Crouch (TBN, Kenneth Copeland).

A petition to those who are tempted to give 1 star, simply because they have heard the one fact that the movie is pushing back slow evolution: watch the thing. I have seen it over and over in the past years through my ministry, that those type of documentaries receive 10 stars or 1 star, with literally no spectrum in between. It is a matter of etiquette to watch & vote, or not to watch & -NOT- to vote.

I give 9 stars, based on the following pros & cons:

+ Great production quality.

+ Well investigated and clearly presented facts.

+ Good selection of scholars, without the pseudo-critical injections sometimes found in other documentaries, while leaving the viewer puzzled which parts ought to be endorsed.

+ One of the few documentaries which actually teach the Good Message (towards the end, but with precision and love).

+ Excellent argument that museums intentionally do not show e.g. Dinos & ducks together, and create a twisted and more dramatized version of the whole thing.

+ It is also very important to point out that barely 40 years have passed since the new consensus had been established.

• It is probably not true that Eden was buried under hundreds of meters of material. The traditionally proposed Lower / Southern Mesopotamia lies barely at 34 meters ASL, while the Karaca Dag location in Upper Mesopotamia, discovered by Spire and this ministry in 2021, and also proposed by CMI some months later as landing site for the ark, lies still only at 498 meters ASL (plateau around the mountain; 1957 meters the mountain itself). 34 meters ASL do definitely exclude any additional layers and 498 meters do not provide much leverage. We often forget that everywhere material got added, elsewhere it needed to go. The flood stripped bare vast regions, while adding substantially to many other regions. I rather suspect by a look at the current conditition, that Mesopotamia as a whole lost during the flood a significant substance (except the mountains which rose during and after the flood). Inspiration for another documentary.

• Usage of the later flood date which collides with the pyramids (2518/2348 BC versus the correct 3298 BC in the Greek OT) and 370 days duration versus the correct 360 days (equal to one year, see Rev 11:3, 13:5) provided in the Greek OT (from 27/02 until 27/02 = exactly one year, not from 17/02 until 27/02). A small detail, but a stumbling block for some unbelievers.

• I would have wished to see a little bit more on the abyss, e.g. To have a quick look at Ringwoodite, and to mention with a few words the probable connection between the Pacific Ring of Fire (as localization for the underwater fissures) and the nearby Gran Canyon.

• Another very interesting point would have been the 2 great landbridges (Bering btw. Russia & US, 45 meters BSL; and Doggerland btw. Europe & GB, 35 meters BSL) which clearly existed until the flood.

Overall highly recommended. A wonderful documentary and a blessing to the world.

At first I was suspicious about the title, but there was no connection to the Catholic 'Mass', simply an unfortunate choice while limiting the potential reach of the movie.

The movie is truly excellent, and I highly recommend it. It is a surprise that no other denomination has come across with such a movie, which is urgently needed in North America, in the midst of the occurrence of one tragedy after another. But in the midst of tragedies, there can be forgiveness and reconciliation.

PROS

+ Excellent actors.

+ Powerful display for reconciliation.

+ Powerful testimony against violent video games, mobbing at schools and unbelieving psychologists who try to improve someone while neglecting the Lord.

CONS

• Jesus' name was spoken in vain several times.

• It takes place in an Episcopal Church, a "middle way between Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions." But it does not show any Anglican elements, only once the term "parishioners" is used and the EC is mentioned twice as reference for the meeting place.

• No pastor present to lead people to Christ and to ultimate forgiveness.

* Review of the 104 min version.

PROS

+ Very well-made for the 80's.

+ Very authentic and lively conversations; not always truthful to the Bible, but overall showing very well how the individual people groups would have spoken and interacted without being stiff as often seen.

+ Excellent actors.

+ The Lord's Prayer is fully recited, what a monumental scene.

+ Beautiful scene where Jesus heals the servant of the roman ruler.

CONS

• Narrative is overthrown and stories are mixed.

• The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the Bible (Joh 7:53-8:11 are added).

• Some false quotations, e.g. "it took centuries to re-build this temple ...".

• The phrase during Jesus' trial "I too know some Greek" shows a fundamental lack of understanding that Greek was the predominant language in that time, and even the Romans spoke rather Greek than Latin in that area.