 RED does not mean "stop." GREEN does not mean "go." Click on the CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry. www.capalert.com/ Entertainment Media Analysis Report A service to His little ones through you in His name by His Word MAR2011.007  (2010), PG ["Hard" G-PG*] (2hr 15.75min) The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. Over 1300 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
  |
  (a PayPal account is NOT required). The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry. Donations are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE. |
on what Hollywood feeds your kids. SUBSCRIBE (or unsubscribe) to our FREE email version of these reports and our COMING SOON notices. |
  Christian Long Distance |
(While the Scriptural references are certainly not subjective, my commentary may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Genesis Productions, CK Pictures Distribution (US): America Saga Releasing Director(s): C. Thomas Howell, Patrick Read Johnson Producer(s): Roger Garcia, Michael Shane Leighton, Michael W. Leighton Writing Credits: Michael W. Leighton Cinematography/Camera: Kees Van Oostrum Music: Bill Wandel Film Editing: Edward R. Abroms Casting: Fran Bascom Production Design: Natalie Allen Art Direction: Ben Mille Viewed online at private screener's page courtesy American Epic Entertainment  Have you ever wondered about what God meant by telling us that to Him a thousand years are but a day? [Ps. 90:4] This film explains this in a way that could not scientifically be explained before 1964. Cue on "time dilation" if you watch this film. It explains a great deal. The Genesis Code (PG) is a masterful use of science to substantiate long-held beliefs ... science has finally caught up with the Bible. This film is going to make a lot of empiricists and Darwinists nervous. The battle by people of Faith with secular reasoning behind the Creation of the universe that has been raging for eons simply because of seeming contradiction with the Word of God is finally resolved. We now know how the "big bang" is indeed how God created the universe ... in six "days" ... in six doublings of the size of the universe and conversely, six halvings of the speed of light. It makes more sense in the film. Indeed, it made great sense to me. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has rated this film PG for thematic elements and some innuendo. I doubt very much whether the "innuendo" is really why they slapped a PG on the film. There are far more detailed and unambiguous "innuendo" in G-rated films. I am certain, however, that the MPAA slapped the PG on it because of the Christian elements, the "thematic" elements. It is, after all, a film about God's creation of the universe as related in the Holy Bible. But if this were a film about the Muslim faith or one of the early Egyptian gods or the mother Earth as "god" I doubt the MPAA would have charged "thematic elements" as part of the reasoning for the PG restriction. Whatever. Using the same analysis model under the same methodology with the same investigation standards and the same equations used on more than 1300 films so far, the CAP analysis model found content in The Genesis Code to be equivalent to the G-rated films in the comparative baseline database of the CAP Analysis Model. G-rated films in our baseline database earned final scores from 100 to 87 out of a possible 100. This film earned a final score of 89 out of 100. That score makes the film a "hard" G but G-equivalent nonetheless. The investigation areas of the CAP analysis model found content in Impudence/Hate (I), Sexual Immorality (S) and Murder/Suicide (M) to be G-equivalent while it found content in Wanton Violence/Crime (W), Drugs/Alcohol (D) and Offense to God (O) to be equivalent to PG-rated films in the baseline database. Look to the individual investigation area discussions below for further discussion of the content found by the CAP analysis model. As always, the listing in the Findings/Scoring section provides a detailed accounting of the content. A quick subjective note here. Other than noted herein, there is likely nothing in this film any Christian parent or grandparent or any pastor, youth leader or Christian in youth leadership might find particularly offensive. The reason the MPAA labeled this film a PG film is likely because it is Christian -- the "thematic elements." The "innuendo" part of the MPAA label is likely extraneous for effect. Engineering student and hockey great, Blake Truman (Logan Bartholomew) meets paleontology and journalism major Kerry Wells (Kelsey Sanders) after a shut-out win by the Madison College hockey team, the Monarchs. Kerry's intent is to gather information about the hockey hero to publish in the school paper, The Guardian. Y'know ... sports hero ... #1 team ... front page ... and all that. Soon, by something her cohorts said, her recollection of fragments of discussions with others and memory of what she read in Psalm 90:4 as random-verse Grace for the previous evening meal, Kerry mentally assembled the beginnings of what will likely become an upheaval of the science community regarding the Creation of the universe ... in six days. One more observation -- just one because I do not want to spoil this film. At last! A Christmastime film with Jesus! In so many modern films Christmas is nothing more than a commercial venture ignoring the Reason for the season. Not this film. Even background Christmas songs speak of the Christ in Christmas. Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - 85 out of 100 The only issues of content in this film that touch the violent nature are a bar patron eating a bar glass, battle with the euthanasia of Blake's mother (repeatedly) and firearms with recreational gunfire. That is all. Impudence/Hate (I) - 93 out of 100 Not one time did any one of the characters utter any form of profanity throughout the film. The only instances of impudence and/or hatred were three displays of a child battling with his parents. While the context of the story easily fosters forgiveness of the child, understanding of his anger and thus "justification" of his outbursts, our analysis model does not compromise scoring for the sake of context. Whether a foul word is "justified" by the context with which it is spoken is immaterial to the CAP analysis model. Whether a display of anger toward and/or hatred of another is "justified" is up to you. (See the text of the BEFORE You Read On... link atop this Summary/Commentary section. Sexual Immorality (S) - 90 out of 100 I am going to "sermonize" a little on this one. In the part of the script that introduces the role of Kerry and her relationship with Blake, Blake engages Kerry in a rather lengthy discussion of her love life. As evidence of his intended cinematic interest, Blake asked Kerry whether she was "hooking up" with anyone. Though the expression "hooking up" started with prostitution (a hooker "hooking up" with a "John"), the commonly accepted meaning of "hooking up" is a typically 1) getting together or 2) having sex. One definition cannot be conversationally excluded from the other except by context. The context of the discussion between Kerry and Blake, as indicated by some of Kerry's responses to Blake's queries such as "I was [in love]" and "none of your business", would permit both definitions, i.e., "hooking up" as in dating someone and a sexual relationship with someone. But later in the discussion Kerry clearly settled the matter explaining that she is chaste and will be chaste until marriage: that she broke up with the boyfriend because "He wanted something I don't plan on sharing until I am married." What a wonderful value to portray in and as entertainment but still it brings up the topic of immoral sex. The issue I have is why did the writers choose "hooking up" instead of simply "are you dating anyone" or "are you seeing anyone" or even simpler "do you have a boyfriend" unless the writers were intentionally trying to get at least "something sexual" in the movie. Why did the topic have to come up at all unless it was to get something sexual in the movie? And why, during the argument about absolute truth between Professor Myra Allitt (Katherine Kicks) and Kerry's father Rev. Jerry Wells (Jerry Zandstra), would the topic of female circumcision come up when there are literally thousands of potential topics that would quite as well satisfy the needs of the cinematic moment. When I heard that part of the script I was convinced the writers were clearly trying to get "something sexual" in the film for there is no other topic that can be as verbally intimate. That such were even brought up is a thermometer of the decay of our standards. Though not necessarily sinful contents except that God clearly intends for such matters to be private between husband and wife, when such topics are brought up they trigger teens into "thinking about it" by their own admission -- and thinking about it typically leads to exploring; to "see for themselves." It happens. And influencing our youth to venture into that which God has reserved for a married man and woman is sinful [Luke 17:2, Matt. 25:40]. I am not certain why the writers had to put "something sexual" in the film if not to build contrast for Kerry's character as noble through chastity but they did include "something sexual." Still, the matters, morally speaking, would better have been left out without the film losing any power or focus. At least no one gets in bed with anyone and there is absolutely no character nudity in the entire 135.75 minutes of the film, not even a tease of it, but Chase Laughton (Michael William Freeman) does offer to sell nude baby pictures of Blake (unseen) to Kerry in an obvious attempt at appearing "naughty." [1 Ths. 4:7, Eph. 5:4] Now to the painting nudity. A painting of a nude man trying to touch the finger of God and a painting of a nude Adam and Eve are included in the film. If the display of nakedness is not acceptable to God by his Word -- which is spoken of darkly 47 times from from Genesis to Revelation -- what makes it okay to display nudity as "art?" Understand that art is not sin and sin is not art but when art uses sin art becomes sin. In Exodus 20:26 God even advised the priests to not climb steps to an alter lest the wind expose their nakedness. And that there are paintings of nakedness in some Bibles and on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel does not make such display okay. God did not put those paintings in the Bible nor on the roof of the Sistine Chapel ... man did. [**] That Adam and Eve were initially naked does not excuse displaying it now that they have eaten of the Forbidden Fruit and know display of nakedness is sinful. If God did not decree nakedness to be sinful, if Adam and Eve did not know they were naked, why would they have sewed fig leaves together to wear and why would God have clothed them with skins? [Gen. 3:7, Gen. 3:21] Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 85 out of 100 The hockey team spends a lot of their spare time in a bar drinking apparently to the point of drunken revelry with guzzling and chugging with one character eating a bar glass. Likewise as with presenting sexual matters in and as entertainment leads youth to thinking about it, presenting consumption of alcohol leads youth to thinking about it. And thinking about it can and does lead to experimentation as was found by the American College of Physicians (ACP). A 2002 study by the ACP revealed that adolescent exposure to drinking in and as entertainment undeniably leads to abuse of alcohol among underage viewers. The finding entitled Relation Between Parental Restrictions on Movies and Adolescent Use of Tobacco and Alcohol reports that of 4544 youths from grades 5 through 8 of fifteen Vermont and New Hampshire middle schools (90% of the youths were under fourteen years old) only 16% were completely restricted in their entertainment diets. Within the ACP study population, the prevalence of having tried alcohol without parental knowledge was • 46% for those with no viewing restrictions • 16% for those with partial viewing restrictions • four percent for those with complete viewing restrictions. [Eph. 5:18, Luke 1:15, Prov. 20:1] Offense to God (O) - 75 out of 100 I understand that filmmakers and writers might feel it is necessary to include a use or two of God's name in vain to make a specific statement or provide a negative contrast, but when does God say it is okay to use His name in vain? I have found nowhere that God excuses abuse of his name for any reason let alone for the sake of acting or in and as entertainment. There are two uses of His name in vain but each is without the four letter expletive, not that leaving off the four letter expletive makes it okay to abuse His name. [Deut. 5:11] Further, there are a number of places where the Christian faith is attacked. In two places in particular: one between Kerry and Prof. Allitt; one between Pastor Jerry and Allitt. Much smooth talk and fine-sounding arguments in favor of rejecting the foundational tenets of the Christian faith in favor of societal mores are, at times, brutal and possibly convincing to they of weak faith. Arguments that almost assuredly will swell the chest of they who side with societal moral standards and hold contempt for His Authority. [Col. 2:4, 2:8] I also understand that such content may be deemed as necessary by the writers/filmmakers in order for the film to make the statement the writers/filmmakers want the film to say. If so, maybe the writers/filmmakers should not have the film say it. It is my "job" is to let mom/dad know what is there so mom/dad might be in a better position to make an informed moral decision whether a film is fit. I make no scoring allowance whether a demonstrated sin is "necessary" or not. So, in keeping with that "job" I let parents know of the content without regard to linguistic license or desired statement. More on this topic in the BEFORE You read On... link atop this Summary/Commentary section. I bring up the matter of the script presenting attacks of the Christian faith, which are key parts of the story, because all too often that which the observer, especially the young, captures from such a display is not as much what the display is intended to say as much as what the negative arguments are saying: the matters that touch on rebellion and freedom from and/or rejection of any authority, matters which feed the "foolishness bound in the hearts of the child" culled from the presentation. [Prov. 22:15] And "child" or "little one" is mikros: meaning less by birth, younger. All of your children are "less by birth" than you. All of them are "younger." So, "children" or "little ones" includes at-home teens. Note that "less by birth" does not mean lesser in importance or value. "Less by birth" here means less in stature or size and development. Murder/Suicide (M) - 100 out of 100 There was not one single instance of murder or suicide in the entire 135.75 minutes of the story. ******* There is so much more I could say about this film but there comes a time when I need to shut up. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. CHAPTER/VERSE ***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry*** As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 |
 Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - 85 out of 100 Impudence/Hate (I) - 93 out of 100 Sexual Immorality (S) - 90 out of 100 Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 85 out of 100 Offense to God (O) - 75 out of 100 Murder/Suicide (M) - 100 out of 100 |
| There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
|
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read. In the name of Jesus: Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God. Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture 100% dependent on your tax-deductible financial support |  |
Christian Long Distance |
|
We exist only by your tax-deductible donations. PLEASE  Features PayPal! You do NOT need an account to donate. |
