Is Genesis History? (2017) User Reviews

Young Earth Creationist propaganda

[dennismaeder · 3/10 · 8 March 2017]

This movie has excellent production values - great panoramas of God's creation, and wonderful artistic transitions.

What it lacks is any scientifically compelling perspective (although it pretends to have one). It is riddled with straw-man arguments, nonsensical assertions, and uncritical thinking.

It's foundation is a fair and unabashed assumption that the biblical book of Genesis is without error. However, this is hammered out into an extremely literal interpretation that is used to constrain interpretation of scientific data into an incredible pseudo-science mess. This approach is not so much about Truth as propaganda, and ultimately does no service to the Creator.

Theological pseudo-documentary with plenty of cherry picking pseudoscience.

[williamrushermanuel · 3/10 · 9 June 2017]

I was expecting a serious look at Genesis aND a serious look at science. We got a serious look at Genesis but nothing very scientific.

I found two items of particular trouble, one was a supposed scientist who said "we think" atomic decay rates have changed over time. We can tell by stars billions of light years away that the same weak nuclear force today was in effect as far back as we can see, tens of billions of years ago. The universe would not exist if the weak nuclear force was as unstable to cause over 10 orders of magnitide of difference as is suggested by that alleged scientist.

Also the fossil evidence explanation they have that the flood waters receding and rising caused different ecosystems that brought about different animals cursed with claw and tooth from the original sin. We don't see any of the types of animals Noah saved in those fossil layers along with prehistoric fishes, so a very poor explanation. In fact, we don't see armored fishes with early mammals either, or even in the dinosaur layers.

The evidence is very one sided and very weak. Because they refused to offer any alternative counter argument it made it seem like less a search for the truth, and more like propaganda hiding behind loads of strawman arguments and dishonesty, distraction or pseudoscience.

If you want the truth you'll have to go somewhere else. If you want pseudoscience to help you close your mind off to the truth, this is the perfect film. Just be sure to avoid all genuine scientific analysis and counter arguments to the very weak arguments supplied by this film and your mythology will remain safe from rational and objective thought. It's about faith, not fact, and that is why they don't call faith, truth.

I gave 3 stars because they had nice filming locations, and the people in the film did not insult the vast majority of scientists who agree that the universe is billions of years old for millions of interlocking reasons.

Confirmation bias in all its glory.

[nidaprist · 5/10 · 5 June 2017]

I knew even before I came to this site to review the movie that the reviews would be either a few stars or a maximum stars. This movie is an example of confirmation bias. If you already believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old and that God created it you will love this movie. If you use the scientific method you will dislike this movie, because there is precious little science. As one previous poster pointed out, interviewer after interviewee stated their belief. Science has little use for belief, science is concerned what the evidence shows.

The Power of Self-Suggestion

[magicgrabz · 1/10 · 31 May 2017]

Look, if you're not a scientist or a geologist, it ultimately doesn't matter whether you believe that the ancient Book of Genesis is fact or fiction. You'll probably go your entire life unaffected ultimately by your belief on an ancient flood, or a deity creation myth, or anything in the Book of Genesis.

That being said, what struck me the most about this documentary was this wasn't made from facts, it was made from statements of belief.

"I believe...."

"I believe...."

etc. Through the ENTIRE documentary, over and over and over.

These are BELIEFS. That's all.

If you think this doc might answer the question "Is Genesis history?", unfortunately it was not and will not be answered.

Maybe one day we'll get the documentary that many have wanted "What parts of Genesis are based on fact?", but until then, we'll have to settle for pseudo-scientists and others waving their hands at the Grand Canyon and regurgitating quasi-scientific technobabble.

Noah's Flood is a much older story than the one that is included in the Bible. Flood myths stretch back thousands of years before the Bible. We even found one, in The Epic of Gilgamesh, virtually identical, except someone else building a boat, not "Noah".

So the "literal" flood is a retelling of a story that didn't even involve anyone named Noah.

The documentary didn't even notice this little fact, so what else did it leave out while talking endlessly about what they believe the Bible says? So a book that's been translated, not once, but three times into modern English. Ancient Hebrew to Ancient Greek to Latin to Vulgate Latin to English contains accurate history and nothing else?

OK...time to move on to another documentary...

An underwhelming, misleading, wholly biased documentary, supporting bad science.

[linkoo · 1/10 · 12 June 2017]

Once upon a time I used to be a fundamentalist Christian who believed in a literal six- day creation account, which I ardently defended. I no longer meet these qualifications, and have become an evolutionist. I watched the documentary expecting it to be a faith-filled defense of Genesis, despite its logline of "Presenting two view."

Here are numerous issues I discovered within the documentary:

The film only interviews literal six-day creationist scientists, and offers no rebuttal or counter-evidence from opposing beliefs. This gives the film a significant bias, with scientific opinions being founded foundationally upon subjective, religious beliefs. It creates an echo chamber for the film, where the only opinion you're told is the one you're expected to believe in.

The film is highly dichotomous. You either believe in 100% of Darwin's theory, or you believe 100% in Genesis. No room for theistic evolution, old-earth creationism, day- age, or anything. This is a further problem of the echo chamber mentioned above. One of the film's interviewees after the film's released attempted to redact some of his statements for being misconstrued as advocating this false dichotomy.

Perhaps most horrifying is how presuppositional the film is—it's bad science. Everyone interviewed in the film believes the Bible is 100% literal (except the parts that aren't), and, consequently, will not believe in evolution anyways. "Well Genesis is 100% true so anything else can't be right" seems to be the feel throughout.

What is funny about the film though, is that if you're familiar with evolution, the film helps reaffirm your position. A lot of the experts in the film clearly recognize what evolution is, but they won't admit they believe in it. They believe in specieization (that species evolve within phylum), but they won't believe it on the macro-scale. They recognize the difference between a Sea Urchin and Starfish is just a few genetic changes, but they again presume God first, and then deny the potential for evolution.

This film has beautiful cinematography and scenery, but it was not written well. It is not definitive, or even remotely helpful. It is a perpetuation of the echo-chamber of fundamentalism.

Why this film touted as "history" is theocracy clothed as history !!! BEWARE !!!

[IClaudius7 · 1/10 · 5 June 2017]

To ANYONE who has a modicum of geologic training about the Grand Canyon, this is patently anti-science and a theological propaganda film by anti-science creationists. To start with, one of the pictures is of Crinoid stalks and pieces WHICH ARE WAY BEYOND 6000 yrs OLD.

The film is simply stated, a propaganda vehicle to prop up a literal meaning of the Bible. Bluntly stated, it is absolute CRAP. The problem is, anyone who has no science background, can be misled !!!

Genesis Is History, But Not For the Reason They Think

[JimWeston1048 · 5/10 · 3 March 2017]

I watched this hoping for some good discussion concerning the creation/evolution debate. Instead, I was subjected to fallacy after fallacy, with the core argument of it all being that the book of Genesis is true (how do we know this?), therefore anything that contradicts it (or seems to contradict it) must inherently be false. I was most disappointed that the movie was so one-sided. I understand that the makers of this movie are essentially trying to sell us the product that is young-earth creationism, but why couldn't have they interviewed a dissenting scientist for every scientist they interviewed who would predictably agree with the view that Genesis is literally history? If they are so confident their view is correct, why be scared of including scientists who might dare have a different viewpoint than theirs? That would have been a movie worth watching. Instead, we are given a yawn-inducing, fallacy-packed film that shows people will go to great lengths to distort reality to match whatever religious views they were given when they grew up.

Bottom line, if you're a skeptic, curious why people still don't accept evolution, or at all versed in this debate, do something else with your time.

Fascinating and Compelling

[andrewstones-12380 · 8/10 · 5 August 2017]

I watched this without any idea of what it was going to be about except that its clearly about the bible. What impresses me so much with this is the number of serious scientists that present views that we may not necessarily expect of scientists.

Its compelling, it really doesn't matter of you are a bible person or not, for that matter it doesn't really matter what if any religion you follow. The fact that it presents a view that challenges commonly held "facts" and makes such a strong argument tells me that we just cannot trust what we are told just because its presented as fact. An no matter what you believe, there will always be another view that has validity.

I will not say that I have come to any real conclusion about genesis and if its true or not, but I have a lot more questions now that I had before and that's a good thing.

Not a Documentary.

[dabull0 · 2/10 · 8 June 2017]

So the Tag Line for this movie is "Two competing views ... one compelling truth." The biggest issue of course is that this sells itself as a documentary but it really isn't one. There are no experts on the other view featured. Not even to try to trap with difficult questions which is the hallmark of a bad documentary but still a documentary. This is leading you by the nose to the explanation that they want you to come to.

However, there were some wonderfully ironic gems that can be gleaned from this. For example, Steven Boyd PhD mentions that there is no word for Universe in Hebrew so when God create Heaven and Earth that means Universe, however, the word "yom" means day and thus cannot "impose an alien concept" such as ages instead of days. Sort of moving the goal posts a bit.

Then (and this is my favorite) Andrew Snelling PhD. proceeds to say "there is a commitment to the (Earths age being in the) millions of years and so once people get locked into that focus anything outside their field of view that conflicts with that focus is marginalized." This is called confirmation bias. Ironically this whole feature is one big confirmation bias piece for young earth creationists.

The rest of this seems to be saying that you can't explain the past through observations in the present but, of course, only through the literal teachings of the bible. (Something that even the New Testament warns about. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/? search=Galatians%204:21-31 Which mentions that certain aspects of the Old Testament are to be taken figuratively.)

I wanted to see an informed debate on the topics that this feature was named about. At least I wanted a give and take. I wanted to learn and challenge my notion of an old world. All I got was Pseudoscience Sunday school. (I gave it a 2 rating because it allowed to me come up with the term pseudoscience Sunday school which i like very much)

Excellent

[TheShowReporter · 10/10 · 26 March 2018]

As a previous evolutionist due to the pressure from the United States educational system, I will say this is a great documentary. One that gives another perspective, a biblical perspective. I am not shocked at the low scores, some people are emotionally sensitive and hurt by the truth. Their truth is the same one that our so-called teachers forced down our throats. Of course they will be offended by another view. His documentary delves into the first book of the Bible, exposing the ideas and truth to the short history earth rather than the erroneous long history earth. Any Christian will see through the long history earth theory, yet many will still believe what was forced on us in our schools. In science we like to have opposing views and the ability to make up our own minds, how this escapes the current educational system is beyond me. Even if you don't believe, watch this documentary to get a better understanding of where most Christians come from.

Doesn't Deserve the Hate

[halseyad · 7/10 · 20 July 2017]

Curious how this movie was received, I came to check out the reviews and was very disappointed with the posts on here. I feel like an honest review is needed to hopefully provide a moderate's perspective.

First off, do not watch this movie as a way to definitively answer the debates that have lasted for years and years and years and years. The people rating this film low under war cries of no in-depth science need to realize that they are being foolish. The movie highlights the scientific communities unyielding devotion to one theory of the planets creation and it invites people to consider a different perspective. If you want a full-fledged dissertation on the intricacies of geology, philosophy, and historical credibility, maybe you should go sign up at a university; a two-hour film is not going to be able to deliver this. I agree the movie could use more visual aids and helpful cinematic (the constant shots of two men talking got old after a while), but, lets be honest here, even if there were, many of the low-rating critics would still say it didn't cover X, Y, and Z.

Secondly, if you're already ingrained into one ideology with no room for considering the possibility that an alternative explanation could be plausible, then don't watch this movie. Any intellectual conversation that furthers open discussion has to begin with both parties willing to entertain the idea they might be wrong. Know that you will end the movie with more questions than when you started. Or at least you should, if you're truly searching for the answers to big questions like the ones presented in the movie. If your ultimate goal is to jump on IMDb and hurl accusations about the Creationists or Young Earthers or (insert encompassing term here), why even bother watching it?

Overall, the movie was good from a speculative approach. The stories are mentioned in passing and much of the time is spent looking at geological records to validate The Great Flood. This challenges conventional, long-held beliefs about the age of Earth, and it encourages inquiring minds to look further into the alternative arguments.

BE CAREFUL! Not a documentary...

[abonduel-17834 · 3/10 · 17 June 2017]

I rated it 3 stars because of the beautiful images. But it is so disappointing ! This film is obviously biased from start to finish. Contradictory points, so many obvious questions just ignored... I thought that finally this film would open a real dialogue, but it is way too inconsistent -only six people are interviewed, all creationists anyway, forgetting extremely important factors. Not scientific, not rigorous. Just creationist propaganda. Too bad.

It's really sad!

[Astrostream · 1/10 · 6 June 2017]

It's really sad that in 2017 and people still believe in this stuff. Noah and his ark! Really? What has happened? It seems to me that lots of people in the US are going backward when it comes in believing and faith!!

You don't believe in the science that made the car you drive to Grand Canyon, created the iPhone you hold in your hand, the satellites that transfers your calls across the oceans, the planes etc...?

Most what in the Bible, Quran, Āgama, Torah etc... are just old stories and myths...

Wakeup or grow up!

More creationist nonsense!

[prof-32782 · 1/10 · 23 June 2017]

Rehashed "arguments" and points of view by people who value primitive superstitions over science and reason.

It's sad in the year 2017 to see so many people still substituting beliefs for knowledge.

Believing something is not the same as understanding or knowing. You can believe in gods, unicorns, Santa Claus or monsters under the bed but your personal beliefs are not the same as facts or knowledge backed up by credible, verifiable evidence.

As comforting as their personal delusions and ignorance may be to them, the people(creationists) are simply selling their view of the world based on lack of knowledge and ignorance.

To answer the titular question, "Is Genesis History?", the answer is no.

[stalfonzopb · 1/10 · 11 June 2017]

"Is Genesis History?"

Given that the very first two chapters of the Bible, Genesis 1 and 2, contradict each other on the order of the creation story, I would have to say no.

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." — Genesis 1:29 (KJV)

If you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, let your children eat poisonous plants. God says it's okay.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." — Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

God wants you to remain ignorant, so watch "Is Genesis History?" Adam ate from this tree (Genesis 3:6 KJV) and not only did he not die, he lived for another "nine hundred and thirty years" (Genesis 5:5 KJV).

"Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark." — Genesis 6:19 (KJV) "Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female." — Genesis 7:2 (KJV)

How many animals did Noah take into the ark? God contradicts himself when telling the story, so one or the other number must not be historically accurate.

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." — Genesis 7:2 (KJV)

A tricky order. God doesn't tell anyone which animals are clean and which are unclean until he tells Moses in Leviticus 11.

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." — Genesis 7:4 (KJV)

Why does God destroy all the innocent cute little puppies and kittens and butterflies? Is he really that much of a sadistic prick?

"And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark. … And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth." — Genesis 7:7–10 (KJV)

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark." — Genesis 7:11–13 (KJV)

Did Noah enter the ark seven days before the flood began as in Genesis 7:7–10. Or did he, as in THE VERY NEXT VERSES (Genesis 7:11–13), enter the ark the day that the flood began? How can both answers be historically accurate?

"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." — Genesis 7:20 (KJV)

Where did all the water come from? Where did the water go when it receded?

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth." — Genesis 7:17 (KJV)

"And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days." — Genesis 7:24 (KJV)

Did the flood last 40 days or 150 days? Both cannot be historically accurate.

As other reviewers have mentioned, this movie is nothing more than creationist propaganda, i.e., bullshit. There is no science and no history. So to answer the titular question, "Is Genesis History?", the answer is no.

Idiotic Mumbo Jumbo

[sujan_k · 1/10 · 23 June 2017]

The question I keep asking myself is "How?". How can people be this stupid? The Bible is the kind of crap that's holding humanity back from moving forward and these are the types of movies that act as thorns in humanities path to understanding the world and furthering human intellect. All in all the movie is awful, idiotic and full of senseless mumbo jumbo.

Very disappointing

[kathyjimalexander · 2/10 · 11 June 2017]

When Creationist came up with Intelligent Design to, somehow, fool people into thinking there was something scientific about Genesis, I was surprised at how far they would go.... failing that, they have now decided to try history, to somehow justify their religious beliefs... I am not saying everyone does not have a right to their own beliefs, but to undermine proved science of geology, microbiology, DNA, etc, to further this, is a joke... yes, I watched it to see how far and by what method creationist will go to justify an impossible time frame as laid out in Genisis, and to falsely create a historical background to it.... like Intelligent Design, this to will fail to prove the impossible.

Paradigm Belief of Evolution Explained

[DVK1234 · 10/10 · 20 March 2018]

I read prior negative reviews and what I have noticed is how inflammatory and angry the reviews are. It is clear that the "theory" (not proven scientific fact) of evolution has now been accepted as truth, fed to children in public schools due to the paradigm that historical science has suggested to be fact. I have heard all of the arguments presented in this movie before: volcanic eruptions causing layers of rock within days, not billions of years, cellular and genetic changes that could possibly create entirely brand new species (ie: a frog becoming a bird). I thought that the movie was attempting to prove that Genesis is historical, and I thought it did a good job. You need a lot more faith to believe that over billions and billions of years, one cell was responsible for creating a tree, a snake, and a gorilla. I wish that kids in the public schools would be allowed the opportunity to think for themselves and have both theories presented to them: intelligent design vs. evolution. Good movie.

You will have to turn off your brain to believe this absurdity

[trailhomestead · 1/10 · 22 June 2017]

I would not call this a documentary. It is a Focus on the Family production to indoctrinate the emotionally needy and placate the intellectually comatose.

"...Two competing views...one compelling truth." How on earth did we as a society let religion compete with science??

Spoiler: This is ridiculous nonsense. Your time would be better spent organizing your sock drawer than watching this religious marketing tripe.

IGH — An Excellent Review of the Argument for Creationism, Global Flood and Intelligent Design

[desi-clarke · 10/10 · 14 July 2017]

I get the impression that all the negative reviews came from those were expecting to find a documentary that asked the question, "Is Genesis History?", but proceeded to disparage Genesis rather than substantiate the argument that our universe, world and biology is too vastly complicated and irreducibly complex to be the result of random variation and that the fossil record is evidence of a global catastrophe and biological stasis opposed to biological change.

I feel that this work has excellent production value and does well to address several arguments of those who adhere to the creationist view of Earth History and the like. In terms of content, I would rate it as a conversation starter; it clearly was not meant to address all of the scientific arguments for Creationism or the scientific arguments against Evolutionism. Luckily, there are plenty of available resources for that. See "Earthquakes" by Kevin Lea or "In The Beginning" by Walter Brown.

Other reviewers have claimed that this documentary is biased because it did not include the opinion of ardent evolutionists, but when was the last time atheistic or anti-creationist documentaries hosted creationists or even considered the challenges posed by anyone who questioned the standard model of evolution? When was the last time Jason Lisle appeared in a documentary hosted by Brian Greene? "Is Genesis History" is being given poor reviews for doing what evolutionists do, unabashedly presenting their views or interpretation of the evidence.

Specialization is the product of genetic variability. a Sea Urchin is distinct from a Starfish because of genetic differentiation. There is a distinct difference in the information and information processing coded in that organism's genome and thus results in a distinct difference in the genetic expression of that organism. Biological Evolution Theory purports that organisms are different solely because of variance opposed to differentiation. To clarify, Jacob G., "they recognize the difference between a Sea Urchin and a Starfish" is just a few genetic *differences* not *changes*.

Biological Evolution should permit quasi-random variances in any direction. This means that if one's body determines that human adaptations are no longer functional then one's body can recode its genome so its next iteration (your child) is expressed as a primate using reverse punctuated equilibrium. I wonder how many evolutionists would praise the wonders of evolution if their wives gave birth to hairless primates complete with prehensile tail and feet!

Science and Scientific Methodology was founded by creationists, is advocated in Job 28:20-28, and I'm glad to see more relevant works such as this, especially since Evolutionism is nothing more than a hindrance to true, scientific progress as it adds no value to science, makes no qualifiable predictions and produces no technological achievements.

Delussion and the impossible

[ecormier · 2 February 2018]

The definition of delusion is a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary according to Mirriam-Webster. I would like to be respectful of the assertions made in this film but honestly, I have too much respect for "facts" and science to "suspend disbelief" in the same way required to enjoy a fiction. Just another desperate (and deluded) attempt to reconcile a fable with science.

Looney tunes

[ryandring · 6/10 · 21 March 2023]

The science and data are very interesting. I can't say if it's all true or not. But connecting it back to biblical stories and Noah is when it all falls apart. Huge leaps over questions that don't get answered or are answered weakly. The big one being that when the global flood came and destroyed dinosaurs and most creatures, Noah was alive building an ark.

It's believable there was a global catastrophic flooding that led to the iceage. But how does the Bible know about this great catastrophic global flooding and ice age ? Because God told us. Not ancient scientists. And God forgot to mention all the other epochs that the scientists here cover. So God seems to only talk about events that center around humans, he forgot to mention the rest.

As the film goes on the scientific analysis just becomes a laughable stretch of imagination, huge leaps and full of gaping holes.

Not credible science

[gbramlett · 1/10 · 19 June 2017]

I firmly and irrevocably believe in God the Creater, Jesus the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit, the Sustainer. This creationist commentary masquerading as science does a most irreconcilable disservice to science and religion. While I expected to find a fair and balanced investigation about the story of creation and the realities of science, what actually is being perpetrated is a propaganda piece that denies the scientific truths humanity has learned over the past 500+ years regarding the age and development of the earth and life as we know it.

As I said, I believe in the Divine; but I accept the evidence of science that teaches that there is an order to the universe put in place at the beginning of time that conforms to laws put in place by God when the universe was created. I have a great respect for the scientific method and the accumulation of information and data that has helped us flesh out the Genesis narrative according to God's imposed order-- a mathematical order that is explained by the laws of physics. The denial of replicable science amounts to blasphemy in that God created an order to the universe so that life would come into existence in God's good time, not according to pre-historical metaphorical explanations used to teach pre-scientific communities about the wonders of creation and the divinely inspired order set in place "In the beginning ....". Science is not the enemy of religion. Religion does not have to be the enemy of science. The two can coexist and even complement-- as in complete-- each other.

The cast of this religious commentary admit that they are promoting their personal beliefs as scientific fact. They admit that they are re-interpreting observable phenomena to conform to their interpretation of the Genesis narrative. If someone's faith is precariously balanced on the knife-edge of literal creationism as reported in Genesis, this film will serve to reinforce personal beliefs at the expense of scientific reality. It is God's Divine reality as expressed in God's created order that we investigate through the replicable, objective, rigorous scientific method developed-- even Divinely inspired-- because God gave us intellects and questioning minds. The LORD saw God's creation and said it was very good. The way we were created in God's good time, then-- with intellects, reason and questioning minds that developed the scientific method-- our development was, and is very good-- despite this film.

History it is not.

[hungmosquito · 1/10 · 24 June 2017]

This calls itself a Documentary and it is far and away from that. For a start, there is no opposing view given to the favoured Christian Genesis viewpoint, not even the Jewish or Muslim version. What about Gilgamesh and the stories pre that? The use of straw mans is astounding and I can't think (besides Ray Comfort) that I have ever seen so many used in one place. Overall, where this fails is it's simply an echo chamber. There is no scientific proof, no real science is employed, not even real historians, or archaeological evidence. It might make a few Creationists very happy but certainly not those of more discerning tastes..who should give it a wide berth.

Have fun!

[kostasadamos · 1/10 · 23 June 2017]

Some people are wondering who invested money in this movie. I don't understand them! It is an extremely entertaining comedy. Call your best friend, have already opened a few bottles of your favorite alcoholic drink (this is mandatory) and enjoy laughing with the imaginary suggestions from some moonstruck people!!!