User reviews

"Christian" movies have a reputation of being artificial, unprofessional, and only appealing to those who are already indoctrinated. "The Case for Christ" breaks these stereotypes, delivering the best piece of Christian filmography that I've seen, as well as a good biographical drama by more general standards.

As mentioned, "The Case" avoids the pitfalls that the majority of Christian films fall into. It does not vilify atheists, make Christians appear impossibly pious, stuff the script with corny and unnatural dialogue (or significantly lack any other production quality), or contrive situations in order to "prove" Christianity (this is a biography, after all).

While the primary character, Lee Strobel, isn't a very nice person for most of the movie, he is no more flawed than most protagonists, and these flaws are never blamed on atheism, per se. Mike Vogel's portrayal of a man doing what he feels is best for his family and dealing with life's stresses, especially those that come from having one's worldview challenged, is genuine and moving.

I don't think many folks will come into the movie theater as skeptics and walk out as Christians, but I think the movie's producers were mature enough that that's not what they were intending or expecting. The movie likely won't answer all of a skeptic's questions (though the questions they do address are relevant, not straw men), but it answers enough of them that they should realize that (some) people do indeed have reasons for their beliefs.

Altogether, Christians and non-Christians alike should walk away from this movie with the desire to learn more, and they'll have experienced a good piece of cinema in the process.

Firstly, it's very hard to independently review this film. Aethiests tell me it's rubbish, Christians tell me it's brilliant and no-one else care. So trying to watch it with an open mind was difficult, given my Catholic upbringing.

I found it interesting, well acted and thought provoking, but not overly convincing. I haven't read the book by Strobel but I'd want more detail than he discovers from the film and at times he seems to apply the logic of Faith, rather than reason and doubt, to his findings but the parts seem well cast, Mike Vogel and Erika Christensen are convincing as husband and wife and the supporting cast are solid.

Strobels character in particular is interesting, with his normal investigative journalism running alongside his need to understand his wife's Faith, which at the time he neither shares nor understands.

It's watchable, interesting and thought provoking but I don't feel it will remove either the believers or the atheists from their entrenched positions.

Pure Flix Entertainment is one the most instantaneously recognizable film companies of our time, mainly in this respect: they really, REALLY want God to be real, and they will assure themselves of this position annually with a flicker show or two. If it also turns out they made a good, subtle, realistic, or even well-argued movie in the process of serving as their own confirmation bias, they just got lucky. In certain ways, I suppose this is one instance.

Unlike such Pure Flix productions as God's Not Dead and God's Not Dead 2: We're Still Right, their 2017 piece The Case for Christ is based on a true story, and no, it is not the one with the healed-up lepers. It is about an American atheist and journalist who attempts to disprove the existence of Christ to his very religious wife, only to find that the stuff he learns pushes him more towards the side of faith.

Indeed, Lee Stobel is a real person (played here by Mike Vogel of Cloverfield fame) and he did conduct an investigation that ultimately turned him Christian, which he documents in his similarly titled book from 1998. His Wikipedia article is careful to point out that "The book does not feature any non-evangelical scholarly interviews", which I think is useful information. Of course he addressed counterarguments in later books, though it seems to have taken place after his brain already finished cooking and his mind was made up - not unlike that which his movie counterpart accuses the wife (Erika Christensen) of.

Of course I'm not here to talk about the books themselves, but what they have in common with the film (aside from, y'know, all the content) is that they serve as another bombastic "told ya so" for believers. Just because this one atheist done goof'd (his first mistake was seemingly to believe that the burden of proof in the "Existence of God" debate was somehow on him), doesn't mean all of us are conversions waiting to happen upon cherry-picked interviews, claims that there were witnesses to Christ's rebirth (without solidly proving THAT), and whatever else passed as research during this journey.

I will say this about The Case for Christ: it is the most competently produced "Christian film" I've seen to date. The camera work is decent, the music is also enjoyable, and it benefits especially from the fact that it is based on a source material that features sentences that real humans would say. It isn't just sanctimonious preaching interspersed with contrived attempts to make atheists look vile and in-the-wrong next to the enlightened (usually more attractive) Christians.

Hell (and please don't give me cancer or starve my family for using that term, Father), it isn't even entirely bogus. The evidence for some sort of "historical Jesus Christ" isn't as unconvincing, moot, or flat-out non-existent as the evidence that such a figure existed, came back to life, healed the ill, and somehow looked more like an American hippie than a Middle-Eastern carpenter.

There are some solid supporting performances as well, supplied by Faye Dunaway, Mike Pniewski, Robert Forster, Frankie Faison, L. Scott Caldwell, et cetera. But is any of this enough to save a film that is as ill-conceived as the very idea of trying to meet a burden of proof one does not bear? Perhaps it will be for some. I would propose, however, that an exceptional Pure Flix movie does not an exceptional movie make.

Furthermore, if you're in the same demographic as blasphemous old me, you'll want something as insipid and unintentionally hilarious as God's Not Dead or A Matter of Faith over generic stuff like this any day. As for those of you who were in some way offended by this review: rest assured that you can pray for my enlightenment whilst I pray that you one day learn how "extraordinary claims" work, more reliable ways to study history, and how to operate a light switch.

I get Lee Strobel in a way that many of the reviewers of this obviously don't. At least in the sense that I, too, was an outspoken atheist who became convinced about the reality of the resurrection. Having become a Christian I later became a pastor. I'm not a fundamentalist. I generally disdain adjectives that serve little purpose other than to divide Christians into competing groups, but if I was forced to pick one I'd say that I probably lean toward the more progressive side of the Christian faith and have an open mind toward Christian universalism, although I'm not convinced of it. But I'm not here to shill for the Christian faith or to proselytize. I'm just here to review a movie. Lee Strobel's story interests me for obvious reasons. As a journalist he was bothered by his wife's sudden conversion to Christian faith and essentially set out to collect evidence that would debunk the Christian faith. Instead, the evidence he collected convinced him of the truth of the Christian faith. As a summary of Strobel's faith journey, I thought this was interesting and well portrayed, and Mike Vogel did a good job as Strobel, as did Erika Christensen as his wife Leslie.

I'm not convinced that this movie would convince anyone to believe. Nor am I convinced that the purpose of this movie was to convince anyone to believe. I think the purpose of the movie was to simply portray Strobel's own journey. How did this atheist turn around and become a man of faith? So, really, this is what I'd call a "niche" movie. It will be of interest to Christians - evangelicals who like stories of conversions and people like myself who can understand Strobel's journey. So negative reviews that are based on not being convinced by the evidence Strobel presents are missing the point. That's legitimate reason to dismiss the book (of the same name) that Strobel wrote - which did have an evangelical agenda - but as far as this movie is concerned all that really matters is that Strobel found evidence that convinced him, not whether that evidence would convince anyone else. He did, and the story is well presented.

My own journey was different. Although I believe there's more than enough evidence to support the basic tenets of the Christian faith (including concepts such as resurrection and incarnation) I readily accept that the evidence is circumstantial and subjective. The evidence can point one in a particular direction, but somewhere along the way there has to be an experiential element to a conversion that actually convinces a person to believe. Faith, after all, is indeed belief in that which cannot be proven. And the movie did make a valid point - that both belief in God and unbelief in God is really a matter of faith, since the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. It is by its very nature a matter of faith.

This is a surprisingly decent movie. There's a bit of a backstory about some of Strobel's work as an investigative journalist trying to uncover police corruption in Chicago, but mostly it's a Christian movie about the search for truth. It won't "convince" anyone - but it will provide an interesting enough account of one man's spiritual journey from atheism to Christianity. (7/10)

Reading the reviews here before watching, I was pretty sure I would not like this movie. Well I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Most of the negative reviews are based not on the quality of the movie but based on the fact that those reviewers do not believe in God.

I myself doubt that God exists but to pan a movie simply for that reason makes no more sense than giving Star Wars one star because you do not believe in wookiees.

Hollywood knows a cash market when they see one. They have learned that evangelicals will throw lots of money at anything that supports their beliefs and helps indoctrinate others, and so we're seeing these proselytizing flicks regularly.

What makes this one particularly loathsome is that the filmmakers hawk it as being based on the "hard-hitting" journalism of Lee Strobel. Well, they have a funny notion of "hard-hitting," since Strobel's book basically packages the essays of thirteen Christian academics, mostly from theological institutions. That's the sum of his "hard-hitting" research--letting readers be evangelized by believers.

It's not surprising, then, that the product of his work is unconvincing as anything approaching journalism, and that applies equally to the film. If you want an actual investigation into the historical Jesus, read the scholarly, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier. The Kindle version costs about the same as a movie ticket and your intelligence won't be insulted for your trouble.

One of the best Christian films for a very long time! I used to be an atheist too, so the spiritual struggle he went through is way too familiar to me. Personally it touched me very deeply. My advice to skeptics: guys, open your hearts then you will be able to see some wonderful things "hidden" from you for now. Many thanks to Mike Vogel, well done, brother!

This is not coming from an atheist or somebody particularly religious, though finds the Bible and its stories fascinating. This is coming from someone who loves film of all genres and decades, would see anything with an open mind and an intent to judge it on what it set out to do and wanted to see as many films from 2017 as possible.

2017 has been a mixed bag for film, with some good and more films, some disappointing and less films and some that fall somewhere in between. 'The Case for Christ' is not among the year's very worst but is in the bottom half of the quality spectrum to me. It is understandable why atheists would hate it with a passion, though some here have to me not expressed their feelings very well, but it is my feeling that it's not only atheists who will dislike 'The Case for Christ'. Critics were very mixed on it themselves and it is also my feeling that even the converted will find themselves preached at.

Coming from a non-atheist and as said someone not particularly religious, 'The Case for Christ' did come over as too heavy-handed and one-sided and like it was trying too hard to appeal to Christians and the converted. There are a lot of theories presented here but these theories are little more than strongly put and theories masquerading as fact, that talk at you bombastically rather than provoking thought, with very little that holds weight to back it up. The bogus scientific elements too strain credibility to an unbelievable degree, science is practically re-invented here so scientific experts are another group that will find the film hard to swallow. In short, 'The Case for Christ' has a script that does mean well and tries, and sometimes succeeds, in being sincere, but tends to be uninspired and patronising.

When it comes to the storytelling, 'The Case for Christ' never rises above superficial level. A few good, if familiar, ideas but never fully explored and cranks up the sentimentality to the point the sweetness and sugar makes one nauseous and the sentimentality is hard to stomach. Some of it is ludicrous too. The pace is dull and meandering, the music is forgettable at best and the direction has flashes of inspiration but is mostly blandly workmanlike.

For all those problems, 'The Case for Christ' is not all bad. It looks pretty good and slick, handsomely shot and nicely mounted. It's particularly striking in how the look and feel of 1980 Chicago is captured, and the film does that very well. The acting is pretty decent, despite the awkward dialogue and thinly drawn characters, with the best performances coming from Faye Dunaway and particularly Mike Vogel.

Not all the material is a disaster. The insights of the extent to which religion still shapes popular and political thinking in the United States and how are actually interesting and well argued. It is a pity that everything else in the writing fails to convince.

In summary, will be, and has been, very controversial for understandable reasons on both sides. Apart from a few good things and some intrigue and sincerity, it is very sad to say that 'The Case for Christ' had a case that didn't convince me and didn't do much for me. 4/10 Bethany Cox

The people saying Hollywood is exploiting Christianity should understand first, that not all Hollywood are non-believers. and two, this movie was produced out of Georgia, not Hollywood, and the executive producer is Lee Strobles himself. If you take an invested interest in the content in which this movie displays, you will find factual evidence. Im not a practicing Christian, and have many doubts, but this movie is compelling, informative and enlightening.

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6.

Our attitude toward the truth determines the outcome of our lives. If we don't love the truth, if we resist it, we resist salvation. But if we do love the truth then we embrace salvation and we receive the reward: the crown of life.

But what did Jesus mean when He said that He is the truth? What is the truth?

The truth about who we are and about who Jesus is God's Word is true, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) So the truth is the life of Jesus - which is to be manifested in us. (2 Corinthians 4:10) When we compare His life to our own lives and see how enormously different the two are, then a light turns on for us. The truth is that light which shines into our lives and reveals what we are really like by nature. It reveals the way that we must walk on in order to be transformed into the image of Christ. (Romans 8:29) The first step on the way of truth is taken when Jesus shines His light into our lives and we acknowledge that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, atonement, and justification. This causes us to repent.

This is a decent movie. It's well directed and well acted. It looks great and it's intense and suspenseful and interesting. I'm an atheist and I find the film surprising

Prepare yourself for this shock: This is a Christian movie, and it is ACTUALLY GOOD! I expected this movie to be like other Christian movies, with cookie-cutter black-and-white characters which portray atheists as awful and heartless people and the hero as someone who can do no wrong. This movie was not that way. The characters are real and the roles are acted really well. There are also no cheesy conversions like in a lot of Christian movies. Everything seemed authentic. This is actually a good movie. I'm not saying it was good for a Christian movie, it was actually a good movie as far as all movies are concerned.

It's a shame that so many atheists get on these threads (well, reviews, no more threads here) and bash Christian movies just because they think they don't deserve to exist.

I am an atheist, but not an angry one. I don't feel defensive or insecure in my belief. Therefore, I have no need to hate stories about Christianity... or any religion.

I find many of them quite fun, just as I do movies about santa clause, Cinderella, and lord of the rings. I don't believe in those things, either, but gosh the movies are often so fun.

So, I'm about to watch this movie right now. Just because I like the actors and I'm with my mother who enjoys this stuff. If I end up feeling that this is a movie which deserved a lower rating, or a higher one, I will return and edit my review. If I don't edit my review, then it will be the movie I expect: Somewhat pleasant, somewhat sappy, somewhat predictable, but certainly an okay movie, especially for people who enjoy watching stories about their own kind of lifestyles.

Many reviewers who are anti-Christian feel there should not be movies made about Christianity. I say we live in a free country and I am free to watch... or not watch.. whatever I want.

:-P

Sorry, but no. This film may be based on one man's conversion, but his arguments, like the book, are based more on feelings and suppositions rather than fact or evidence. It is precisely because of this dishonesty, for lack of a better term, that the film fails.

Credibility is key when arguing the affirmative on belief, the problem here is that there is none. Again, like the book, the film meanders between emotion and assumption, not on the actual debate in question. Further, it insults the viewer's intelligence by glossing over massive loopholes regarding the Biblical Christ's existence; and further, makes no effort to validate its position with facts. Bottom line, while the actors do an admirable job of playing their roles, the fact remains, they can't save a film whose very premise is so tenuous and dubious.

One final note, like others have noted, these religious films are becoming more strident in their propaganda bent. They're not offering an argument or even a discussion, it's more an attempt to muddy the waters between legitimate searches for truth through science and facts versus feelings, fears and guilt.

"I serve a risen savior; he's in the world today. I know that he is living, whatever men may say." So goes a popular Christian hymn, sung more often than usual at Easter time. Whether you're a Christian or not, the song highlights an important point. Without the resurrection of Jesus, who is called the Christ (as the Bible refers to him), then there is no Christianity. As one Christian in the drama "The Case for Christ" (PG, 1:52) says, "If it didn't happen, it's a house of cards." That's what makes atheist journalist Lee Strobel's methodical investigation of proof for Jesus' resurrection so interesting. Strobel chronicled his search in his 1998 best-selling book "The Case for Christ" (and followed it with several other similar books and numerous lectures and television appearances). Strobel and his wife Leslie appeared in a 2007 documentary of the same name in which they laid out the information and arguments that Lee gathered. The 2017 film with that title dramatizes the Strobels' struggle to find the truth about Jesus.

It's 1980 and Lee Strobel (Mike Vogel, from "Cloverfield", "Blue Valentine" and "The Help", as well as TV series "Bates Motel" and "Under the Dome") is an award-winning investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune. His star is rising at his newspaper, as well as in the journalistic community, and he's pretty proud of himself. He's also deeply in love with his wife, Leslie (Erika Christensen, of 2002's "Swimfan", 2005's "Flightplan" and TV's "Parenthood"), and their young daughter, Alison (Hayley Rosenwasser). One night when the Strobels are at a restaurant celebrating Lee's latest promotion, Alison starts choking. Alfie Davis (L. Scott Caldwell from TV's "Lost", "Southland" and "Mercy Street"), a nurse who was eating in the restaurant, jumps in and saves Alison's life. Both Lee and Leslie (who are atheists) are appropriately grateful, but this dramatic experience causes Leslie to rethink her basic convictions.

Leslie starts going to church with Alfie and soon becomes a born-again Christian, to the consternation of her husband who sets out to disprove the basis of her faith. The newspaper's religion editor (Mike Pniewski) advises Lee to focus on Jesus' resurrection, but all this puts a lot of pressure on Lee. His refusal to accept Leslie's spiritual transformation creates much friction in his marriage and he takes out some of that frustration on his father (Oscar nominee Robert Forster). At work, Lee's editor (Frankie Faison) is hounding him to finish his ongoing investigation of a mysterious police shooting. Meanwhile, Lee is spending time at work, locked in his basement at home and traveling on weekends to talk to experts on the various facets of the Biblical account of Jesus' death and resurrection. Eventually, Lee's professional mentor (Brett Rice), who had been advising Lee in his search, gets frustrated and says, "At some point, young man, you're going to have to plant your flag on a mountain of uncertainty where not every question is answered. The human mind will never get to the bottom of every mystery in the cosmos." "The Case for Christ" is an entertaining and well-done, but incomplete film. The script by Brian Bird (2015's "Captive"), the acting by a talented cast (movie and TV veterans all) and the direction of Jon Gunn (2004's "My Date with Drew" and 2015's "The Week") bringing it all together result in a story that is well-told and engaging, emphasizing human interactions over preaching. The concurrent stories of Lee's search for the whole truth behind that police shooting and his efforts to disprove Jesus' resurrection effectively illustrate important parallel points in the film's plot and the growing divide between Lee and Leslie raises the stakes from a purely academic exercise to a very personal endeavor. However, by not including any serious arguments to counter its conclusions, the film amounts to little more than one family's dramatic story of change and some unchallenged assumptions. "B+"

It has been said many times in many different ways; this is a great retelling and moving account of one man's odyssey. Well acted and directed.

This movie never gets out of the circus maximus tent.

It's as if the journalist decided to explore mathematics except they forgot something.

They go to the chalk board, in an attempt to prove '1' exists.

So they just write 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OVER and OVER on the chalk board.

And yet ? somehow ?

This clown suit vacant of the clown ?

forgets to even DARE explore the beauty of ZERO.

Save yourself the trip - maybe stop off and visit Scientology? or a local Catholic Church ? same difference, only one I see is - Hubbard KNEW the only tax haven was through religion, most other families with 23 billion or more ? have family become senators to lower those taxes.

The only TAX you'll pay watching THIS film

is your OWN IGNORANCE TO EVER have brought it before your retina.

Me? I would have LOVED to just gone for a former Charlie's Angel's Kate Jackson flick on Lifetime - probably would have been more rewarding too !

Best proof he found were on the right place: the Holy Catholic Church, although he becomes a heretic. Besides that nice movie to someone who's searching for a quality Christian movie with good acting,the couple is quite convincing.I did think that they could have dug deeper into the evidences on Jesus then they did.