Loading...

Plot:

An award-winning investigative journalist — and avowed atheist — who applies his well-honed journalistic and legal skills to disprove the newfound Christian faith of his wife… with unexpected, life-altering results.

Also Known As: Jésus, l'enquête, Kristaus byla, Свiдчення про Iсуса Христа, Der Fall Jesus, Христос под следствием, The Case for Christ, Em Defesa de Cristo, El caso de Cristo, A Jézus-dosszié

Leave a Reply

27 Comments

  • mark
    Mark

    Judging by the comments of those who dislike the movie, their reaction validates the truths of Christianity. If they knew it not to be true, they wouldn’t get upset or bother to respond.
    Secondly from a film making perspective Vogel gives an excellent performance and the material is based upon a very detailed look into the claims of Christianity from an investigative journalists perspective. Strobel comes to the conclusion that the evidence stacks up. A true story cannot be disproved.

    • anonymous
      Anonymous

      Judging by the comments of those who dislike the movie, their reaction validates the truths of Christianity. If they knew it not to be true, they wouldn’t get upset or bother to respond.
      Secondly from a film making perspective Vogel gives an excellent performance and the material is based upon a very detailed look into the claims of Christianity from an investigative journalist’s perspective. Strobel comes to the conclusion that the evidence stacks up. A true story cannot be disproved

  • ants-loorits
    ants loorits

    When an entire theater breaks into spontaneous applause at the closing credits, it’s probably a film I’ll want to recommend. And see again.The title (if you somehow haven’t heard that ‘The Case for Christ’ is the title of a best-selling book) might make a viewer think the film is some kind of documentary.This is no documentary, but rather an intense, gut-wrenching drama. Based on a true story, an award-winning investigative journalist and self-proclaimed atheist sets out to disprove the existence of God after his wife becomes a Christian.Lee Strobel’s passion and drive will resonate with anyone who has ever felt determined to be vindicated. I genuinely sympathized with this man as he worked hard to gather evidence and disprove Christ’s resurrection. Strobel is logical to a fault, and to this viewer, logic is his — and the film’s — strength, ironically. I applaud the filmmakers for letting us follow Strobel at every turn and allowing us to see what he discovers at every angle and crossroads of his investigation, through the eyes and mind of a man driven (and earning a living) to believe nothing but instead “check it out.”The writing and acting are superb—professional on par with Hollywood. L. Scott Caldwell (Alfie) was genuinely convincing as the “happenstance” heroine who suddenly plays a pivotal role in the Strobels’ life and future. Christensen (Leslie) and Vogel (Lee) quite naturally give dimension and heart to a couple that could be real— and just so happen to be. We (I speak for the entire theater, I think) loved them instantly.The acting and writing also offer a refreshing break from ‘Us Against Them’ faith-based storytelling. There is no atheist/Christian stereotyping here—just a family who loves each other struggling with a sudden cross-purposed core dimension added to their life. Conflict intensifies as the couple’s opposing beliefs become unavoidable. Powerfully genuine. Powerfully emotional.And powerfully true.It’s a deeply personal story, one that can’t help but touch every viewer on some level. If you’re not a Christian, be prepared to process some mind- blowing, indisputable facts. If you’re a believer, be prepared to hear evidence of Christ’s resurrection you may not have known.This is not a faith film that preaches (to the choir or anyone else), uses unnatural dialogue, or tiptoes around the rawness of reality— the weakness, self-indulgence, and resentment humans are so capable of, believer or not. There is without question a need for clean, wholesome, family-safe, faith- friendly storytelling, and I don’t mean to say that this film is not clean or appropriate for family viewing. But it is also not a story created for the sake of offering a well-meant but sometimes inferior alternative to Christian viewers. This is a gutsy detective story that takes an unrestrained pickax to Christianity’s core root in an attempt to uncover truth and and comes away with not only a love of truth intact, but something far, far more precious. It will move, entertain, and leave viewers breathless. And applauding. 10 stars, Highly recommended.

  • niko-zalokar
    niko zalokar

    Worth watching for believers and unbelievers. A life changing testimony based on a true story! 🙂 I will watch this movie again with some friends. God bless Pure FLix and God bless Lee Strobel and the others who come to faith in Christ (II Peter 3:9). Bring your friends, believers and unbelievers, to watch this movie and you will be transformed. God bless you all!

  • april-stewart
    april stewart

    Nice production work, and occasional flashes of sincerity, but still falls short of its goal.Its another one of those fundie Christian proselytizing exertions, but you don’t need me to tell you that. One gets the impression that each time the movie production suits manage to put together a kitty to forge yet-another of these, it’s with the perennial hope, “This one will be different. This one will deliver.”It’s 1) better than the usual run, but 2) that’s not saying much.No, it doesn’t really deliver. Flicks like this are attempts to use a kind of moral grooming to create pristine little scenarios in which American evangelical Christianity plays out like an honest proposition. But sensitive folks can quickly sniff out that grooming and ultimately resent being treated like jacka55es whose radars were presumed not subtle enough to detect it.Here’s a woefully incomplete list of facile treatments:* The wife is a bit too quick to draw a causal line between her daughter’s rescue and the rescuer’s Christianity; it makes sense neither logically nor narratively. Sure, she feels powerful emotions at her daughter’s rescue. That doesn’t mean she’s duty-bound to jettison clear-headed thinking. She can be grateful and sensible at the very same time: One doesn’t have to crowd the other out.* Though managed more artfully than I’ve seen elsewhere, Strobel is still a bit of a straw dog. He’s painted as a somewhat acrid species of atheist. Most atheists are quite different from the Strobel depicted here.* The flick winds up fixing on the resurrection as key to the Christian “faith”. There’s a very strong argument for the view that thinking you’re a Christian because you profess to “believe” articles of faith (the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, etc.), may be straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.* More generally, the flick falls into the trap of promoting a creed basis for Christianity–that accepting a creed is the basis for your self-identification as an adherent of the religion. I’ve come to the place in my life when I find it hard to imagine a sadder waste of human spiritual searching. This flick backs a horse that loses, right out of the gate.* The textual criticism argument fails on two points. One, there’s plenty of evidence for the view that the New Testament texts had been modified, specifically in ways that wound up having downstream effects on popular notions of “correct” creed. Two, the flick doesn’t even mention the fact that the Gospel stories went through 4 or 5 inter- generational oral transmissions *before* someone wrote them down; and this probably explains more about those texts than my first point.* Why doesn’t the flick show Strobel shutting himself into a room for a week or so and carefully reading/combing through the New Testament? I suspect it was left out because most of this flick’s demographic would leave it out themselves; that is, they hold the Bible to be true while not reading it either.* Strobel’s mentor plunks a copy of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian” on the desk in front of Strobel. Why? Russell’s prime argument in that text was not ancient-historic, it was philosophic. In the following scene, Strobel’s editor then says that canned thing about Christianity resting on the historicity of the resurrection. This juxtaposition is confused, but does shed light on the demographic for the movie; it’s aimed at folks who haven’t read or reflected on philosophical views of the matter, so 1) the Russell book is reduced to a boogie talisman, and 2) the movie can then wend into the tar pit of historicity–which in the end winds up being a matter of bald belief (not faith). That’s insulting to thinking people.* Strobel tells his wife, “I don’t like what you’re becoming.” Which raises a question that might elude the casual viewer. That question is, “What *is* she becoming?” That’s an important question! Now, there are some scripted and produced moments that show her sitting with her Bible and being truly moved by genuinely sweet passages. That’s good! Remember: It’s often *not* good. Weak people can be taken in by religious frauds who sink their fangs into them and turn them into monsters. Heck, Jesus talked about that!* The doctor is able to argue convincingly for Jesus’s death. He might also argue vociferously for his resurrection, but not from a medical standpoint, as a medical researcher. A white lab coat only caries so much gravitas.* There’s a scene that actually–and I suspect unwittingly, on the screenwriter’s part–gives away the shop on the communication issue in relationship. Strobel’s wife talks about “her (new, religious) feelings” in a general, wizzy-wozzy way, but bizarrely fails to couch those feelings in honest, convincing language. Remember: Even poetic language would and should be welcome in these situations… but she can’t even muster that. How far did she honestly *think* she’d get in her so-called “communication” with her husband? When I watched that scene, here was my takeaway: You were *not* seeing a collision of worldviews/belief systems. You were seeing two blind people bumping into trees in disparate forests. I’ve seen that before, and I fear I know the next step: She’s going to start blaming the pain she feels as a result of all that tree-bumping on the people around her whom she would otherwise simply love; she’ll start dismissing them from her heart, as “tools of Satan”.* …and there’s more.While nicely produced and occasionally trenchant, the whole thing is yet another mess, in which a writer sets himself the task of bending screen writing to the defense of an untenable proposition–that belief (not faith) is a source of redemption/salvation. The producers may weigh in production finery–which includes truly marvelous exertions on the parts of the actors–but people who expect top-to-bottom solidity in their narrative products won’t be taken in.

  • otakar-cerny
    otakar cerny

    This move takes a very honest and sincere look at a young man’s struggle with what he believes after his wife was saved. It doesn’t beat you over the head, nor does it try to paint anyone in a bad light. The quality of the film and the acting were excellent. This was NOT your traditional Christine movie. The movie flowed well and it did not feel like a melodrama. I would highly recommend this movie to everyone.

  • jennifer-garza
    jennifer garza

    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

  • beth-mathews
    beth mathews

    I rented this in the hopes that it would be a thoughtful examination of why some people believe in the existence of Christ and others do not. Nope. It’s really just an essay on what this one guy believes. Never looking at any opposing view, or even looking critically at his own ‘evidence.’ For example it starts (spoiler ahead) with a classical case of if God wasn’t here a rescue wouldn’t have happened. But they don’t consider that if God exists then he made the rescue necessary in the first place.

  • alice-dolezalova
    alice dolezalova

    Yeah, everything I write probably has spoilers in it, so I checked the box.Let me cut to the chase though: It all boils down to the Resurrection: Either it happened or it didn’t. If it didn’t, as the Apostle Paul says in the Book of 1 Corinthians (First Corinthians, for those who don’t read the Bible normally): “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”1 Corinthians 15:19What he’s saying, is what’s pointed out to Lee Strobel by a Christian who he works with in his office. This is the insight that provides the impetus for Lee’s entire struggle and search to debunk Christianity. He figures if he can succeed, where so many have tried and failed, then he will have proved Christians to be the most pitied of all people, since they are worshiping a dead god.However, try as he will, he cannot find the evidence to dispute either the biblical accounts, or the extra-biblical sources he consults to try to weaken the Bible’s eye-witness testimony. Josh McDowell set out similarly to disprove Christianity, and found that the evidence is not only irrefutable, but that it is sufficient, in a court of law to prove that Jesus is who He says He is – the Son of God (Evidence That Demands A Verdict)!So, contrary to all the atheists who post garbage on here, and probably most of whom never even went to see the movie, I found myself intrigued, and my faith strengthened.Remember, faith is not, as Google says based on “Spiritual apprehension or feelings” rather it is a certainty, based on evidence presented that we can believe something to be true, even without knowing or seeing the power at work within it, or having been there at some previous historical moment to see something happen with our own eyes. We stand on the earth, yet we (most of us) have no idea how gravity works, nor do we care that it is invisible and we cannot see it. We KNOW it’s there, and we have faith it will hold us down. I know that’s not quite the same thing in this example, since we are talking about spiritual realities, but remember, Jesus came – to prove to us that He is real, and that He is God. He, Himself, told Pontius Pilate that He came “To testify to the truth”. And that is the truth.

  • amelija-nagys
    amelija nagys

    It is a story of an individual who was living his life as an atheist and tried his best to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. But failed to do so due to overwhelming historical evidence and a praying wife.”A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” -Ezekiel 36:26 (NRSV)

  • odone-ferretti
    odone ferretti

    As a Christian it is becoming very apparent that exploitation of Christianity is big bucks. This movie made no sense and the plot is so ridiculous that a 5 year old could not find convincing. Just horrible. If you are a Christian, as I am, please stop watching movies such as this that only debase our religion and allow others to make fun of us. Stop funding Christian exploitation movies. Tell Hollywood your tired of their ridicule. Don’t spend a dime to watch this piece of film crap.

  • sophia-nogueira
    sophia nogueira

    If Lee Strobel was ever an atheist, it certainly doesn’t show in this book. As other critical reviewers have suggested, he constructs here what amounts to an easily-vanquished stalking horse of straw — not a substantive argument of real skepticism. After cherry picking easy fly balls and grounders from what could have been much more challenging intellectual terrain, the author uncritically consults ONLY professional advocates and apologists for Christianity, and then repeats their arguments. He — and they — accept the words of the synoptic gospels “verbatum” as accurately reflecting the preaching, message, and claims of Jesus of Nazareth. A liar.

  • anna-vargas
    anna vargas

    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.

  • dillon-hayes
    dillon hayes

    Beyond the excellent presentation of material to support the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, this true story about Lee Strobel’s marriage being on the brink of ending because of his wife’s faith in Christ was another gripping dimension to the plot. Their intimate talks about faith and how Christ was deepening their love for each other through their investigation of faith is astonishingly well acted and deeply moving. At the heart of their relationship is the demonstration of how Christ divides, then unites, whereas the Evil One only divides. You could not ask for a happier ending than when Lee finally surrenders to the truths about Christ that he uncovers after two long years of research… I LOVE THIS FILM!

  • ruth-king
    ruth king

    The acting is good, the plot is compelling and keeps interesting all along.It is a must see both for believers and non believers. I never understood why the possibility of existing a man that taught about love and forgiveness would cause so much hate. The bad reviews are clearly written by people which hate the idea of Jesus.For the non-believers, this movie brings a chance to doubt yourself and your beliefs, which is always a positive thing, because, if your truth remains the same, at least you know about the subject and that makes your testimony truer.For the believers, I am one and I have had my times of struggle with faith, as I am sure most Christians have had. Even if you always believed with no doubt in your heart, you will learn impressive things with this movie.

  • nat-ia-samushia
    nat ia samushia

    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.

  • daniel-meyer
    daniel meyer

    I saw a trailer for this film and thought it was about a genuine investigation into the historicity of Jesus. Boy was I wrong! It is nothing more than a piece of trashy propaganda for American Christians. If I might also say, it has the distinct feel of “made for t.v.” about it. Basically, all the Atheists are made to look like angry, arrogant know-all’s while the Christians are all patient, loving and well rounded individuals. Its really nauseating!Perhaps the worst scene of the lot is when a “psychologist” claims that Strobels atheism was all down to his bad relationship with his father.The moral of the movie (and don’t you just hate when movies have morals) is that all atheists are damaged people who just need to find God in order to be cured. It should be shown exclusively in bible study classes and not inflicted on a thinking, intelligent audience.

  • emily-hall
    emily hall

    “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.

  • bernardo-jesus
    bernardo jesus

    As a former Christian, I can see how this movie is appealing to the Christian audience because it gives them a victory in their eyes. From a film-making perspective, it is quite boring, unimaginative, offers little evidence for the “case” for Christ and is simply unconvincing. Of all Christian based films “PUREFLIX” has came up with, this takes the cake for simple boredom and eye twitching nonsense. Spoilers to follow: It is a case to disprove the Christian faith that backfires into the atheist becoming a Christian. Here is the problem: The only evidence mentioned was there’s a lot of copies of the new testament. Witnesses 500+ say they saw Christ after the crucifixion. A medical doctors opinion is that if he were to be treated as stated in the bible that he would definitely die. All of this information and a music montage at the end of the film changes him to be a full on believer. Atheists like myself tend to be more scientific and continue asking questions unlike this movie’s portrayal of a angry, daddy issues riddled, drinker, bad father who tells his daughter what to think (when he wasn’t), as well as a person who accepts minimal circumstantial evidence. Things not brought up in this movie as an argument against god. The virgin birth Miracles: healing the sick, the blind, bringing dead back to life. Reconciling these supernatural occurrences with reason and science. Other than saving his daughter from an evil noodle at a restaurant, why god does nothing to help the others in suffering. 5000+ children a day who die from starvation, disease, etc. The movie chocks god up to be a teacher who’s only lesson is love and as a human of science, our main character is supposed to accept that given the experiential evidence and the world’s evidence of “god is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.”- Sam HarrisThe movie in general offers fluff and sad stories to make you bend your knees to a god who is one of those 3. It is a low blow for them to reference famous atheistic philosophers and scientists and say they had daddy wounds which makes it no coincidence that they cannot accept “the Father”. One can make the argument that those who have daddy wounds tend to gravitate to Christianity because they didn’t have a father to love them. Anyone who watches this film for evidence or maybe a change of heart, to change their mind about Christianity will fail to find it. Christian’s will feel validated and atheists will sitting their laughing. The movie is really biased and portrays anyone who isn’t a Christian as a lost soul or has mental issues dealing with loss or parents. It just comes off absurd and ignorant of reality.

  • sarha-ghayfechyan
    sarha ghayfechyan

    There are three main story-lines intertwined in this movie. 1. The husband/wife relationship between Lee and Leslie Strobel 2. Lee Strobel’s attempt to debunk his wife’s newly found faith 3. The imprisonment of an innocent “cop killer”All story lines were superficial and not well intertwined.I found the notion of arguing semantics and facts about a man who lived over 2000 years ago, who may or may not have been the son of “God”, extremely frustrating. A debate on the existence of fairies would use the same methodology to confirm their existence.In the end, there was no hard and fast fact, rather a highly emotional leap formed from the increasing pressure Lee was facing due to his marriage problems, falsely and publicly accusing an innocent man of attempted murder, and mental and emotional burnout from researching his “Existance of Christ” issue.There was no clear “Case for Christ”. Just a disappointing and poorly wrapped ending.

  • megan-calderon
    megan calderon

    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.

  • tiffany-logan
    tiffany logan

    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.

  • juhani-lehtimaki
    juhani lehtimaki

    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!

  • jose-ramon-reyes-bravo
    jose ramon reyes bravo

    ‘The Case for Christ’ dramatises Lee Strobel’s journey from Atheism to Christianity. As you’d expect for someone who was not just an unbeliever, but scorned faith, it was not an easy ride. Predictably, many Atheists aren’t going to like the movie, but I think it stands on its own merits. It is more biopic than apologetic and while a dramatisation, Strobels himself has said the movie is 85% accurate.***Contains Spoilers***It particularly focuses on his strained relationship with his wife. Strobels is a successful journalist, but this dynamic sends him into a tailspin and while he sets out to disprove his wife’s faith, he also turns to alcohol and workaholism to cope. We see someone depicted as a loving husband and father, part of a loving family, start to fracture. I’ve heard something similar from a friend who went through the same thing when his wife became a Christian before he did and it felt like he was competing with another husband.The spiritual aspects of the movie are pretty well handled. Scenes in which people pray don’t feel awkward or contrived. Sermons are relevant and the whole thing comes across as authentic. Strobel’s wife’s more emotional journey to faith contrasts with his own.A murder investigation is used as a foil for Strobels search for truth about Christ. As an investigative reporter he is portrayed as relentless, but he makes an error bias that gets a man jailed. It’s meant to demonstrate both his doggedness in pursuing the truth but also his blind spots and challenges the viewer to see their own.Along the way we do get apologetics, and on the whole it’s handled well, I thought. It’s definitely apologetics light, but it demonstrates that Christianity has rational grounds for belief and gives enough for anyone who’s interested to investigate further. The overall impression given is of someone who’s done his homework and been confronted by the credibility of Christianity. In the end Strobels has to make a step of faith, but as his Atheist mentor says (who is presented very sensitively – there were no ‘angry atheists’ in this), it’s a step of faith either way.One part that I thought may have been a little awkwardly handled was Strobels visit to a psychologist. He asks her about the hallucination theory, which she debunks (like most of Strobels questions, the answer is summarised rather than elaborated – it was already a 2 hour movie). However, she ends up confronting him about his father wound, which is another aspect of the movie. It didn’t feel out of place but I can see how many Atheists will feel it was a little below the belt. But as portrayed in the movie, it is pertinent to Strobels’ psyche.Ultimately you could have changed the premise and this would remain a solid drama. Well constructed and well acted.

  • vanessa-hoover
    vanessa hoover

    I don’t normally put user reviews in here as I review movies at a movie site and am an IMDb contributor. Out of the 22 User Reviews, 16/22 give this very transparent and mediocre film either 9 or 10 stars out of 10. There is no way that any objective viewer could consider this film any more that what it was, a poorly made soap-opera with an obvious religious agenda. Lee Strobel’s book has been analyzed and exposed for quite some time now and there is no way around the fact that his book and sources are quite flawed and biased.As far as the movie goes, it is being given a pass simply because it was not horrible like most of the other Christian films. The movie did not follow the book other than to show renditions of some of the interviews and there were logical fallacies galore. Personal opinion is not evidence and the movie, like the book, continued to commit one fallacy after another, especially Assuming Facts Not in Evidence. Along with the conclusions based on fallacies, this movie was just mediocre and pedestrian. Except for an acceptable effort from Vogel, the acting was wooden and unconvincing.In the end, Lee Strobel was not driven to his knees by evidence, but by emotional blackmail and manipulation. There is really no reason for anyone to see this movie, believers or non-believers. It was simply not very good.

  • glenn-howard
    glenn howard

    Based upon the book by Lee Strobel, this is a journey through the spiritual, intellectual, and emotional struggle of a newspaper journalist conflicted by his wife’s conversion to Christianity. Determined to disprove to his wife and, in effect to himself, Christ’s Godhood and therefore the Christian faith, Strobel focuses on the key element–the Resurrection. If he can disprove the Resurrection, he can prove the falsehood of Chrisitanity, as he sees it, and win back his wife to “reality.”The film also merges a subplot involving the shooting of a police officer allegedly by a known gang banger. These two parallel investigations by Strobel are well-integrated in the script and directed with a clean firm hand by the movie’s director, and form a satisfying related climax, as Strobel employs a single-mindedness to both investigations fueled by his journalistic skills, but crippled by a blind drive to prove a pre-determined opinion. On one hand, his relentless crime story approach puts an innocent man in prison and on the other, drives a wedge between Strobel and his newly “Christianized” wife. And behind all of this, is a failed relationship between Strobel and his father.The high production value, taut direction, top notch acting, and unobtrusive musical score all belie the low ratings given to this film by what appears to be the atheist community apparently, for some reason, being deeply offended. Frankly, giving a film like this a rating of 1 or 2 reveals more about the rater than the film. A key finding in Strobel’s Resurrection investigation reveals, I believe, the reason for the strident and shrill objections by the atheist reviewers to this film: the most vocal and militantly resistant objectors to the Case For Christ shared a lack of a loving relationship with their fathers. That kind of lack–and the pain it brings–shows up in these reviews.

  • deborah-lang
    deborah lang

    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.