• mandy-4832220 August 2017
    It's better than I thought it would be
    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.
  • RuthlessGoat3 May 2017
    Most of the User Reviews are unrealistically positive
    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.
  • Lucas Cole13 August 2017
    The Case For Integrity
    Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • tjpierce-4567526 April 2017
    More proselytizing pablum
    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.
  • Albert Hansa15 August 2017
    Simple but moving
    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!
  • alex-93-6387549 September 2017
    One of the better Christian movies
    Warning: Spoilers
    '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.
  • Jadamwood19 April 2017
    The most unscientific evidence you can look for
    Warning: Spoilers
    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 Harris

    The 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.
  • bluesquirrel20048 May 2017
    Facts substantiated by emotional beliefs and arguments.
    Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • tysonwpotter10 August 2017
    Excellent and eye opening
    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.
  • Jon in Canada4 August 2017
    Sadly lacking in any real discourse
    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.
An error has occured. Please try again.