God's Not Dead (2014) User Reviews (782)

Not doing Christianity any favors

[Mr-Fusion · 4/10 · 18 June 2015]

Yeah, it's a bad movie, but I was expecting something entertaining. Not like, "pretentious" bad. There's not really any message within "God's Not Dead", just an assortment of validated stereotypes. And even though the film seemingly debates the existence of an all-powerful being, it's really more concerned with extraneous side characters and the shoehorning of reality stars and a rock band. Kevin Sorbo's playing a personified strawman (before going full-on bad guy), which should give you an idea just how seriously this movie treats the philosophical subject matter. What made it hard to stomach was the syrupy tone; it felt a lot like "Crash", and that's the last thing I need with a movie about God.

But its real crime is the horrible pacing; an interminable two hours. This thing's a trainwreck.

4/10

No free academic discourse

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 31 March 2014]

It's impossible to review Christian films because if you're a believer you think this is a great film with a great message. If you're a skeptic or an out and out atheist you'll not view it kindly. Credit however should have gone to such items as Crash, Magnolia, and heaven forfend Boogie Nights because in terms of structure God's Not Dead most closely resembles those films. There's a bunch of stories with people all interconnected somehow.

But the main plot line involves young Shane Harper who is a Christian kid who is taking philosophy as an elective course. Instead of free academic discourse we have Professor Kevin Sorbo right off the bat wants to have his students declare God is dead. Harper is the one holdout and Sorbo essentially turns the class over to him, not for just one lecture, but for several periods where Harper has to get up and defend his faith.

Back in the day I had college professors, mostly liberals to be sure, but would never act like Kevin Sorbo does. Later on we learn in the film that he's got some deep issues.

As for Harper, he's told by the local pastor David A.R. White that this is an opportunity to go to bat for his faith. It would have been a lot easier to just drop the course and take another elective. In fact Harper is such a devoted believer one wonders why he's not in some place like Jerry Falwell's Liberty Baptist University or Pat Robertson's Regent University. Especially the latter since they have a law school there with guaranteed employment in the Justice Department when a Republican administration is in power.

As we all know Kevin Sorbo first came to prominence portraying that most mythic of pagan heroes Hercules on television. Another former television superhero in this film is former Superman Dean Cain who is a lawyer with one colossal ego. His part is almost a caricature, especially when his girlfriend tells him she's got cancer. What a comfort Cain is to her.

Christian icons like Willie and Korie Robertson from Duck Dynasty make an appearance. The finale is a concert by that most noted Christian Rock group the Newsboys.

As a non-believer, not an anti-believer and there is a difference despite the position this film takes I'm not thoroughly trashing a job moderately well done. Why though the existence of a Creator/Deity is automatically meaning that a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity is necessarily valid. Or a literal interpretation of any religion for that matter. Harper even concedes that there was no literal 24/7 creation. I suspect that if he had tried to defend the Bible in a literal interpretation of the flood or Joshua stopping the sun, etc., things might have turned out differently.

One thing however did offend me greatly. David A.R. White is playing host to a visiting missionary from some unnamed African country. These are the same people who are currently pushing with glee and delight pogrom like laws against gay people in many African countries. Of course no mention of that in God's Not Dead, but I assure you that any gay people who see this film will mark it well for this colossal bit of hubris.

Technically God's Not Dead is not a horrible film, but people depending on their point of view will react accordingly to it.

Maybe Roger Ebert was wrong...

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 18 April 2015]

... when he said the movies are a great big empathy machine. At least in this case he probably was, because this film is a great big stereotype machine.

I'll cut it some slack on acting and direction because the whole thing was shot in 20 days with probably a low budget. The screenplay itself, mainly focusing on the conflict between Christian student Josh Wheaton and his atheist philosophy professor, really has a narrow point of view. The film really paints everything with a black and white brush and makes assumptions about atheists - AND people from other faiths and countries - that cause much of the criticism of the Christian community in the first place. I know several atheists, and they are not all narcissists that abandon sick friends or people that blame God for some tragedy in their past. Many of them have a behavior code that exceeds that of Christians because they do not have a "ticket to heaven in my pocket" mentality which many Christians do have and I have observed.

Meanwhile, we get a look at what is supposed to pass for a typical Arab-American Muslim household, as dad always makes sure that his daughter Ayisha has her face totally covered when he drops her off at school. He doesn't seem to mind that she has on short sleeves and clothes that are just as revealing as her peers. Note to dad - the face is not the only physical thing about a young lady that catches the eye of young men. No matter though, because as soon as dad is out of sight. Ayisha removes the face covering. It turns out that Ayisha is a closet Christian, and when dad finds out he reacts as we would expect any Muslim man to react who is three times his daughters size - he smacks her around fist to face and then physically throws her out into the street.

Getting back to the film's main protagonist,Josh, he is now having to debate the philosophy prof in class as to the existence of God using philosophical arguments or else he will fail. The in-class debate part of the film was interesting, but I believe professor Raddison when he said they did not have pre-law at the university, because just about every action he took was completely illegal, from threatening his students with failing grades or at least greatly enhanced workloads if they did not write down "God is dead" on a piece of paper and sign it, to confronting and taunting the student Josh when he began to get his goat.

Josh makes a big deal during his portion of the debate about God allowing free will to reign on earth and that being the reason for all of the evil, and then the plot goes on to disprove exactly that by implying divine destruction of the ignition capabilities of every car that two random missionaries on their way to Disneyland touch (in one of many sideplots) so that they can be at a particular place at a crucial time. As one missionary states to the other "God has you exactly where he wants you". What happened to free will if these two are just manipulated actors in God's grandiose play? Other interesting points - apparently all atheists turn to Christ when confronted with death (a point the late Christopher Hitchens disproves), and exactly what is this generic cancer that the atheist blogger has? Inquiring minds want to know. Plus - filmmakers - I know plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, but many of us know an "I am Spartacus" moment when we see it (Josh's argument in favor of the existence of God causes everybody in the class to stand and say "God is not dead"). The great irony here - the screenwriter for Spartacus was James Dalton Trumbo, who just happened to be an atheist. I would say this film is worth watching as a curiosity if nothing else.

If God Were Dead, He'd Be Rolling In His Grave With This Movie.

[filmbuff-05706 · 1/10 · 3 March 2022]

I'm a Christian and I'm embarrassed to say that I used to love this movie. I've seen it 4 or 5 times- but in my defense, it's been 4 years since my last viewing. At the time, I think I felt that since this movie was trying to spread a Christian message, I should like it.

If you look at my page, you can see that I have changed my mind on that for plenty of faith-based films. And God's Not Dead is a prime example of why I, a Christian and a film buff, hate many modern Christian movies.

The movie God's Not Dead has numerous plots, however the main one, and the one I will center on, follows Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper), who is a Christian and a college freshman who has to take a philosophy class.

His teacher is an atheist named Professor Rattison (Kevin Sorbo), who tells his students to write on a sheet of paper: God Is Dead. All of the students do this, except for Josh- who refuses due to his faith.

Therefore, Rattison gives Josh an alternative assignment- for the next 3 classes, for 20 minutes each, he has to give a presentation that gives evidence for the existence of God. If he can't convince the class that God exists by then, he fails.

In a way, the plot is intriguing. Part of the reason why I used to like it is because a faith vs. Science controversy (or whatever name you want to give it) is a compelling topic. But how the movie goes about it is cruel, unrealistic, and stupid.

First off, there's the plot. It could never happen. Wikipedia reports that as of 2019, 65% of Americans believe in Christianity. Statistically, 6-7 out of 10 Americans would side with Josh. But no, Josh is the only student out of 80 kids that believes in Jesus, let alone a god.

Then there is the portrayal of the atheist characters. Every atheist is a jerk in the movie. The professor's name-calls God (in one scene he calls Him a "dictator"), he bullies Josh, and like I said, he will fail Josh if he can't convert 80 atheists to faith in 60 minutes.

That goes for other atheist/non-Christian characters as well. A Muslim beats and kicks out his daughter for becoming a Christian, a businessman neglects seeing his religious mother with dementia, his atheist girlfriend has cancer (which is cured in the NEXT movie after she comes to faith), and so forth.

This movie implies that if you are not a Christian, you're a jerk. I'm sorry to say that, but that IS what is implied.

When it comes to Josh's arguments, they're kind of thin. In his 1st argument, he states that the Big Bang could not have happened because then nothing turned into everything, which is impossible.

A student points out that Richard Dawkins has stated that if a Christian makes this argument, atheists have the right to ask: "So who created God?" Josh gives the correct point that Christians do not believe in a created God- He is eternal.

He says that atheists should be asked: "If the universe created you, then who created the universe?" I suppose that's fine, but this does not argue for God's existence, and he somewhat avoids the students' question and never fully answers it. And of course, this "Christian" movie never makes note of that.

I don't recall much of what the 2nd debate is about, so to cut to the chase, allow me to skip it and go to the next scene.

After the 2nd debate, the professor privately tells Josh that HE used to believe in God, but his mother died of cancer after he prayed for Him to heal her. So apparently, he's an atheist because, in his mind- "if God exists, He will care about my mother and heal her for my sake." It's normal to feel that way when you are a Christian child (My father died when I was 9 and I remember having those feelings), but God doesn't suddenly not exist because of one tragedy He allowed in your life.

Josh uses this for his 3rd debate, and he asks the professor: "Do you hate God?" He scoffs at this (as he should) and so Josh asks: "Okay...WHY do you hate God?" He hammers him with this question until Rattison snaps: "Because He took everything from me! Yes, I HATE God! Everything I have towards Him is HATE!"

Then Josh, who initiated the question in the first place, asks the professor: "How can you hate someone who doesn't exist?" When I was 16, I thought BURN! Now, I think- WELL NO KIDDING! There's the 6th Sense-level plot twist for you- Mr. Rattison isn't really an atheist, he just has a grudge against The Almighty.

As thin and convoluted as this argument is, it's what suddenly converts all 80 students to believe in God. The professor doesn't convert, however, until he is hit by a car.

Can you see the problem God's Not Dead has? It's a hateful, biased, flawed movie with logical fallacies as a side dish. It shouldn't even be considered a "Christian" movie. Jesus taught to love our enemies, as well as those we do not agree with. Atheists are included in this matter. And again, I apologize, especially to atheists, for once liking this movie.

I could go on a lot longer, but you get the point. I was going to re-watch the movie to find my rating, but 1/10 seems to fit, especially since I have analyzed why. I haven't seen it in years, and I intend to try to keep the record going.

God may not be dead, but if He were, this movie would probably make Him roll in His grave.

Note: If you want to see more reviews that helped me open my eyes to how flawed and unlikable God's Not Dead is and should be, I suggest going on YouTube and looking up Say Goodnight Kevin's half-hour review or seeing Josh Keefe's video The Problem With Christian Movies.

Reverse Recommendations: If you want some GREAT Christian movies, here's a few I highly recommend to get you started:

The Apostle (my favorite Christian non-Biblical movie), Silence, Hacksaw Ridge, Lilies of the Field, Francis of Assisi, Soul Surfer, The Disney Narnia movies, I Can Only Imagine, I Still Believe, Sheffey, Say Amen Somebody, Billy, Chariots of Fire (a superior "stand up for your religious beliefs" movie), The Case For Christ, and even Jesus Camp. God's Not Dead puts Veggie Tales on cinematic par with The Ten Commandments.

Unbelievably simplistic

[jrcham94 · 1/10 · 23 March 2014]

I was dragged to this "movie" by a Christian friend who keeps thinking that I"ll finally come around to her religious way of thinking. Jeez, it was worse that I expected. Atheists are portrayed as evil beings who "hate god" and are determined to convert Christians. Actually, atheists do not "hate" god; god is simply something they don't believe exists. As to forcing their way of thinking on anyone, the movie has it backwards. It's Christian zealots who demand that everyone think like them. Most atheists - those that I know anyway - are happy to let others believe as they wish as long as they don't force their "values" on the rest of us. As to production values, etc., the film is pretty basic. The lead actor over-emotes and the supporting cast of Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain look pretty silly. The plot is pretty much what you'd think. Thoughtful friends shouldn't let friends see this piece of propaganda: it has no basis in reality. As to Christians, knock yourself out. Like Fox News, it's been produced to reinforce your preconceptions without actually presenting another point of view in anything resembling a thoughtful way.

Who Really Believes This?

[rmeehan-55411 · 1/10 · 24 January 2016]

The ways this film treats all atheists is the rough equivalent of a film treating all Christians as Fred Phelps clones.

It's a thoughtless, unintelligent film whose only appeal is that it preaches to the choir. It presents the world in the most one- dimensional, black-and-white format I've ever seen.

And if anyone sees it fit to jump in and criticize me for being biased against the film: I have several friends who are very sincere and devout Christians. I have the utmost respect for their beliefs, and would never try to convert them.

THEY have even said that this film is the pinnacle of stupidity, and that it misrepresents their religious beliefs entirely.

Skip it.

Propaganda at its finest.

[altair2478 · 1/10 · 5 July 2014]

You know when a movie made by Christians is about religion, it's going to demonize secularism. It makes out that Morality is entirely exclusive to Christianity and that without God, there is no point in being moral, which is just ridiculous. It makes every non-Christian look either evil or stupid, which is just insulting. It is just propaganda, no way around it, it's trying to make Christianity look perfect when it isn't and it's trying to make secularism and any other religion look evil and immoral. It's almost like this movie was made Christians who knew absolutely nothing about their own faith and of other beliefs. It's a new low for cinema, it's upsetting to think that this movie was allowed to be made.

Insulting and Disgusting

[maximumforce458 · 23 March 2014]

This travesty of a movie movie is about a Christian named Josh Wheaton who attends a philosophy class at his college/university. As we all know, Christians are a significant minority in the United States (sarcasm), so Josh is the only implied Christian out of all 80 students in the class. The professor is a ridiculously exaggerated atheist and forces all of his students to write on a piece of paper "God is Dead" with a signature beneath it; because, you know, that's totally allowed in schools and wouldn't result in immediate punishment.

Of course, Josh, being the only devout Christian (as far as we're aware) out of all 80 students in the classroom and every single class the professor has ever taught before, is the only one to say he won't do it. The professor then says he will be forced to debate and prove God is real and that he's "not dead." Of course, the movie seems to not understand the word debate as Josh is the only one to actually argue anything, while the professor doesn't do more than one or two snarky rebuttals; so really, it's more like "I'll give you the chance to argue everything while I do nothing to deliver an argument against it."

Meanwhile, we follow several other stories; most significantly, that of a Muslim girl who is violently abused by her father when she wants to convert to being a Christian, which sends a horrible message and stereotype about Muslims in addition to atheists. We also follow a vegan atheist (trying to aim for the most liberal characters possible?) who finds out she has cancer and ends up following Christ in the end, surprisingly (not). Intertwined with this is her laughably mean-spirited and rude atheist lawyer boyfriend, who, when finding out about her cancer, says in hilariously evil fashion "Couldn't this wait until tomorrow?" which drew a plethora of shocked gasps throughout the crowd as well. This character in particular was exaggerated to such a point that it made me sick.

The funniest thing about those other stories is that they serve literally no purpose whatsoever other than to show that everyone who isn't a Christian is an incredibly angry, mean, or otherwise confused person. They contribute nothing to the plot at all besides filler for the spaces in between the "main event" that is Josh arguing in favor of God.

Speaking of useless to the plot, there is also a few parts of the movie the movie that are just random where a black man who sounds like he's a Caribbean native and the Reverend at Josh's church stand around a parking lot for two days and deliver some unfunny commentary about how loving God is and how every rental car they get doesn't drive. I couldn't really understand anything this did to help carry the story along besides, again, acting as filler for breaks in-between the actual plot line.

In the end Josh begins yelling at his professor random lines that completely bypass everything he said in his arguments before (the most random one was "science supports his existence, you know the truth!" despite nothing before that point saying anything like that) and it turns out that the only reason the professor is atheist is because he lost his mom when he was a kid, implying the only reason atheists don't believe is because they lost something in their lives.

Of course, that part doesn't make any sense because the atheist lawyer actually talks to his dementia-stricken mother soon after this scene bringing up how he's so rich and successful despite the fact that he's an atheist and she's a poor old women with a mental deficiency despite the fact that she is a devout Christian. So basically, we have one side saying atheists are atheists because they are just angry or sad to appease Christians that they don't actually believe for realistic reasons, and then we have the atheist lawyer go completely against this point just to remind everyone that atheists are horrible people.

So, after he was yelled at by Josh, Professor Radison reads a letter from his mother talking about how much she loved him and how she wanted him to be a good follower of God. After this Radison rushes to a concert where his Christian girlfriend is to get her back. All of this makes us assume he reconsidered his faith and has become a Christian again. Or not, because on the way he is hit by a car.

The Reverend sees him get hit and, without ever knowing or meeting this character, instead of screaming for help, getting paramedics, calling 911, anything, they begin talking to him about his faith in Jesus. Yes, folks, I'm serious. The Reverend says it's a miracle the professor wasn't killed instantly! Of course, the professor dies anyway so really he ended up dying painfully and slowly, while also being forced to admit out loud to having faith in Jesus before his death.

This almost made me leave the theatre in disgust. What makes the situation even worse is that no one cared! The Reverend and his friend were joking about how he's in heaven now anyway! Not to mention half the theatre had laughed at him being hit by a car. It was sickening and disturbing that someone's death in the movie was simply shrugged at because he was an atheist and had repented in the end so it didn't matter anyway.

In the end, if I were to ignore all of the awful stereotypes, disgusting pieces of Christian propaganda, and in general just insulting content, the movie would still be a 5/10 at best. The acting was weak, half of the film had zero to do with the main plot, and the main plot itself was hardly even compelling and completely unrealistic anyway. Avoid at all costs.

I Enjoyed It

[Trebaby · 10/10 · 5 August 2014]

I'm not a Christian but I watched this movie and I got a big kick out of it. Not in the way that the producers probably intended, but I thought it was entertaining.

Of course this movie is complete hogwash with conversations in the script that would never ever happen in real life.

OK, where do I begin? As mentioned elsewhere on this page, atheists, for the most part, don't "hate" God...that would be like hating Santa Claus. And the argument that one can't be moral without Christianity...gimme a break. Has anyone ever heard of Aristotle? He wrote a book about ethics long before Christ trod the Earth. And finally, no professor would ever act like Kevin Sorbo's character. Anyone with a truly inquisitive mind would welcome a debate and no, Stephen Hawking is not consider "infallible." You can't just bring up Hawking's name as proof of anything. Never been done. Never.

Overall, this movie is about bashing what the producers see as militant atheism and secularism. Richard Dawkins is mentioned several times. And why anyone would get their life's philosophy from a dude who sells duck callers on TV I'll never understand.

If you enjoy overwrought, wrong-headed religious melodrama with a sort of a dark and surprisingly nasty undertone, then God's Not Dead is for you.

God's not dead, but the script should have killed.

[biscuitskillt · 1/10 · 22 March 2014]

I'm a Christian and just watched the movie last night. I have to tell you that this is NOT a good movie, at all. The only thing that was good about it was some of the acting and cinematography. The movie is so stereotypical, one-sided, and offensive that it will push many away from the gospel, which is not what any supposed Christian movie should be doing. I've talked to many non-Christians who have watched this film, and this is exactly what it's doing.

Here's why. Every, and I mean every single non-Christian in the movie is an amoral, annoying, arrogant, jerk. Every single Christian (except that annoying girlfriend) is a moral, righteous, considerate person. Just because you are not a Christian doesn't mean you don't even have BASIC morals, I mean c'mon. That is completely stereotypical and will offend anyone who notices.

Regarding the Muslim family, that just disgusted me. They only show one Muslim family, which so happens that the dad is an abusive father. This will probably cause any Muslim watching the movie to immediately step out in disgust. Sure, this may happen a lot in other countries and maybe even sometimes in the U.S., but they shouldn't have shown the only Muslim family in the entire movie as being abusive and dysfunctional. That alienates any Muslim in the audience as being dysfunctional. Way to love your neighbor, Mr. Director.

In relation to the debate, the kid did give some good, foundational, basic points to support the existence of God in contrast to the atheistic Big Bang Theory. BUT, you NEVER heard a rebuttal of equal length or quality from the professor. If you watch any REAL debate done by professionals, each gets their shot to prove their point. And usually, both will bring up many very good points from each side of the spectrum. Sometimes the atheist will win, sometimes the theist will win. Depends on who's more prepared and logical. I, personally, am a completely convinced young-earth Creationist, so no, I'm not biased toward the professor. It just ticks me off that every time the professor talks, you immediately want to hate him from the sarcastic and arrogant tone he gives off while asking short, pithy, statements that can easily be disproven or argued by any professional Theist. This will alienate any Atheist in the room, and could, cause them to walk out in disgust as well. I would, if I was an Atheist.

Next, they never tried to prove the existence of Jesus and the validity of the Christian religion. But, they turned around and completely dissed the Muslim religion with no validity to do so. They never even attempted to argue that the Jesus of the Christian Bible was the superior and only God, above Allah. Nope, they just mentioned God, as in a Supreme Being not necessarily relating to any one religion. And they expected you to already believe that Allah was a false god. What if a Muslim comes into the audience wanting to see a movie proving the existence of God in general?

Lastly, the entire premise was a bunch of bull anyway. NO professor of that status would do that in a classroom. They would be stepping on glass, and probably get kicked out of the entire school very shortly. Most people are not atheists, most people are a mix of different religions. There's something called, freedom of speech. If he's violating that, he's out. And if, by some miracle, you do receive a tyrannical, insane professor like THAT, you don't let yourself get bullied like this kid did, and you don't just drop the class either. If you are a Christian, first of all, you stand up to the professor and read him your RIGHTS AS AN American CITIZEN. Voice your disgust to the classroom before you leave and threaten the teacher as you walk out telling him how you are going to bring this to the news and every board room you can get your hands on so that he will be fired as soon as possible because of his dictatorial unconstitutional leadership in the classroom. The last thing you do is give into his demands, and then JUST influence a little classroom of eighty people. With a professor that insane, you could get on the freaking news and tell the entire world the gospel. Why miss a chance like that? Think outside the box people! Also, it ticked me off that the entire reason that the professor was an Atheist was due to emotional, personal experience, rather than logic. I mean seriously? A lot of Atheists choose their viewpoints due to primarily logic and education rather than that their mom died, or something bad happened to them causing them to hate God and reject him by turning to Atheism. Once again, it is isolating Atheists as being emotional wrecks not truly wanting to accept what they know is true only because they HATE God. Which is a bunch of bull. It completely disregards any atheistic comments as being grounded in emotional problems, when many times they are grounded in what they call LOGIC. However faulty that logic may be.

There are other points I could bring up, but I'm reaching my word-limit. This movie is in one word: mindless. And not something true Christians should be supporting. Now, once again, I am a reformed Christian young- earth, protestant Creationist and five-point Calvinist. I have argued with many atheists, agnostics, etc. and watched countless hours of debates and read many books from both sides of the spectrum and am totally convinced, due to LOGIC, not blind-faith, that God exists, Jesus exists, is the only true God, and that the Bible is infallible.

Pretty Solid Film

[bmccart8 · 9/10 · 29 March 2014]

Kevin Sorbo gave a pretty decent performance as the atheist professor. Along with this, Shane Harper turned in a solid performance as the college student challenged by his professor. The multiple story lines which intersect in the film was a nice touch as well. Many reviews I've read are pretty hard on this film and it's plot. This is confusing as the title pretty much gives the thesis of the movie away. Taking the film for the one-sided argument that it was meant to be, I found it to be entertaining and engaging. I thought the interaction between the protagonist and the antagonist was plausible and the dialogue realistic enough to suspend disbelief and be taken into the story. I thought the pace of the movie was just right.

God's Not Dead is powerful, emotionally charged

[burlesonjesse5 · 7/10 · 9 May 2014]

As a film that is overly religious, Altmanesque (minus the overlapping dialogue), and structured almost similar to 2005's Crash (which was I believe was inspired by Robert Altman himself), God's Not Dead is a March release that presents the debate of Christianity vs. agnosticism. In other words, the major conflict here involves a college student trying to convince a philosophy class that God is real whereas the professor of said class believes that God well, does not exist. As things progress, other characters eventually filter in, their lives intersect each other ever so slightly, and events finally conclude with a chance meeting at a concert involving a popular Christian rock band.

Now if you haven't taken in a viewing, know this: God's Not Dead is controversial, will allow for debate, and despite its PG rating, might sensitize an audience with its subject matter (doesn't matter if you're 10 years old or 80 years old). Whether or not that's a good or bad thing, I still found the film to be very well done, well paced, and well acted (especially by the leads being Kevin Sorbo and Shane Harper). It hasn't however, gotten a very wide release and at times, resembles a TV movie or something you would show as educational fodder in church classrooms. But it's as intelligent and thought provoking as anything to come out so far in 2014. And the fact that it wasn't another shoot em' up, another cartoon, or another lowbrow comedy was very refreshing to me.

Filmed entirely in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and featuring a cameo involving members of TVs smash hit, Duck Dynasty, God's Not Dead focuses on law student Josh Wheaton (played impressively by Shane Harper). He's a devout Christian, a loyal boyfriend, and overly smart (yet at times, timid). When he's warned about taking a philosophy class taught by a stern, set in his ways professor named Radisson (played with a searing glare by Kevin Sorbo), Wheaton decides to go against the grain and take this agnostic teacher to task (using at times, a power point presentation). He challenges Professor Radisson to a debate on whether or not God is real. This all happens because Josh won't sign a note saying that he denounces God's existence so that he can continue to take said class like everyone else.

As a highlight, there are three to four key scenes between these two actors that are very powerful. Added to that, the secondary characters mentioned earlier, also contribute to the story as well. They are all connected through 1-3 degrees of separation by the protagonist (Wheaton) and the antagonist (Radisson). One of them is a writer who finds out that she has cancer thereby trying to find solitude with God. Another character belongs to an old fashioned family who alienates her because of her beliefs. Finally, there is a nasty businessman played by veteran Dean Cain (Mark). He has a perfect life yet admits that he's a bad person and wonders why he hasn't been taken from the world yet (his mother is dying of dementia and is as good as any human being who has ever lived).

In conclusion, God's Not Dead comes off as a little preachy. It does at times, project itself as a public service announcement or an infomercial posing as a movie. However, just when you're not expecting it, the film sneaks up on you and packs an emotional wallop. A couple of the character portrayals are very heartbreaking and this is the glue that holds things together. The script, which has the collaboration of five writers, walks a tight wire between cleverness and textbook reading material. It's okay though because the actors pull you through, the story lines thread naturally, and the aspect of epiphany fully arises. God's Not Dead is no masterpiece but it's worth a solid recommendation. It's "not" playing at a whole lot of theaters right now so if you are in its cinematic vicinity, you should give it a serious look-see.

offended, not so much for its message (though it's heavy-handed) but for shoddy writing

[Quinoa1984 · 1/10 · 10 September 2015]

So first of all, in God's Not Dead, let's get this out of the way first: this is not how a college classroom works. As someone who has now been teaching in a college for over a year now, I've seen first-hand how students act and react to things, and more importantly how professors act. Maybe this character that Kevin Sorbo plays has tenure, maybe he's an 'untouchable' in Academia. But how this class operates - how he firmly puts it to these students that they must write down on the first day of class on a piece of paper 'God is Dead' and that counts as 30% of their grade - is just stupid and illogical off the bat. What goal is this professor looking for? Does he want a *sincere* answer from these students? The conflict comes that one student (named Josh Wheaton... like uh, Joss Whedon, I guess for some reason) challenges the professor by not writing it, not because of any logic about how a classroom works, but because he's a Christian and won't give in. So then an entire debate is set up - forget a class being taught or lessons - between the theist side and atheist side.

This isn't to say the movie doesn't pour on its message thicker than syrup on a dozen stacks of pancakes. But even having to think about this shows that the director and writers here don't care about having actual, human characters here. Not really. They have some kinds of shades of what a person might be like, like, well, words and thoughts and things, but there isn't much past: this side believes, and this side doesn't believe, and they really, deep down, don't believe because either someone in their family died (the professor) or may be dying soon (the reporter woman, who by the way gets a very hackneyed scene where an a-hole boyfriend breaks up with her after her cancer news).

It would be one thing if it was just this BS straw-man back-and-forth in front of a plastic classroom full of stick figures for these mouth-pieces to talk (and that's what they are, make no mistake about that, unless you're already coming to this as the heavily-converted). It's really in the structure of something like Crash, a multi-character 'tableau' that has some very minor connections to some of the characters - it all comes together, naturally, at a Christian rock concert in the last third. There's multiple crappy plots to go along with the main 'plot' of the freshman student and the professor, including the local pastor/preacher/whatever and a car that won't start (the rental car guy that comes is meant to bring the one 'joke' that falls flat), and a Muslim girl and her strict father, who we know NOTHING about and decides to go for Jesus and gets slapped and kicked out of her house.

Who is she? What about the reporter, who we maybe know a little more about due to her sorta-storyline with cancer and interviewing a guy from Duck Dynasty (huh) and then later in a prayer circle with the Christian rock group at the end. She has just the shades of anything like real motivation, past "I'm going to die, that sucks." And what about the professor's girlfriend, who is made to look like a doormat to her boyfriend (always an a-hole, even up until the very end of the film), and says she is a Christian but has little to really say against her super-Athiest-Dogmatic man? So many of these scenes, for all of the characters, are just springboards so that people can get into these arguments and talks about God and faith that are, for lack of a better or more original expression, preach to the choir: you already know coming to this that God exists, right? Then get ready for some mighty Christian rock (ugh) and messages from certain intellectuals in lecture-form about this. You know God doesn't exist? Or are unsure? Well...

There's no middle ground here, no other voice or nothing to make for any real spot for ambiguity. And even with the sense of these students really having their own thoughts or expressions in the class there's basically nothing (one student, out of the blue, quotes Richard Dawkins like she knows it off the back of her hand, at the start of a 101 Philosophy class, and another, the Chinese student, kind of a supporting character, has a moment with his far-away dad who says simply 'yes, the professor says God exists, He exists, go away'). Ultimately it comes down to the script for a lot of these problems, and how it's really, aside from having badly written characters and bad dialog and not necessarily bad filmmaking but bland direction (and among the actors, only Kevin Sorbo doesn't look there to drone on with little emotion), it's an anti-intellectual film. It's epitomized in the whole 'hook' of the college classroom, which is (to repeat myself) how a classroom works, on any level.

So near the end, if you're still enraptured by the message and praising Jesus as people become converted and songs are sung and the Duck Dynasty guy returns (?) then have at it. But as a film, as a story, with characters, and a meaningful message, it's as subtle as an anvil dropped Wile E Coyote.

Amazing movie

[ksaclo-84-324335 · 3/10 · 22 February 2016]

I am not sure why all the reviews are so negative. This movie has been able to do one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. It is so bad and ridiculous that it has actually managed to unite Atheists and Christians alike in being both offended and disgusted at the same thing. Do you know how difficult that actually is? Come on people, you should be happy that it one thing has proved that we all can get along and hate the same thing, arm and arm... LOL!! I mean this movie (and I use that term loosely) is so bad that it really has me wondering what the creator of this movie was thinking. I mean overly cliché'd stereotypes, mixed in with a ridiculous premise, coupled with even more ridiculous subplots. All culminating around the premise of a professor at a University requesting to do something that I am pretty sure would be deemed illegal and I have never come across or even heard of, someone making people sign a paper denouncing their religious faith. My favorite part is they then allow this kid to argue points of which in this day and age people can watch on any youtube clip, probably have already come to their own conclusions and doesn't answer anything on either side, in my opinion. So the fact that everyone thinks this movie is preposterous in a united front is quite amazing, and if that was the intent of the creator of this movie, then he is a genius!!

As A Christian Man I Am Disgusted

[zack_wall · 1/10 · 24 March 2014]

My first thoughts after walking out of the theater were absolute horror, disgust, abhorrence, and sadness. The film turned what could possibly have been a good idea -- an atheist professor debating the existence of God with a Christian student -- and made sure to destroy ANY sort of message that could have been gained.

Let's talk about the OBVIOUS and TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE stereotypes presented by the film. We have a lone Muslim character who beats his daughter, an atheist professor who just happens to be the biggest narcissist this side of the Mississippi, an idiotic reporter, the idea that all atheists chose their lifestyle because deep down they hate God, and even more nonsense that I can't fit in this post.

I'll sum up the entire film for those of you who haven't seen it yet: An atheist professor makes his class declare that "God Is Dead" (which is extremely un- professor-like in this day and age, so there's that), and the lone Christian student in his class spends the entire film convincing him that God exists. Then we find out that his professor isn't actually an atheist, he's just mad at God for not saving his wife (or mother? I've already repressed most of this film).

The entire movie is just one giant atheist bash. Zero minds will be changed, and the rest of the world has yet ANOTHER reason to point and label Christianity as a giant pool of judgment and bigotry.

What makes me sad is the fact that this film is far exceeding the box office gains they'd projected to make, which means we'll be seeing even MORE terrible Christian films coming out that continue to preach to the choir and give the world more reason to turn away from the Church.

I can't be the only one sick and tired of this. We haven't had a decent film about the Christian faith since Charlton Heston portrayed Moses in The Ten Commandments. I feel like unless we have serious discussions about the future of Christian film, and boycott these terrible attempts at shaming people into Christianity, then Christian films will continue falling towards this downward spiral into obscurity.

I feel like I'm going crazy as I read yet another "glowing review" praising trash films such as this one, while giving no good reason for a decent filmmaker to put out a solid Christian movie. If that day comes, I'll die a happy man, but until then, can we please stop encouraging this?

Offensive in it's basic premise

[dbmcsweeney · 1/10 · 24 March 2014]

The movie begins with the premise that the 'atheist' Professor is such as he has rejected God in anger over the death of his mother. This is not an atheist, this is a Christian having a snit fit and rejecting his religion of choice.

An atheist does not carry the debate if the Christian God is alive or dead; we believe neither any more than we discuss Santa Claus. To suppose that the atheist believes that there was a god, alive, dead or just really drunk is just insulting.

If you're going to try to offend atheists, please be semi-accurate in representing the MAIN character as one rather than falsely labeling your own 'brother' as one.

I love a good propaganda movie like any other good Murican but come on.

Religious propaganda

[Stewball · 1/10 · 21 March 2014]

There's so much wrong with this massively over the top movie, but the worst is the title which should have been: "The Strawman's Not Dead". No, I'm not an atheist of any flavor. Then what you may ask am I? Good question, but nobody took the other position. As Ecclesiastes implies, there's a time for gray, and a time for black and white.

I knew I was in trouble when I saw all the old people and young families with school age children in the audience, the religious themed previews, and someone in the credits listed as an expert on apologetics. As I predicted elsewhere, deism or anything like it never came up, and neither did anything like soft atheism. All the good guys were Christians and all the bad guys were mean spirited, glib, sarcastic and/or hard atheists.

The best line in the movie came when the kid asks the professor "If you don't believe in God, how can you say he's dead", which drew smile from me, but great laughter and applause from the crowd confirming my earlier assessment about the bias of the packed audience this Friday afternoon. It was the coup de grace from one strawman to another. The ending after that, with all the implied miracles and the dying conversion, was sickening.

Stereotypical Hogwash

[SneedFeeder · 22 March 2014]

I will keep this short as I do not want to dedicate any more attention to this stereotypical propaganda. Based solely on the trailer it seemed as if atheists were being the only ones targeted in this film; atheists are portrayed as mean, selfish, and rude, while in contrast practically every Christian is shown as nice and intelligent. The atheist professor scenario is incredibly unrealistic and if anything would happen the other way around if it were to happen at all. It basically serves as an anti-liberal, anti-atheist message just for the sake of it.

However in addition to atheists Muslims are also targeted in laughable form. They are depicted as violent and anti-women, abusing their daughter who wants to apparently convert to Christianity. The funniest thing is that these were Americanized Muslims who would never do anything like that in real life.

It doesn't stop there, but I think you get the picture; the main reason for this one star review is simply the fact that this sends a horrible message. It depicts basically every non- Christian group as evil and mean, and also shows them as either angry or unintelligent; how else could you not believe!?

In addition to the awful and unrealistic stereotypes portrayed the acting is mediocre at best, and the actual proof, the reasoning for God, is an overused and ridiculously outdated straw man that is presented as the holy grail of evidence, undermining all strong and intelligent debates that could come from the atheist side. I have nothing against Christians as individual people, however I do have a problem when they come together to make an awful film such as this.

Do not see.

Very good movie!

[dsjnix · 8/10 · 30 March 2014]

I thought this movie was very well done and well acted. It was predictable but you should go to it knowing of course that it is has a message and a purpose. It is biased as movies typically. There is just generally less tolerance when Christ followers profess their faith. Overall good movie with a message . I have read reviews about the non Christian characters in the movie as being portrayed poorly. I did not see it that way at all. To me it it portrayed the Muslim father as a loving caring father putting out tough love to his daughter. The professor was also treated fairly as a non believer. The script Seemed well written and thought provoking.

Snapshot of Christianity

[mbanak · 6/10 · 10 May 2014]

This will be an unusual review, tying the film in to other cultural phenomena. I will also be discussing a short film, which THIS movie seems to be based on, and the probable original story.

The best parts in "God's Not Dead" are the lecture-hall interactions between the Christian Student, and the Atheistic professor. The way the film was unfolding, I thought the kid was going to be just Bible thumping. But his intellectual engagement of the hostile professor kept me interested. The students remarks were not of the straw-man variety.

So, if you go for those brief high points in the story, you will be satisfied.

The Christian experience today is as diverse as modern life itself. And this movie shows that. The acting was a little forced, but we really see modern Christians for the puzzling bunch that we are. One Christian sister is having an affair with a professor, another lives with her Moslem family, and too scared to come out. An American pastor is wishing to be on "the front lines" like his missionary buddy, not realizing that he is being kept very busy where he is. A Duck Dynasty look-alike has a wife dressed like a sexy model. And the lead character, "Josh," has a 6-year relationship with a cutesy girl, who doesn't give a rip about his Christian Faith. Only the visiting missionary seems to have his head on straight. With a little tweaking, this story could have been produced by enemies of Christianity.

There is a drumbeat of reality in the undercurrent of this story. Christian life is profoundly influenced by the Hand of Divine Providence. Unbelievers won't get it. Even in the face of unfathomable hardship, we will be lifted by unexpected turns of good fortune, the timing of which is interpreted as instruments for getting the attention of the believer. Though this occurs throughout the story, practicing Christians will notice it effortlessly, while the non-believer will find it all very odd. Watch for that golden moment when the business executive visits his dementia mother, and she starts preaching out of the wild blue. The sequence has a nice snapper at the end.

There is a hostile mood emerging in the USA at this time on history, directed against Christianity. The film manages to give us a taste of that too.

So, everyone is given a chance to be human here. And they all converge at a Christian Rock concert at the end. That part did not appeal to me, since my branch of the faith doesn't get into that, as though The Messiah is accessible through rock concerts, lighting gimmicks and star-power. Yup, we have our differences among us. Being a writer myself, I suspect these writers must have groped for some element to pull it all together. Thinking I saw enough, I left the theater during the rock concert sequence, only to learn later that there is another closing development which I had missed by leaving.

Nice touch among many: When the Moslem dad picks up his daughter from school, note the labeling around the curb where she boards.

This film is light, enjoyable, thought-provoking, annoying in its stereo types, yet spot-on for casting the diversity of the Christian experience.

I wonder whether anyone else mentioned the relationship of this story to an obscure short Christian film called "Chalk". Look on you tube for the title in quotes: "Chalk (short Christian film)" for the dramatization. Under another YouTube titled "The Chalk" (a poorly conceived retelling of the Chalk story, using only text and music track), a blogger writes:

"The story is a variation of a real story. The student was Richard Harvey and the professor was Dr. Lee. It happened in a Chemistry class at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania in the 1920's. However, Dr. Lee was a deist who annually lectured against prayers... with a glass flask (not chalk). That day Richard offered to pray and the professor dropped the flask and it rolled off his shoe to the floor without damage."

In conclusion: The standoff of believers vs. non-believers is an old one. This little film is a nice snapshot in time. While it was entertaining enough for me, hostile "take-no-prisoners" reviewers will find plenty to whine about.

Shockingly horrible

[davispittman · 1/10 · 26 November 2015]

Gods Not Dead is absolutely ludicrous. This is the most unrealistic, dumb movie I've ever had the displeasure of seeing. The things that happen in this film would NEVER happen. No college professor would say right off the bat there is no God on the first day of class! That's absolutely ridiculous! And oh my god the acting is below soap opera acting, the acting in this film is so bad it's almost offensive LOL. Kevin Sorbo does a horrible job here, there's no sugar coating it, he does a terrible job. So does the main college age actor, very cheesy lazy performance. The whole movie appears lazy, poorly put together, unrealistic and just flat out fake. This movie paints atheists as "evil" and "stupid", which is extremely unfair. Atheists just don't believe in god, they are not evil or unintelligent. I feel like this movie kinda bullies atheists. I love how the music gets all corny and rainbow and sunshine when the Christian kid comes on screen, but the tone goes all bad and rotten when the "evil" atheist comes on. Some of the lines of dialogue in this movie are honestly hysterical, absolutely hilariously awful. I'm sorry but this movie was just soooo fake and unrealistic. I saw where a sequel is being released. For heavens sake! Why?!! Pull the rip chord! 1/10

Quality Christian production

[nesndavi · 9/10 · 30 March 2014]

Refreshing to see a Christian-based movie that is done with quality writing/acting/production. I went to support the movie but expecting the same old lame and wooden 'Christian' movie experience, but came away very impressed with all aspects.

A little pointed, of course, but not far off what kids would face in today's university at times. Love the comments/reviews here so angry at touching on the raw nerves of truth. Nice that the 'artistic license' is on the other foot for one time (in movies/TV/etc)...and just listen to the howls (see other reviews here).

The flow and point of the movie wasn't actually heavy-handed (sensitive raw nerves excluded), but went to the point of Christianity and the God-given right of freewill, along the way refuting the sophomoric-yet-ultimate 'show-stopper' argument of moralistic-atheists, 'How can a God who is (considered) good allow bad?'.

Overall, accomplishes the point of any good movie... fine acting/writing, and promotes thought and discussion.

A Genre Upgrade Worth Seeing

[famijoly04 · 7/10 · 25 March 2014]

God's Not Dead delves deeper into the complex reality of life for people in this postmodern world than its predecessors in the evangelical Protestant big-screen efforts. God's Not Dead definitely represents a step up in quality over films such as Facing the Giants, Fireproof, and Courageous. A higher budget brought an overall improvement in the cinema experience for the viewer. That and stronger acting and sharper editing drove along this evangelical Protestant film's most obvious upgrade to this reviewer: the genuine development of more characters.

Could that have been even stronger? Yes. Could it have been a bit more balanced? Yes. But I applaud the makers of God's Not Dead for exploring real human complexities, and that's a river most evangelical Protestants are reluctant if not downright unwilling to swim. In God's Not Dead, for example, we see a university coed raised Muslim converting to Christianity, and, while her father is violent in his reaction to learning of his daughter's conversion, both before that scene and at the end of that scene, we see a human dad sincerely striving to raise his children as best he can and his genuine disappointment over his daughter's loss of the faith of her upbringing. What Christian cannot have empathy with this father, despite a difference in beliefs? Another example is the sudden disappearance from the movie of a female character that played an important supporting role in the first half of the film. The reason for the disappearance demonstrates that while immersing teens in church youth group activities can be very beneficial in faith development, genuine and abiding faith is shaped through real-time life experiences. In other words, for this female character, her Christianity was as external as her overly thick makeup.

And many of the other characters were not left at the superficial level, we actually found out what made them tick, what drove them to be the way they are.

The classroom discussions over the existence of God can spur viewers, no matter their beliefs, to investigate for themselves and perhaps be less afraid of opposing viewpoints.

All that said, the movie's makers couldn't help themselves in forcing piecing of the puzzle by going to the evangelical Protestant "Come to Jesus" solution in unrealistic settings that stretch the imagination. That they left a few developed characters "unsaved" contributes to a more -- notice I said more -- realistic feel about this flick than about many others in this genre.

For the genuine effort made in developing characters and presenting a more realistic setting for people wrestling with the God question in their lives, I give God's Not Dead a passing grade of 7 and urge people to attend this movie.

Pedantic Christian Propaganda Garbage

[hiltoncoa · 1/10 · 21 March 2014]

The four words in the summary line express everything you need to know about this movie. It is boring, idiotic, and a blatant attempt to vilify free-thinkers while shamelessly promoting an biased Christian world-view. In the movie, the college professor is portrayed as the educated, elitist, atheist snob who tries to force his anti-god opinions on his students. The "poor, kind, Christian" is left to defend himself and prove his beliefs or suffer the consequences. In the real world most Americans live in, it is quite the opposite. It is the Christians who try to force their agenda on everyone, while the educators scratch their heads in amazement at the blind zealotry of the mindless religious masses who would chose ignorance over education. Don't waste your money on this garbage. Not to mention the crappy scipt, terrible acting, and predictable plot. There is not one redeeming thing about this film. It was so bad that I actually asked for my money back!

Looser movie

[outerlimitsurvey · 2/10 · 22 April 2014]

I charitably gave the movie 2 stars because the acting isn't terrible and in spite of any problems it's fun to see the underdog win. In a nutshell philosophy is questions that can never be answered and religion is answers that can never be questioned. The movie creates a straw-man by casting the philosopher as more dogmatic than religion. I've never heard of a philosophy professor coercing students into a position because at its core philosophy is about free inquiry. Philosophers consider Argument from Authority a fallacy. Philosophy is about teaching what great minds thought and to get students to think for themselves. My philosophy professor was atheist but we spent just as much time studying Christian apologetics as criticism. We were expected to understand the arguments both ways.