The Case for Christ (2017)

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.

Fmovies: 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.

"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.

The Case for Christ fmovies. 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.

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.

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.