Gott ist nicht tot 2

It must greatly frustrate the religious right when they are routinely (and unfairly) portrayed in major films as fanatical, sanctimonious, comical, backwoods hicks. Well, "God's Not Dead 2" is clearly their revenge. In this movie, ACLU lawyers are all sneering, oily, evil Simon Legrees. School board characters are all smug, administrative wonks who readily conspire to persecute the sweet, perky teacher. The faces of anti-religion protesters are contorted into manic, rabid, drooling hatred. And mainstream media are all resolutely against God.

There are only black hats and white hats in this film. (Or should I say halos and horns.) No quarter is given to the many nuances or complexities of this issue. Which is a shame. It's a serious subject and deserves better. But the producer and director had no interest in any of that.

Clearly, this film is unapologetically one-sided. Conservative Christians feel embattled and marginalized in an increasingly secular world in which they are repeatedly losing watershed court cases. They haven't had much to cheer about recently and this film hits back at that "unfair", "Godless" world. Consequently, Evangelicals will absolutely love this film. All others will likely never see it unless they're dragged to the theatre and handcuffed to their seat.

As a Christian, I quite enjoyed the discussion of historical Jesus from the researchers/authors who played themselves in the film. What's more, GND2 is cinematically well crafted. But it take's more than just dreamily uttering the name of "Jesus" to make a good film. GND2 quickly deteriorates into a two hour sermon from the pulpit.

Oh, and BTW, it should come as no surprise that Pat Boone still can't act... and neither can Robin Givens.

God's Not Dead 2 is a sequel to the first, which wasn't well-received by critics for its preachy tone and others calling it unrealistic. This one is certainly a disappointment-at least, it was for me. The film starts off pretty entertaining at first, but then gets more boring as it goes on. Several of the courtroom discussion scenes didn't grasp my attention like I wanted them to. I have been riveted by movies where people just talk and that's it (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, 12 Angry Men, Witness for the Prosecution) and this movie still lost my attention. Even the second time I watched it, I was prepared for the scenes, but again, I lost interest in the discussions. Therefore, the film fails to deliver its message effectively to the audience because it ends up boring the audience, which weakens the impact of the audience. Now, this film is certainly thoughtful in terms of its themes, and I understand how the themes could provoke some discussion after watching the film, but otherwise, God's Not Dead 2 isn't really worth your time.

For those wondering if it's worse than the first one.... wonder no more, it certainly is.

This film is set in an alternate reality, in which the United States is run by smug, douche bag atheists. In this world, Christians are persecuted against in all aspects or life, Christians are all classy, attractive, happy, and non judgmental individuals.

Melissa Joan Hart is a teacher, she dares to mentioned Jesus in class, the establishment is outraged, she must be taken down. What follows is a ridiculous court farce, in this court, no one knows what the constitution is, and all those smug atheists have a serious bee in their bonnet.

I won't spoil the ending.... but needless to say, it is something more akin to a fantasy novel.

Firstly, I'm an atheist. I was raised a devout Episcopalian but I often refer to myself as a secular humanist & non-believer but raised with culturally Christian views. Having said that, I noticed right away at the scene in the history class that nothing Melissa Hart said actually violated any hard & fast 1stAMD separation issues. She was within her rights to share those historical facts. She responded to a question in a history class about historically specific correlations between traditions in non-violent protest and passive resistance. Maybe she could have omitted the lengthy scripture quote from the Gospel---but a sound argument could be made that even that was academically relevant too. So...IMHO it was quite relevant and legal. Remember...I'm not a "believer". No school board would take this complaint seriously. I actually think that the ACLU might have defended Melissa Hart!!! It's obvious that the movie makers are trying to unfairly demonize the "freedom from religion" crowd (a rapidly growing demographic BTW) as fanatically unreasonable and angry. In fact, I've found that the exact opposite is usually true. Just research the landmark Kitzmiller vs Dover School board case. As to the ongoing portrayal of atheists and liberal religious types throughout the film, it's an inartfully constructed "straw man" set up for the express purpose of getting easily knocked down. Poor Christians! They have a Biblical persecution complex and are happiest when they can imagine being burned at the stake by the ACLU and a shouting, un-Churched mob of pagan non-believers! Wait 'til you see how they depict the ACLU lawyers as basely motivated by notoriety, power politics and publicity. Not very good...and not persuasive. I think most people can see through this bit of evangelical agitprop whether religious or non-religious.

first i want to mention i'm an orthodox and that i could not bear to see the movie more than 30 minutes.

the good guys in this move have a very puritanical presence. they seem so very calm and also seem a bit retarded. dialogues are very limited, predictable. they want to sound deep but end up laughable.

i believe this movie does a great disservice to Christians. the dialogues sound like members of a sect are talking. it makes faith look very shallow and almost weird. it makes the believers look very dumb and narrow minded.

lee me distill it a bit further. if i would not be a Christian i would think that Christians are a dubious sect, a little slow in the head and would look at it with doubt.