Jésus, l'enquête

"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.

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.

This movie never gets out of the circus maximus tent.

It's as if the journalist decided to explore mathematics except they forgot something.

They go to the chalk board, in an attempt to prove '1' exists.

So they just write 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OVER and OVER on the chalk board.

And yet ? somehow ?

This clown suit vacant of the clown ?

forgets to even DARE explore the beauty of ZERO.

Save yourself the trip - maybe stop off and visit Scientology? or a local Catholic Church ? same difference, only one I see is - Hubbard KNEW the only tax haven was through religion, most other families with 23 billion or more ? have family become senators to lower those taxes.

The only TAX you'll pay watching THIS film

is your OWN IGNORANCE TO EVER have brought it before your retina.

Me? I would have LOVED to just gone for a former Charlie's Angel's Kate Jackson flick on Lifetime - probably would have been more rewarding too !

Pure Flix Entertainment is one the most instantaneously recognizable film companies of our time, mainly in this respect: they really, REALLY want God to be real, and they will assure themselves of this position annually with a flicker show or two. If it also turns out they made a good, subtle, realistic, or even well-argued movie in the process of serving as their own confirmation bias, they just got lucky. In certain ways, I suppose this is one instance.

Unlike such Pure Flix productions as God's Not Dead and God's Not Dead 2: We're Still Right, their 2017 piece The Case for Christ is based on a true story, and no, it is not the one with the healed-up lepers. It is about an American atheist and journalist who attempts to disprove the existence of Christ to his very religious wife, only to find that the stuff he learns pushes him more towards the side of faith.

Indeed, Lee Stobel is a real person (played here by Mike Vogel of Cloverfield fame) and he did conduct an investigation that ultimately turned him Christian, which he documents in his similarly titled book from 1998. His Wikipedia article is careful to point out that "The book does not feature any non-evangelical scholarly interviews", which I think is useful information. Of course he addressed counterarguments in later books, though it seems to have taken place after his brain already finished cooking and his mind was made up - not unlike that which his movie counterpart accuses the wife (Erika Christensen) of.

Of course I'm not here to talk about the books themselves, but what they have in common with the film (aside from, y'know, all the content) is that they serve as another bombastic "told ya so" for believers. Just because this one atheist done goof'd (his first mistake was seemingly to believe that the burden of proof in the "Existence of God" debate was somehow on him), doesn't mean all of us are conversions waiting to happen upon cherry-picked interviews, claims that there were witnesses to Christ's rebirth (without solidly proving THAT), and whatever else passed as research during this journey.

I will say this about The Case for Christ: it is the most competently produced "Christian film" I've seen to date. The camera work is decent, the music is also enjoyable, and it benefits especially from the fact that it is based on a source material that features sentences that real humans would say. It isn't just sanctimonious preaching interspersed with contrived attempts to make atheists look vile and in-the-wrong next to the enlightened (usually more attractive) Christians.

Hell (and please don't give me cancer or starve my family for using that term, Father), it isn't even entirely bogus. The evidence for some sort of "historical Jesus Christ" isn't as unconvincing, moot, or flat-out non-existent as the evidence that such a figure existed, came back to life, healed the ill, and somehow looked more like an American hippie than a Middle-Eastern carpenter.

There are some solid supporting performances as well, supplied by Faye Dunaway, Mike Pniewski, Robert Forster, Frankie Faison, L. Scott Caldwell, et cetera. But is any of this enough to save a film that is as ill-conceived as the very idea of trying to meet a burden of proof one does not bear? Perhaps it will be for some. I would propose, however, that an exceptional Pure Flix movie does not an exceptional movie make.

Furthermore, if you're in the same demographic as blasphemous old me, you'll want something as insipid and unintentionally hilarious as God's Not Dead or A Matter of Faith over generic stuff like this any day. As for those of you who were in some way offended by this review: rest assured that you can pray for my enlightenment whilst I pray that you one day learn how "extraordinary claims" work, more reliable ways to study history, and how to operate a light switch.

Firstly, it's very hard to independently review this film. Aethiests tell me it's rubbish, Christians tell me it's brilliant and no-one else care. So trying to watch it with an open mind was difficult, given my Catholic upbringing.

I found it interesting, well acted and thought provoking, but not overly convincing. I haven't read the book by Strobel but I'd want more detail than he discovers from the film and at times he seems to apply the logic of Faith, rather than reason and doubt, to his findings but the parts seem well cast, Mike Vogel and Erika Christensen are convincing as husband and wife and the supporting cast are solid.

Strobels character in particular is interesting, with his normal investigative journalism running alongside his need to understand his wife's Faith, which at the time he neither shares nor understands.

It's watchable, interesting and thought provoking but I don't feel it will remove either the believers or the atheists from their entrenched positions.