The Case for Christ (2017)

The problem with all books, films, and arguments in person that make the kind of points this film makes is that they assume from the outset that the New Testament is historical information given to us by God so that anything they might cite in it must be true. The problem with that is that the claims that the Bible is the Word of God,, has no inconsistencies or contradictions, and should be read literally are all humans claims about the Bible, not biblical claims. So, if it says that 500 or 5000 people witnessed the Risen Christ, that is part of the story but it's not necessarily true. Another assumption in the background throughout the film is that if God's existence could be proved then salvation through Christ must be true and if one can be transformed through belief in Christ, then it's all a gift of grace from the Christian or biblical God. But there are many proclaimed paths to God and because something works to make you feel less guilty or better in some other ways does not mean it is true much less the only way. It could just be a tool we use on ourselves.

Unlike Pure Flix's previous efforts, it's evident that thought was put into The Case for Christ, and not just through residual elements from the book. For instance, the cinematography is well-done, there's a semblance of style in the editing, and the production design is constructed with intent and care (even if major aesthetic cues are taken from This Is Us). The acting is usually competent to moderately good, and even the musical score is above average (even if clearly temped with the Downton Abbey theme song, or perhaps even Yeong Wook-Jo's score for The Handmaiden, which is no fault of the composer's because they still did a good job). There are production flaws I could nitpick, but fascinatingly, if you strip away the sly propaganda and fundamentalist blind spots then you actually have an astoundingly average movie! It's even seemingly thoughtful at times, making this easily the studio's crowning achievement. But does it hold up upon a closer look? It's imperative to differentiate between both the author of the original book and the screenwriter who adapted it, since all of the film's thoughtfulness can be presumed as the contribution of the first. I'll commend the source material (assuming it was adapted faithfully), for crafting a multi-faceted narrative with interlocking themes, and I'll commend the studio for telling their first focused story. The film has a beginning, middle, and an end, with elements such as the police shooting and Strobel's relationship with his father serving as parallel narrative lines with clear intent and thematic relevance. Naturally, I don't agree with the arguments behind these narratives, but the studio formed an actual argumentative structure this time and that's a milestone worth celebrating. I'll also congratulate Pure Flix for not using a painfully literal deus ex machina this time (though this probably shouldn't be considered an accomplishment). I mention this because one of the most irritating, scathingly terrible facets of typical Christian storytelling is that instead of having characters evolve on their own, an act of God will change the status quo instead, effectively leading to hollow character arcs and a dubious or muddled overarching argument. Back to the writers...It's evident that the original story was crafted by someone with a more rounded perspective, but was then re-written by an individual with a constricted capacity for understanding. Lee Strobel is poor at being an atheist, and since it's biographical I can content myself with his inadequate yet very human reasoning skills. Whether or not his quality of character really was as deplorable as depicted however can make a significant difference. If it's not a biographical truth, it's an (perhaps unwitting) practice in the art of offensive stereotyping. No atheist that I've ever met or listened to (who fully understands why they do or don't believe what they do), would say the things Strobel says to his family because of his atheism. The first glaring example is when Lee tucks his daughter into bed, and declares "We're atheists". Though they may be incidentally atheist (categorically speaking), most self-describing atheists would actually be opposed to imposing empirical religious views of any kind on an impressionable child, and would instead take a more agnostic approach, preferring the virtue of possibility and how to assess it from a reasonable standpoint. Lee's wife actually asks about that in the film: they had apparently agreed not to force anything on their child, but Lee dismisses it in a completely unreasonable manner for no reason made apparent by the film. Later on, Lee threatens to leave his wife and children because he can't cope with their sudden, "troubling" turn to Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this dynamic was artificially introduced in the screenplay, though if it was accurate to the original story then Lee has psychological issues that the film didn't adequately explore. For instance, he only acts like a normal, loving human being again when he's adopted the Christian faith, effectively pinning his character flaws on his atheism rather than, say, his obsession with work or his alcoholism. Besides being a blatant misrepresentation and misunderstanding of nonreligious viewpoints, this film is subverted with negativity towards other perspectives that contradict the attempted message of understanding between people with different views. There's a line of dialogue in the latter half about Islam that hits the nail in the coffin when it comes to a broader sense of arrogance and lack of perspective on the filmmaker's part. The tastelessness here may not be as on-the-nose as God's Not Dead, but it's still there.Now for the part where the film attempts to construct a solid argument to reaffirm their preconceived beliefs... To be fair, they aren't making up examples out of the blue or fabricating sources of any sort, and what they present does not feel outwardly malicious to me. However, many of their arguments rely heavily on presuppositions, wishful interpretations, and false consensus. For example, several of the experts they consult upon further research were already part of the fundamentalist crowd, and do not represent any kind of authoritative consensus. In fact, the actual consensus I've discovered for most of the film's claims are a resounding "maybe". (In other words, they really don't know.) There's evidence to suggest that Jesus was a person who existed, but nothing solid regarding the resurrection, which they would have discovered had they consulted a wider variety of sources. Regarding the quantity of copies published, I'm simply not convinced. When the Iliad was written, people were well-aware that it was fiction (an astute observation made by my sister), and hence the number of copies made don't apply to some kind of historical accuracy. Furthermore, arguing that the bible is more accurate because it printed more copies is like saying that Fifty Shades of Grey is quality literature because it's a bestseller. I don't have much more to say there, that one just seems apparent. There is still some trickery involved though, specifically regarding how the language of film is used to present their arguments (or non-arguments, as I often found was the case).To elaborate, there are various instances of pseudoargumentative nature that are rather sneaky in execution. For example, there's an instance early on where someone says "People don't willingly drink poison for something they know is a lie." This part is reasonable, easily true, and inoffensive. Then, he says "If Christians knew it was a hoax, why would they die for it?" THIS however, is a statement that essentially argues nothing. The fact of the matter is, if it WAS a hoax, these people clearly thought it wasn't, or simply didn't know. This statement is at its core a neutral observation of a simplistic sociological function, and serves as a deterrent from an actual point, neglecting to address any details regarding the resurrection or to elaborate on the aforementioned additional sources. Then the film inserts quasi-intellectual music and has Lee reply "Fair point," as though this statement was somehow substantive. If you don't stop to think about it, this scene uses the language of film (application of music, dialogue) rather convincingly to make it seem like they made a point, when in actuality that statement wasn't of argumentative nature to begin with.It's not hard to find multiple, lengthy point-by-point analyses of the evidence mentioned in the film, and to come to the conclusion that they don't know as much as they say they do. Their claims can generally all be boiled down to eyewitness testimony for events we've never adequately observed, recorded, or seen anything even remotely similar recur. And If you can't adequately explain it, that means you don't know. It's ok to not know things, it really is. A film that teaches otherwise probably shouldn't be shown to children, and in this case even classifies as propaganda. Even if this propaganda is more subversive and of less extremity than the studio's former efforts, I wouldn't recommend this film even for the fleeting thrills of confirmation bias, for Christians and atheists alike. There are of course more pressing matters in life than this one, so regardless of where you fall on the spectrum, remember this bit of advice from Paddington Bear: "If we're kind and polite, the world will be alright."Without further ado, I'd like to thank my sister who endured this film with me and deserves honorary writing credit. I'd also like to thank IMDb for removing their terribly constrictive word limit on reviews. Really I should just start a website or blog if I'm going to write this much, but for now I'm content with my sporadic and whimsical presence on the interwebs. Score: A Zeus and a Horus out of Thor

Let me make my biases known from the start. I am a Christian, but not of the American sort, and I rarely watch Christian movies.A friend of mine convinced me to watch this one, and to be frank I wasn't disappointed. Sure, the script was quite simple and you could see the ending coming a mile off, but it was still an enjoyable movie. Would I suggest an atheist, or a non-believer of any sort, to watch this movie? No, the movie clearly tries to work to a climax by portraying the protagonist and other atheists as unreasonable, and unlikable. In my experience there is little hostility towards Christian belief (which is understandable in the case of the protagonist seeing his family situation), instead it's usually a form of apathy. If this had been brought to the fore more clearly that would have done the movie some good. That being said; how atheists are portrayed in this movie is extremely mild compared to how Christians are portrayed in Hollywood movies (i.e. perverted, greedy, weird, untrustworthy and extremely dumb). Quality of the argument: Now I understand no one wants to watch a 1,5 hour debate surrounded by a short story, and so one cannot expect long dialogues about the arguments for the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection, but a lot more time could have been spent on the counterarguments. Also, there was no full argument given in the movie, all the parts were there, but it would have been better for the audience if the protagonist went through them all at a particular point in the story. Climax of the movie (spoilers): The climax, which I suppose was the point at which the protagonist starts to believe, is completely underwhelming. It's clear he's been given a lot of evidence, but the sudden turn around is completely unreasonable. You would expect some clear (or clearer) indications that his non-belief was crumbling. Or a more explicit portrayal of the frustration which the protagonist must have endured in his failing attempts to show Jesus to be a fraud. The level of resentment towards his wife seems about the same throughout the movie (though that might be because the lead actor isn't quite good at conveying emotions, the wife of the protagonist however was very good) though the dialogue seems to indicate a steady increase in resentment. Given that increase one would expect a more dramatic conversion moment.Is it propaganda or an evangelistic kind of movie? Yes, it clearly is, but what do you expect with that title? Is it worth watching as an atheist? If you can overlook the horrible writing with respect to the atheist, sure. It's not a horrible movie and if you dare walk a bit on the edge with respect to your metaphysical beliefs (or lack thereof) this movie will surely do that. At the very least, if you're the curious sort, it might prompt you to do your own research and either prove Strobel right or wrong.

I get Lee Strobel in a way that many of the reviewers of this obviously don't. At least in the sense that I, too, was an outspoken atheist who became convinced about the reality of the resurrection. Having become a Christian I later became a pastor. I'm not a fundamentalist. I generally disdain adjectives that serve little purpose other than to divide Christians into competing groups, but if I was forced to pick one I'd say that I probably lean toward the more progressive side of the Christian faith and have an open mind toward Christian universalism, although I'm not convinced of it. But I'm not here to shill for the Christian faith or to proselytize. I'm just here to review a movie. Lee Strobel's story interests me for obvious reasons. As a journalist he was bothered by his wife's sudden conversion to Christian faith and essentially set out to collect evidence that would debunk the Christian faith. Instead, the evidence he collected convinced him of the truth of the Christian faith. As a summary of Strobel's faith journey, I thought this was interesting and well portrayed, and Mike Vogel did a good job as Strobel, as did Erika Christensen as his wife Leslie.I'm not convinced that this movie would convince anyone to believe. Nor am I convinced that the purpose of this movie was to convince anyone to believe. I think the purpose of the movie was to simply portray Strobel's own journey. How did this atheist turn around and become a man of faith? So, really, this is what I'd call a "niche" movie. It will be of interest to Christians - evangelicals who like stories of conversions and people like myself who can understand Strobel's journey. So negative reviews that are based on not being convinced by the evidence Strobel presents are missing the point. That's legitimate reason to dismiss the book (of the same name) that Strobel wrote - which did have an evangelical agenda - but as far as this movie is concerned all that really matters is that Strobel found evidence that convinced him, not whether that evidence would convince anyone else. He did, and the story is well presented.My own journey was different. Although I believe there's more than enough evidence to support the basic tenets of the Christian faith (including concepts such as resurrection and incarnation) I readily accept that the evidence is circumstantial and subjective. The evidence can point one in a particular direction, but somewhere along the way there has to be an experiential element to a conversion that actually convinces a person to believe. Faith, after all, is indeed belief in that which cannot be proven. And the movie did make a valid point - that both belief in God and unbelief in God is really a matter of faith, since the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. It is by its very nature a matter of faith.This is a surprisingly decent movie. There's a bit of a backstory about some of Strobel's work as an investigative journalist trying to uncover police corruption in Chicago, but mostly it's a Christian movie about the search for truth. It won't "convince" anyone - but it will provide an interesting enough account of one man's spiritual journey from atheism to Christianity. (7/10)