As a Christian, I am of course biased towards the message of the film. Ultimately, it is one man's journey from sceptic to believer, when he discovers through evidence and testimony that God is real. Thankfully, the film is not as cheesy as other Christian movies. It paints a convincing picture of the testament of faith, with insight into real-world thought into why Christ isn't the dead guy others say He Is. Any sceptic watching the film may scoff - Lee Strobel did himself - but for any unbelievers considering the film, go in with an open heart.
It's not a perfect film, it is overlong, but it paints a convincing picture that may hopefully win over a few converts. I have met sceptics, I was one myself, but I know of the power that can change a person's mind and heart. May the same be true of your life.
I give this a 3/10 not because it's "bad", but for specific reasons. I initially gave this a 6/10, but after more thinking, I realized I feel 3/10 about what the movie is portraying and doing. I re-evaluated my rating, and started out with 5/10 (neutral), working my way up/down based on things I like/dislike about what I noticed was shown (and not shown), which I'll share below.
Since this movie says it's based on a true story, I'm giving 2 opinions for each point/scene I mention
A = my opinion if the portrayal is mostly accurate to the true story
B = my opinion if the portrayal is mainly a decision by the screenwriter & director to put in the film
To save time and keep this focused, I'll mention only 3 big things I noticed
Lee, the husband/father, is shown asserting his beliefs of atheism to his daughter in a way that "leads" (influences) her, which his wife, Leslie, gets upset about, due to an implied agreement they had about giving their daughter free choice of belief. There are several other scenes depicting Lee as condescending, intolerant, and generally unpleasant while he's an atheist, and then at the end of the movie when he turns Catholic/Christian, he's all-of-a-sudden kinder, more accepting, and more loving.
Various people throughout the movie make certain false statements with confidence that nobody else in the movie points out as being nonsensical. For example, I think Leslie says "Faith is the evidence of that which we cannot see"; this is oxymoronic and makes 0 sense, because faith is confidence in the absence of evidence. Another example is the movie psychologist, Dr. Waters, saying with 100% certainty "what you're proposing is completely impossible", "Hallucinations are like dreams. They happen in individual minds. They don't spread like the common cold", and "...it's one thing to be mesmerized into making animal noises [but] it's quite another for 500 people to have the same dream. To be honest, that would be an even bigger miracle than the Resurrection itself"
A: Generalized statements like these are commonly used by cult leaders and others repeatedly to manipulate and brainwash others into believing whatever they want, but when you think about them critically, you realize they "sound good", but are completely false. The problem is most people aren't aware of or haven't researched the definitions of words like "evidence", or scientific fields like psychology, to be able to recognize when certain statements are misleading or not
B: I know movies must be short enough to retain an audiences attention, as well as fit within a time-scope of typically 1.5-2.5 hours (unless it's Lord of the Rings), so a lot of stuff has to be left out for this purpose, but there are key points that "disprove" or more accurately "support the nonexistence of" the Resurrection which are conspicuously left out, such as with Dr. Waters, "The Mandela Effect", as well as how hypnosis really works
One thing mentioned by Dr. Waters, the movie psychologist, is "the father wound", which is not a psychology term, but a religious one.
I did like how they showed various historical accounts, texts, and items, and some of the research and study behind them, but overall, this movie brings me back to the moment I rejected religion and decided to be an atheist for a time, because I asked simple questions, and people did not answer them, instead asserting that I must conclude their belief system is factual, simply because of a lack of evidence to disprove it. There are two terms I know for this:
The legal term: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance ); a fallacy asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or that a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true
The other term: Evasion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics) ); an act that deceives by ignoring the question, acknowledging the question without answering it, questioning the question itself, attacking the question itself, attacking the person asking the question (ad hominem), refusing to answer with or without a reason, or stating a true statement that is irrelevant or leads to a false conclusion
I've had past experiences with people using methods to convince, persuade, or otherwise manipulate people into believing religious beliefs, and was very uncomfortable with them. Now, as a cognitive scientist who's learned a lot about psychology and neuroscience, I have more vocabulary to express why I was uncomfortable with them. People on the atheism side often use similar arguments, but I generally see neither group of people using effective communication skills to truly understand the other.
I used to be atheist, but now I'm agnostic, because I realized it doesn't matter what is factual or nonfactual. What matters is whether or not your thoughts and behaviours are creating comfort, happiness, and growth in yourself and others. That's it.
I'll share a quote I like from Marcus Aurelius:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
The Case for Christ is the fascinating true story about how an atheist’s quest to disprove Christianity led him to the Lord. When his wife converts to Christianity after their daughter is saved from choking to death investigative journalist Lee Strobel attempts to break her free by disproving Christ’s resurrection, but he soon finds it to be harder to do than he expected. Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel are surprisingly good as Leslie and Lee Strobel, and the rest of the cast is pretty decent as well. And the writing does an impressive job at explaining the evidence in support of Christ’s resurrection without getting too preachy or coming off as information dumps. Additionally, the film never loses sight of the character drama; staying focused on the Strobels and how they both struggle with the changes that Leslie’s spiritual awakening has brought on. It’s a little cheesy and melodramatic at times, but overall The Case for Christ is an inspirational film about the power of faith and prayer.
Another 'Religion is for losers and people going through a rough patch' movie? Com on, shoot porn with this money.
99% of the 5450 books were written 1000 years after J.C...
the shroud does not date from the year 0 no longer ...
where are the facts ?!
proselytizing....
This is Pure Flix's masterpiece:
http://reading-rebel.blogspot.com/2017/11/movie-review-case-for-christ.html
Absolute drek! Couldn't make it past the Shroud of Turin bit, was laughing too much. Nobody knows if this (obvious and scientifically proven forgery) is really the image of Jesus, but just look into his eyes and feel the love...hahahaha...give me a break.
Shout by FinFanBlockedParentSpoilers2017-08-04T18:53:11Z
So, in the end Strobel couldn´t disprove the basis for the christian faith therefore he drops everything, accepts it as fact, and converts. I wouldn´t go as far as saying this story is propaganda but it surely left me with an aftertaste. Yes, I am an atheist but I have no problem with believers. To each his own. But I have never in my life tried to convince someone who believes that he is wrong.
The movie itself was OK, that is it is well made. The side story with the innocent cop shooter could have been another movie itself. Vogel did a good job while the others had not many screen time to shine.