Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

floyd beck No matter what one thinks about the subject, the acting is incredibly well done (even Oscar material, if the Oscars had not been so Lefty controlled). Too many hate it before seeing it because it is about Christianity, but if they had any working brain cells, they would set aside their obvious bias and use the remaining few tiny cells to see that this movie is a surprisingly very well performed fairy tale, without all the glitter (and has a scene with Faye Dunaway). Had I used the same bias attitude when I saw the movie, Prometheus, a 2012 very excellent movie about how life started on Earth, I would have walked out after the first 5 minutes. It is sad that someone is welcomed when going from the Right to the Left, but utterly despised when the reverse happens. Sad, indeed, sad.

brisque2005 Very well acted and good storylines. Hollywood should make more movies like this. I hope to get the book soon.

hal-9010 Christian Propaganda. Good acting though.IMO, the story (and movie) is a wasted opportunity to really go the whole nine yards. Guess it did not because then it would have come to another "conclusion"?The only skeptical person was essentially the lead. All experts and points of view he meet and interview are believers.The movie builds the case primarily upon so-called eye witnesses of the Christ resurrection 2000 years ago, and our hero then proves that no human could have survived the described crucifixion.... ergo; Christ must be super natural. Ergo Christianity is right.... this is his line of evidence in his presented research. In any usual progression of knowledge, this is just a silly approach.Our hero first aimed to prove that Christ did not die on the cross, and therefore it could not be an actual resurrection that was witnessed a few days later... only woke up after a hard night out, I guess. But as he progresses in his "research", he finds that Christ (or any human) could not have survived what apparently had happened on the cross, and so when Jesus is supposedly witnessed later, he must have returned from death... This is his body of evidence, this is how he arrives at his conclusion...that is it... and he then jumps to the believe that all of Christianity etc. must then be truth.This is frankly impossible for a skeptical and scientific thinking mind to make this stretch, and to get to this conclusion in that way. Silly.His way of thinking can also prove that since no known aircraft can fly like UFO sightings claim they fly, UFO's are real? Same stretch. Same silliness. One CANNOT come to this or any other conclusion here or in the UFO example. The only "conclusion" they can reach is that perhaps something extraordinary occurred and so deserves attention and further inquiry. And then hopefully this attention will substantiate the anecdotes with evidence and data to support them. Her forgets how scientific knowledge works:"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Pierre-Simon Laplace"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence".... "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." David HumeIn truth, all he can ever hope for - even with the best of efforts - when analyzing eye witnessed events thousand of years ago about something unnatural and extraordinary, is to end up in a dead-end situation where he has to make a choice: Does he believe in those witnesses or not? And so the premise of this movie is fundamentally flawed or rather silly, because he can only ever end the exact same place he starts. It is a battle of opinions, unsubstantiated. The actual case for Christ is inherently impossible. Of course it is, this is why Religion is still considered relevant. It cannot be proved and so cannot be disproved.With his collected body of evidence and as a Skeptic and scientific thinking mind, he will firstly never be able to conclude anything above his own suspicion and secondly cannot abide to a suspicion that is not rooted in logic and supported by the current scientific knowledge of how the world works... since he does end in a conclusion under these circumstances, he is no Skeptic. He simply cannot be. The movie is an oxymoron. Or at best, a dishonest tale on how he became a Christian.OrPerhaps I misunderstood the story.Perhaps it is really and at its core about a reasonable guy who is afraid of losing his wife and kid to a religion and then does what he can to convince himself to join them on their path, however silly it may seem to him at first. This would explain his biased and one-sided naïve approach to the Case for Christ.

filmbridges 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.