The God Who Wasn't There
The God Who Wasn't There
| 21 May 2005 (USA)
The God Who Wasn't There Trailers

Did Jesus exist? This film starts with that question, then goes on to examine Christianity as a whole.

Reviews
SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless
Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.
Blueghost Home video production values don't hamper the content of another zinger documentary taking a hard look at fundamentalist Christianity that has roosted in the bible belt of this nation for the longest time.As per a "mock"-umentary that sends up religion reminds us; Jesus (if he ever existed) was not American, did not speak English, did not own nor use a rifle, and had never visited the new world (much less know about it), and probably would not be familiar with what we call human rights.But, again, this mini video documentary looks at the social thinking of religion, and gives us the hard truth about the devout believers of Christianity by interviewing a religious school principal, some various members at a Christian conference in Passadena, and talking with some experts in scholarship regarding history and how the Christian bible twists and takes liberties with history.It's material that's been done in other documentaries on the subject, but I think this film / video predates some those efforts by a few years.The only aspect that holds back a better product is the fact that this film was shot on home video equipment. But that's not a big deal, as the interviews and reflection upon the producer-director's own former fundamentalist Christian background are pretty compelling. Again, for me at least, it's not eye-opening material as such. I've seen believers get zinged in other footage elsewhere, but it is a reminder that there are people who, no matter how accomplished they are in other aspects of their life, have a streak of irrationality founded upon believing in a myth told to them by a "trusted source".A decent watch.Enjoy.
roxannkeating There are a lot of people out here who believe a lot of things, I am continually amazed by these videos, where the filmmaker is determined to show us how smart he is and how stupid everyone else is. Well, it really didn't work this time.I appreciate that Brian Flemming feels some sort of loss at having a "Christian Education" that was flawed. But seriously putting Charles Manson out there as a representative of the Christian Faith...and, trying to corner the Dean or Principal of the his former school--Epic Fail. Again, there are enough people out there that would gladly enter the debate--no need to blindside people.
dawnovwillow187 This Doc...is hilarious. Not smart. Doesn't make any sense to use it for a base of his rejection of something and then try to paint what he rejected as wrong. A director is trying to spend time debating where Christianity originated, Christ's validity, and argue with the principles of Christianity...and uses this context a lot: "The way the world operates" when he questions the leader of the school he attended about Christianity. Does the whole world operation on one belief. Right there it is realized he was just a someone who didn't agree with Christianity...now he wants to make it seem like it is wrong..but his argument is so stupid and dumb as he is...that laughter is all that can be applied to his premise. Christianity is about faith...using the context The World...operating this way makes no logical contextual sense...since there is more than one spiritual premise that people believe..Christianity is one. And like the Priest said when receiving that dumb question: Its a matter of Faith. Flemming is as dumb and as disgruntled as he sounds...no doubt about it. He didn't want to conform (which was HIS choice), now he spends his money and time trying to paint the opposite as bad. That is so funny. If one doesn't believe in God or Christianity...nothing about Christianity will apply to him anyway. Is he really that much of a cry-baby that he had to make a documentary?
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews This is a documentary with a length of 52 and a half minutes sans credits(an hour and half a minute with). It consists of interviews with historians, college professors(and similar experts), as well as various random Christians, narration, and clips of films(old and new, all of them dealing with the belief, including The Torture Porn of The Christ). The subject is whether or not Jesus existed, and if he was what he is said to be, or a mere human being. That in and of itself is a worthwhile exploration, and plenty of compelling evidence is presented, and it should open many minds, since it is among the best arguments against that brand of monotheism, objectively speaking(meaning, outside of the ethical ones). However, perhaps on account of his own past fundamentalism within it, director Brian Flemming doesn't stop there, and makes numerous digressions, of varying credibility and maturity(sadly reflecting negatively on the main idea of this, which, again, ought to be shared and spread), such as when he exhibits the need to contrast people happy when explaining the life and application of their saviour with detailing some of the horrors committed in his name. While it's fine to discuss the latter, that's not particularly what's done here, it's used for shock value and almost as if the man helming this production can't say something positive about the other side without also saying something awful, and with a distinct sense of him needing to convince himself(more so than us) that it's a good thing he abandoned his faith. This is something that one gets past later in their atheism(or new supernatural concept), and I get the impression that he should simply have made this later(Richard Dawkins, he is not). This does take a look(or rather a glance) at the evils inspired by(or otherwise linked to) religion, but it is fairly superficial and one-sided, more intent to point fingers than examine(you'll note that Sam Harris is one of those talked to). It is telling that he takes us to the school he went to, confronting its leader, and as important as it is to fight indoctrination, you can't shake the feeling that he's getting payback(pulling him down from the moral high ground). All in all, however, this is good(and it could have been even better). I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about this(and as usual, research it yourself as well... don't take someone else's word for it). 7/10