Bereamic Awesome Movie

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Walter Sloane Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

LouAbbott This film is for and probably produced by Christians. However, the target audience and production doesn't make for a bad film. There are drawbacks. The film is too long. The audience knows the ending 10 minutes into the film, but it is interesting to watch the journey of an abject non-believer transform into a Christian. Along this line, the film is polarizing from the standpoint of how one feels about Christianity. It proposes that a person (the wife in the film) must be a full-blown bible-beater, even to the point of getting her head dunked. On the other end of the spectrum is the husband, a raging atheist who cannot deal with his wife's transformation. It's all or nothing at all. One aspect of the film I don't think any reviewers touched on: the film takes place in 1980, and the details of the '80's world" are there. Banks of pay phones (today it is hard to find one). Beepers, not cell phones. Manual typewriters instead of computers. These and other touches make the film more believable, from the point of time and place.

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.

San John As a cinematographer I was really surprised by the photographic quality of the film. It definitely looks like film. It was actually shot on a Red Dragon, a digital cinema camera. The story is really clear and easy to follow. The actors play well and the music add it touch to the ambiance. Overall I felt that this is an important movie, and every strong story needs to be told especially if it is based on true events. The film has some minor directing quirks, things that could have been more worked out/showed/said in a more fluent way, that's why 9/10.

gibagante_gr Everything you see in this movie falls apart againist two words. PROVE IT!! Science has more truths than this misguided movie.