I read the book years ago, and this is one of the few times the movie was better than the book. Well acted and good writing for a spiritual based film.

I thought this would be an exciting, thought-provoking investigation into historical validity of Christianity and it's fundamental beliefs. I enjoy listening to both side of the argument, when they are properly articulated, even when I'm a firm believer in my own convictions. But this is neither thought-provoking, nor unbiased. The movie is made by Christians for Christians, to make them feel good about their own faith. Well, good for them, but I am not the right audience. I thought I'd step into a serious academic discussion, but found myself at the seminary. The main character is neither sympathetic, nor appealing. He is raving mad half the time, while being drunk the other. Did it really matter if his wife suddenly became spiritual? From what I've seen she did not try to actively convert him, but instead was seeking his support when finding comfort after a traumatic experience. On the other hand, every character just made giant leaps in logic and assumptions. It only took the nurse a casual phrase to make the wife a believer. The husband only did a half-baked investigation and suddenly converted to faith, because he had no more counterarguments. A casual glance at evidence photos revealed a random, overreaching detail that completely reversed a criminal case. It took a vague hint from an unverified witness to convict a guy overnight. Can this movie be any more silly?I guess it was the Age of Aquarius/free love/psychedelic drugs/rock 'n' roll, and people just went gaga for all kinds of cults without much proof. I'm giving the movie another star just because it had me fooled for half hour.

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)

With a title like "The Case for Christ" this film isn't trying to fool or trick anybody, and that's to its credit. Quality-wise, the writing, directing, cinematography, production design, and acting is a GIANT step up for "faith-based" films and that alone is a minor triumph. Even better, the film succeeds as a stand-alone entertainment... it is a believable (if sometimes trite) examination of a young married couples experience with a new faith. In short, this is an overdue step in the right direction for these kinds of movies.