Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Did you people see the same film I saw?

A Masterpiece!

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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.

Let me make my biases known from the start. I am a Christian, but not of the American sort, and I rarely watch Christian movies.A friend of mine convinced me to watch this one, and to be frank I wasn't disappointed. Sure, the script was quite simple and you could see the ending coming a mile off, but it was still an enjoyable movie. Would I suggest an atheist, or a non-believer of any sort, to watch this movie? No, the movie clearly tries to work to a climax by portraying the protagonist and other atheists as unreasonable, and unlikable. In my experience there is little hostility towards Christian belief (which is understandable in the case of the protagonist seeing his family situation), instead it's usually a form of apathy. If this had been brought to the fore more clearly that would have done the movie some good. That being said; how atheists are portrayed in this movie is extremely mild compared to how Christians are portrayed in Hollywood movies (i.e. perverted, greedy, weird, untrustworthy and extremely dumb). Quality of the argument: Now I understand no one wants to watch a 1,5 hour debate surrounded by a short story, and so one cannot expect long dialogues about the arguments for the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection, but a lot more time could have been spent on the counterarguments. Also, there was no full argument given in the movie, all the parts were there, but it would have been better for the audience if the protagonist went through them all at a particular point in the story. Climax of the movie (spoilers): The climax, which I suppose was the point at which the protagonist starts to believe, is completely underwhelming. It's clear he's been given a lot of evidence, but the sudden turn around is completely unreasonable. You would expect some clear (or clearer) indications that his non-belief was crumbling. Or a more explicit portrayal of the frustration which the protagonist must have endured in his failing attempts to show Jesus to be a fraud. The level of resentment towards his wife seems about the same throughout the movie (though that might be because the lead actor isn't quite good at conveying emotions, the wife of the protagonist however was very good) though the dialogue seems to indicate a steady increase in resentment. Given that increase one would expect a more dramatic conversion moment.Is it propaganda or an evangelistic kind of movie? Yes, it clearly is, but what do you expect with that title? Is it worth watching as an atheist? If you can overlook the horrible writing with respect to the atheist, sure. It's not a horrible movie and if you dare walk a bit on the edge with respect to your metaphysical beliefs (or lack thereof) this movie will surely do that. At the very least, if you're the curious sort, it might prompt you to do your own research and either prove Strobel right or wrong.

As a Christian and avid film lover this movie is more than just a movie based on the real life pursuit of answers from a former skeptic Lee Strobel.The film is a little slow. However, the historical research in Stobel's real life gathering of evidence is mind boggling. Evidence that covers historical, medical psychological, the overwhelming evidence is if nothing else an interesting view on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ.Performances by both the lead actor and actress mix well in the pursuit. Two opposite ends twisted in the middle from their beliefs and history are done well from an actor's perspective. (A much better one is Lincoln. Daniel Day Lewis and Sally Field).Film does not do the true pursuit justice, but does its job in opening the mind from all points and most importantly from the view of an (at the time) atheist.Recommend follow up films: Case for Faith (documentry), The Shack, Risen.

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.