Pure Flix Entertainment is one the most instantaneously recognizable film companies of our time, mainly in this respect: they really, REALLY want God to be real, and they will assure themselves of this position annually with a flicker show or two. If it also turns out they made a good, subtle, realistic, or even well-argued movie in the process of serving as their own confirmation bias, they just got lucky. In certain ways, I suppose this is one instance.

Unlike such Pure Flix productions as God's Not Dead and God's Not Dead 2: We're Still Right, their 2017 piece The Case for Christ is based on a true story, and no, it is not the one with the healed-up lepers. It is about an American atheist and journalist who attempts to disprove the existence of Christ to his very religious wife, only to find that the stuff he learns pushes him more towards the side of faith.

Indeed, Lee Stobel is a real person (played here by Mike Vogel of Cloverfield fame) and he did conduct an investigation that ultimately turned him Christian, which he documents in his similarly titled book from 1998. His Wikipedia article is careful to point out that "The book does not feature any non-evangelical scholarly interviews", which I think is useful information. Of course he addressed counterarguments in later books, though it seems to have taken place after his brain already finished cooking and his mind was made up - not unlike that which his movie counterpart accuses the wife (Erika Christensen) of.

Of course I'm not here to talk about the books themselves, but what they have in common with the film (aside from, y'know, all the content) is that they serve as another bombastic "told ya so" for believers. Just because this one atheist done goof'd (his first mistake was seemingly to believe that the burden of proof in the "Existence of God" debate was somehow on him),doesn't mean all of us are conversions waiting to happen upon cherry-picked interviews, claims that there were witnesses to Christ's rebirth (without solidly proving THAT),and whatever else passed as research during this journey.

I will say this about The Case for Christ: it is the most competently produced "Christian film" I've seen to date. The camera work is decent, the music is also enjoyable, and it benefits especially from the fact that it is based on a source material that features sentences that real humans would say. It isn't just sanctimonious preaching interspersed with contrived attempts to make atheists look vile and in-the-wrong next to the enlightened (usually more attractive) Christians.

Hell (and please don't give me cancer or starve my family for using that term, Father),it isn't even entirely bogus. The evidence for some sort of "historical Jesus Christ" isn't as unconvincing, moot, or flat-out non-existent as the evidence that such a figure existed, came back to life, healed the ill, and somehow looked more like an American hippie than a Middle-Eastern carpenter.

There are some solid supporting performances as well, supplied by Faye Dunaway, Mike Pniewski, Robert Forster, Frankie Faison, L. Scott Caldwell, et cetera. But is any of this enough to save a film that is as ill-conceived as the very idea of trying to meet a burden of proof one does not bear? Perhaps it will be for some. I would propose, however, that an exceptional Pure Flix movie does not an exceptional movie make.

Furthermore, if you're in the same demographic as blasphemous old me, you'll want something as insipid and unintentionally hilarious as God's Not Dead or A Matter of Faith over generic stuff like this any day. As for those of you who were in some way offended by this review: rest assured that you can pray for my enlightenment whilst I pray that you one day learn how "extraordinary claims" work, more reliable ways to study history, and how to operate a light switch.

This is not coming from an atheist or somebody particularly religious, though finds the Bible and its stories fascinating. This is coming from someone who loves film of all genres and decades, would see anything with an open mind and an intent to judge it on what it set out to do and wanted to see as many films from 2017 as possible.

2017 has been a mixed bag for film, with some good and more films, some disappointing and less films and some that fall somewhere in between. 'The Case for Christ' is not among the year's very worst but is in the bottom half of the quality spectrum to me. It is understandable why atheists would hate it with a passion, though some here have to me not expressed their feelings very well, but it is my feeling that it's not only atheists who will dislike 'The Case for Christ'. Critics were very mixed on it themselves and it is also my feeling that even the converted will find themselves preached at.

Coming from a non-atheist and as said someone not particularly religious, 'The Case for Christ' did come over as too heavy-handed and one-sided and like it was trying too hard to appeal to Christians and the converted. There are a lot of theories presented here but these theories are little more than strongly put and theories masquerading as fact, that talk at you bombastically rather than provoking thought, with very little that holds weight to back it up. The bogus scientific elements too strain credibility to an unbelievable degree, science is practically re-invented here so scientific experts are another group that will find the film hard to swallow. In short, 'The Case for Christ' has a script that does mean well and tries, and sometimes succeeds, in being sincere, but tends to be uninspired and patronising.

When it comes to the storytelling, 'The Case for Christ' never rises above superficial level. A few good, if familiar, ideas but never fully explored and cranks up the sentimentality to the point the sweetness and sugar makes one nauseous and the sentimentality is hard to stomach. Some of it is ludicrous too. The pace is dull and meandering, the music is forgettable at best and the direction has flashes of inspiration but is mostly blandly workmanlike.

For all those problems, 'The Case for Christ' is not all bad. It looks pretty good and slick, handsomely shot and nicely mounted. It's particularly striking in how the look and feel of 1980 Chicago is captured, and the film does that very well. The acting is pretty decent, despite the awkward dialogue and thinly drawn characters, with the best performances coming from Faye Dunaway and particularly Mike Vogel.

Not all the material is a disaster. The insights of the extent to which religion still shapes popular and political thinking in the United States and how are actually interesting and well argued. It is a pity that everything else in the writing fails to convince.

In summary, will be, and has been, very controversial for understandable reasons on both sides. Apart from a few good things and some intrigue and sincerity, it is very sad to say that 'The Case for Christ' had a case that didn't convince me and didn't do much for me. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I do very much like the first class production costs that show in this film. I wish I had read the book for this first. The film feels strangely not complete. It seems to be based upon feelings and faith but even those come up as shallow. I can not believe the book has to be deeper.

Facing Death often is more of a test than studying facts or going into a place that can not be described to question your own soul. It agonized me that there is little description from Lee about how he felt his wife had changed when she accepted Jesus. I mean, he never quantifies how she changed?

Faye Dunaways role as a Pychologist and atheist is short and interesting. I mean she correctly points out Lee's psychological problems in a short meeting. When Lee's father dies, it seems to lead him to God here, out of his grief. I am not sure the book actually would agree with that.

The Muslim point is blunt, as it is pointed out the Koran denies Christs Resurrection. Not being a Muslim, I am not sure this point is valid. If it is, there is a base reason for Muslims to hate Christanity. Perhaps someone needs to explain that while Christians preach Diversity and Acceptance of other religions, why Muslims would not do either?

These are base problems with the film that I hope would be addressed in the book better. In a way, looking for answers is more an act of faith in life. Then it takes luck for someone to keep going. I mean, every life has to have faith in every encounter they make in their life in order to have a chance to survive.

You can have faith, and you can pray for miracles. The trouble is you can not control the external factors that help survival. You have faith that everything exists and that others involved in your life are correct. The Doctor can make a wrong diagnosis. Any man of faith can take advantage of their position.

You have to have faith that your going to be able to get to what is next. Facts have nothing to do with faith. I have faith this planet is going to survive because the planet can change and adapt to changes in it's environment. Environmental Scientists take facts (as they enter them on a computer) and predict the planet is being destroyed and doomed.

As long as I have faith in this planet, it will survive long after these Scientists think it is doomed. Hey, is it my fault that these Scientists do not have faith in our planet?