The God Who Wasn't There (2005) User Reviews

Good, but spoiled by polemic and personal agenda

[paul-2435 · 6/10 · 12 July 2006]

Like many alternative documentaries, this one starts strong, with little known facts and strong evidence for its main thesis.

However, it lets itself down when it degrades into polemic and blatant subjective reporting. This is not to say it is not entertaining and informative. Just a bit disappointing.

If the purpose was to convert (or is that upgrade) any Christians to some other view, it probably lost most of its potential audience when reporting became attacking.

Let me be clear, I am not a Christian. Growing up I was fed the same dogma as the narrator of this docu. I outgrew it, as all Christians eventually will - at least according to my understanding of the world and the views of people such as Ken Wilber, Jane Loevinger and the theories of spiral dynamics.

Unfortunately unknown to himself, the narrator is the unwitting victim of the same vices he accuses the Christians of - Rightness. He is sure he is right. As are his enemies, the Christians.

His attack is a textbook example of the rationalist attacking conformists. Perhaps in time he will move up to the level of pluralist and allow others to have their own views, while holding his own. He will realize that the conformists are as necessary to civilization as any of the other memes.

Enough said. Entertaining, but could have been better without the not so subtly hid personal agenda and sarcasm.

Working out your personal issues does not make a compelling film

[firenze_italia · 6/10 · 14 January 2006]

While I am agnostic and this film was preaching to my personal choir, I had some issues with it. Chiefly, I had the strong sense that Flemming was working out his personal issues, particularly in the last 15 minutes of the film, taking out his resentment against the fundamentalist school he attended as a child. I was surprised the superintendent sat and debated with him as long as he did; as we all know, fundies are not much for having their beliefs questioned. And I think Flemming did indeed mislead the guy about why he wanted to do the interview. I don't blame him for getting up and leaving the interview (which of course was exactly what he wanted the guy to do), and I have to commend the supe for sticking with it as long as he did.

Yes I am a bit surprised to hear myself sticking up for a fundamentalist, particularly one who makes his living brainwashing children. But, I'm also into reality and that's the reality of this film.

One thing I did enjoy about this film was all the clips from the various Jesus movies of the past. Good god what horrific acting in those old films! It was like watching MST3K.

This was a bit clumsy of a film. Film-making is an arduous process, so I think Brian Flemming must have some really serious issues with his former beliefs to go to the trouble of making a film about it, in order to make himself feel better. I hope it worked and I hope he makes a better film next time.

Meanwhile, if you're into Biblical skepticism, a far better investment of your time would be to read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". This film was more of a diatribe and unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone not already a skeptic of Christianity. Ehrman's book is a serious, scholarly work well worth reading, particularly if you find yourself in the situation of debating family or friends about the Christian mythos.

Mediocre

[anti0918 · 6/10 · 26 September 2005]

This film questions the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Christian Bible. Writer director Brian Flemming, a former fundamentalist Christian, leads the viewer through the life of Jesus, attempting throughout to apply them coherently to an actual time-line. He discusses the lack of historical evidence and gaps in the history related to Jesus and the years following his life. The film ends with the director talking to the head of the Christian-based school of his youth.

Yes, I'm an atheist, but no, I don't think this movie is worth viewing.

The historical discussion in the beginning is mildly interesting, although not detailed enough to be compelling. As the director talked to the head of his school, I wondered why I should care what he or this person think. Flemming's attitude throughout the film, and especially during his talk with the principal, put into question for the average viewer anything else he has said.

This fantastic documentary says what so many don't want to hear

[amowery · 9/10 · 24 May 2005]

As a second-generation atheist, I walked into this movie knowing as much about the historical aspects of Jesus as say, your average Christian; not much. This movie opened my eyes to the mythological aspects of Jesus and the attempts made by the Christian church to turn him into a messiah. I was particularly impressed by the interviews with Sam Harris, Richard Carrier, Alan Dundes and Robert Price, to name a few. Each one was able to put forth very clear reasoning as to why we should question the existence of Jesus Christ.

I highly recommend this movie to those of all faiths, or no faiths at all. Critical thinking and reasoning should be present for all of our personal tenets. If you haven't yet questioned the foundational pillars of your religion, there's no better time to start.

A Good Look, Could Be Improved

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 11 July 2013]

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

Let us just say there are two big problems with this film: one is the annoying, repetitive music. And the other is that it is very one-sided. I am by no means a Christian, but even among atheists or non-Christians, the viewpoint expressed here is a minority. Why was evidence of Jesus as a historical figure left out? Why not mention Josephus?

This is a good introductory film for those who are doubting Jesus or who embrace atheism but no not know the historical arguments against Jesus. It is not, however, the end of the discussion. There was much more ground to cover than could be told in under an hour, especially when part of it involves the narrator telling his own story (which really has no importance to the big picture).

A bold, eye-opening and hilarious film!

[DGCFitzgerald · 10/10 · 30 May 2005]

My absolute favorite film of the year. The God Who Wasn't There brings to light some jaw-dropping information on the real origins of Christianity in an engaging and thoroughly entertaining way. A must see for everyone who has suspected that their Sunday school teacher might not have given them the whole story. Also has fascinating and thought-provoking interviews with some of the top scholars investigating the question of the historical Jesus and whether he really ever existed at all. I was particularly struck by the insights on modern Christianity and some of its more troubling aspects. The director, Brian Flemming, takes on all these topics but never loses his humor or warmth. I'm also looking forward to the DVD release, because the special features will be including more commentary tracks and interviews with figures such as world-famous biologist Richard Dawkins and groundbreaking Biblical scholar Earl Doherty. An amazing , excellent film!

recommended to disaffected Bible-belt teens, but that's about it

[edley · 18 August 2006]

This program may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.

As for his "Christ never walked the earth" thesis, it doesn't get a chance here because Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie, never getting back on topic. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.

Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.

Religious people tend to discount skeptics whose objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people are dismissed as irrational, and therefore unconvincing.

In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was short. If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.

The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti- religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non- Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .

thinly crafted, awkward conclusion

[ithearod · 6/10 · 8 March 2009]

The filmmaker proposes to offer the viewer a film in favor of the argument that Jesus might not even have existed (not a new idea, by the way, but one regaining prominence; reference a book like "Christainity and Mythology, by John Robertson, written in 1910).

What we get, however, is something much closer to a PPT slideshow of not very well researched, developed, or presented summaries of facts/arguments making that point. Added into this superficial treatment are mention of various quotations and events of questionable relevance to the topic; and several interviews that don't always give the sense of pushing the thesis forward. All of this gets mashed together with some mildly amusing public-domain Messiah film clips and a second-rate techno soundtrack.

The conclusion of the film, however, is where things really fall apart. The film which pretenses that it will discuss the question of Jesus' existence, ends with a somewhat too-embittered revelation by the filmmaker of his own former Christianity, a lengthy going-on about the doctrines and methods of his former Christain school, and a final, awkward, and just plain ill-executed and rather petulant interview with the director of that school.

(For the record, that school director essentially accuses the filmmaker of being disingenuous right in the middle of the interview. He politely asks to stop tape so he can have a discussion about the possible pretenses of that interview; and he ultimately walks off the camera and refuses to continue or complete the interview. It appears to me than this man was entirely justified in the actions he took; and this part of the film demonstrates that the filmmaker really lacks the essentials of good film-making, interviewing, or even editing.)

The "documentary" feels more like a personal memoir by the end, and thus it fails as a film for being dishonest and incompetent in the area it proclaims to offer the viewer materials for thoughtful consideration. That is too bad; because a healthy and skeptical critique of Christianity is an important thing. It is an idea which is being offered up more and more often by popular culture recently. I believe that is a good thing - it is an overdue response to the bully pulpit that Christianity has enjoyed for a very long time. There is much to say, and much that needs to be said on this subject.

This film, while well-intentioned, is a somewhat sloppy attempt at joining this conversation, and unfortunately might actually serve to provide fuel for the counter-counter arguments, i.e. arguments that serve to attack those who are critiquing Christianity. Sloppy art can only serve to embarrass, and portray those who support it in an unfavorable light.

As a reformed (read: former) xian myself, I can sympathize with the filmmaker's sentiments throughout the film. However, such a clumsy attempt might have been better waited upon, with some more time and thought put into the construction, and decision-making, that went into this film. Of course it is easy for us to say this, as we have not made a film, and this person has. But still, when dealing with such a sensitive and important subject, it is better not to misstep, to be as correct and objective as one can, for all the reasons aforementioned.

There are other and better films that attempt to do the same thing this film does. This film is not to be skipped, but needs to be considered for what it lacks, as well as what it presents.

** One final note, however - the film's discussion of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is spot-on, and I have not heard anyone else say what this filmmaker says about it except myself - that TPotC was a horrible, perverse, completely over-the-top orgy of gratuitous violence, more closely resembling violence-pornography that any sort of sacred story. I, for one, only refer to Mel Gibson's film as "The Snuff Film of the Christ" whenever it comes up. Kudos to this filmmaker for making a point that really doesn't get made as it ought to be. **

Interesting and surprising

[mdcaton · 10/10 · 26 May 2005]

This is an interesting film for Christians and atheists alike, and not at all what I was expecting. Rarely is faith approached in such a commonsense, factual way. The film maker's personal investment in the documentary is a big part of what makes it compelling. The first half of it is basically a summary of the known historical facts around the figure of Christ. The second half of it delves into modern Christians' (particularly American Christians) knowledge and understanding of the origins of the modern religion. There are some pretty tense moments when the film maker discusses the foundations of the faith with his former school principle. All in all, an interesting film well worth watching.

Very important!

[Freethinker_Atheist · 7/10 · 3 January 2015]

I'd like to give this movie a 10 for what it's trying to say, because, at the end, in the whole, it's true. But unfortunately, technically this movie is not very good. It feels amateurish. Background music is too loud, annoying, narration could be better and it even wrongly quotes Jesus with a passage out of context. That Paul didn't believe Jesus had lived on Earth is also just plain wrong.

Because of this and its tone of disdain, people who should be encouraged to use their brains and convinced that they believe in ridiculous things will dismiss this movie as inaccurate and biased.

Nevertheless, the message itself is true: FEAR is the central element in Christianity (and most religions). Fear (of going to hell) prevents people from truly, deeply REFLECTING. If they would reflect, they would stop believing, because when you think about all these things, you SEE how absurd they are.

Not what I hoped it would be.

[somnambulist-2 · 5/10 · 16 July 2005]

As an agnostic who has rejected the validity of most of Christianity's historical "foundation", I was very much looking forward to seeing this film. I attended the (so far) only Canadian screening, which was sponsored by the University of Toronto's "Secular Alliance". It was followed by a web-conference with director and producer.

I have to say that in the end I came away disappointed, but not because this isn't a great film. I laughed, nearly cheered at times, and was appropriately shocked at other times. It's very well done. The main problem is that it isn't geared to the audience I had hoped it would be.

I went into the film hoping that it would provide me with a tool I could share with Christian friends and family, perhaps opening their eyes to some of the historical facts that are so seldom actually, "never" would be closer to the truth) discussed in evangelical & fundamentalist churches. But, the fact of the matter is that I won't be using the film as a tool for that purpose, for the following reasons: - I thought this film would spend *most* of it's time detailing the historical holes in Christian "history". But it didn't. Some key points are covered, but The film seems to only spend about a half or less of it's time actually handling this sort of material. The rest of it dwells on how ridiculous modern Christianity is.

• There are a few historical/textual mistakes in the film. I'm not going to go into them, but it's a flat out fact that if you're going to take on 2000 years of Christian tradition, you have *GOT* to have every point dead right. Anything less gives Christians excuses to dismiss the film. In a panel discussion held after the film screening, it was clear that these points did NOT get past the one conservative Reverend who (bravely) attended this screening and participated in the panel.

• For the most part the film treats it's Christian subjects with either amusement or outright hostility. This is going to shut down any effective chance at the film "speaking" to my Christian friends in a heartbeat.

• The film contains some unnecessary (but amusing!) crudity that will pointlessly alienate any conservative audience. It also wraps up with a statement by the host (which I won't give away here, I hate spoilers), which is 100% sure to shock and deeply offend any Christian watching. Again, this isn't going to help my anti-evangelistic cause one bit.

-Too much of the movie is clearly an exercise in the host's working out his own demons. He was raised fundamentalist, and many parts of the movie are clear-as-day examples of him getting back at the system that messed with his head back in his youth. Don't get me wrong - I was raised in the same kind of situation and I *TOTALLY* understand why he needs to do this... But... again, this kind of (what comes off as) meanspiritedness is going to shut the ears of any fundamentalist who takes the time to watch.

To sum up - Agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians of all stripes will love this movie. It's funny, it's watchable, it's educational... But that doesn't seem to be the intended audience - and the phrase "preaching to the choir" comes to mind.

Bottom Line - I will not share this film with my Christian friends and family. It's tone is NOT consistent with the way I have decided to deal with our differences of belief. Some believers will be so offended by this film that they will miss the embedded (and very important) facts it contains... and that's very unfortunate.

There are lots of *other* ways I can present this important and little-known information to those I care about, and that's what I'll be doing.

Entertaining and illuminating

[VoxMoose · 9/10 · 21 May 2005]

The God Who Wasn't There is a highly entertaining documentary that makes a compelling argument against the historical Jesus. In an equally fascinating and entwined thread, Flemming also explores the psyche of the modern Christian. The piece has a refreshingly irreverent, witty, and independent tone similar in spirit to some of the works of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock. And, like those works, can unfortunately sometimes cross into a "preaching to the converted" (rather, in this case, literally "unconverted") tone. Nevertheless, if you are an atheist or an agnostic this is an absolute must-see movie and it will seem far too short. If you are a theist, in particular Christian, prepare to have your core beliefs challenged.

Somewhat entertaining, but pretty much preaching to the choir...

[MrGKB · 6/10 · 13 May 2012]

...of disbelief in Christianity, "The God Who Wasn't There" suffers from a somewhat arch and supercilious tone that robs its blatantly one-sided approach of any lasting impact. Assertions are made without much in the way of serious evidence, and various other rather sophomoric tricks of argumentation are utilized to shoot down easy strawmen and undermine the strength of writer/director Brian "Bat Boy: The Musical" Flemming's polemic. Truth is that a goodly amount of the two commentary tracks that accompany the DVD presentation is more interesting than the film itself.

Much like Bill Maher's "Religulous," Flemming's position piece (it's really not much of a documentary, per se) tries to mask its biases with cheap shots at clay targets, along with an unwillingness to put other religions in its sights as well.

This is an okay watch, I'd suppose, for relatively unschooled atheists looking for rhetorical backup for their own forays against certain smug theists, but so far I've found films like "Jesus Camp" to be far more effective and well made documentary material.

This is a documentary for children

[cbrylla · 1/10 · 4 April 2012]

In terms of its content, this film really discredits serious atheists. Several "facts" are simply wrong and manipulated to serve the main argument. Educated people who see through these fallacies are bound to lose any trust and respect for the narrator/filmmaker. For instance, at the very beginning Flemming asserts that the Christians got the geocentric astronomical model wrong. Actually, this model originates in ancient Greece, so it is not a Christian invention (even if they persecuted heretics who proclaimed the heliocentric model).

The hyped and sensationalist way in which arguments and "facts" are presented is detrimental to any serious point the director is trying to make. I have no problem with the collage-like and playful tone and visual style of this documentary, which is inspired by "Bowling for Columbine" and "Supersize Me". However, unlike Moore and Spurlock, the way this style is used to represent the topic and themes is infantile. The animations and graphics in combination with his voice-over is highly patronising and seems to address either uneducated people or children. It is also highly exploitative to do vox-pops with devoted Christians and ask them intellectual questions about historical facts or apologetics and get ridiculous responses. This pseudo-Socratic approach is expected to create tension and cheap TV, NOT to make people think (whether the audience or the interviewee). In "Religilous" Bill Maher uses a much less Socratic approach in which he doesn't just question people's views, but also expresses his opinions. This is much more self-reflexive and honest, which makes Maher a much more respectable narrator and presenter, and we are more likely to trust him.

What is the focus of this documentary? Is it to debunk Jesus's existence? Flemming doesn't offer any argument against the actual existence of Jesus. The arguments about the mythical character Jesus do not deny that someone of this name might have really existed (for which there are historical clues, even if not strong evidence). Most of the film, though, is not about Jesus's existence but about debunking Christian doctrines.

Is the focus to promote atheism (which I was hoping)? It is certainly not, because the few atheist arguments Flemming uses are ridiculous and not even used by serious atheist apologists. For instance, the institutional aspect of faith (such as Christianity) is not a valid argument against a super-natural being, simply because most atheists and good theologians agree that religions are human constructs. In TGWWT Sam Harris offers an excellent argument paralleling pathological conditions (such as delusion and psychopathy) with religious belief. However, instead of developing this argument further (like Bill Maher does in Religilous) Flemming cannot wait to go back to his infantile MO, playing a frustrated anti-Christian and neurotic crusader who wants to overcome a childhood trauma of religious indoctrination.

Flemming's declaration in an interview that he is a "Christian Atheist" shows that he doesn't really know what he is talking about, plus, he is more interested in media hype than a serious documentary (with "serious" I mean a documentary that connects to an audience and actually makes people think, not "serious" in tone. "Religilous" is a comedy but still a serious documentary). If he would look at the etymology of "Christianity" and "Christ", he would understand that it implies exactly what an atheist is not. So, instead of labelling himself with an oxymoron just for shock-value, he should rather do some reading and not pretend that ignorance is a virtue.

Would I recommend this film? Yes, for film students who want to learn of how not to make a documentary (in every aspect). No, to people who want to get some insight into atheism, apologetics or history.

It's about time someone spoke their mind!

[DesignExplosion · 10/10 · 8 September 2005]

One of the best documentaries I have seen in a long time relating to the true nature of Christianity, and Jesus Christ. History has shown that it can be a very significant mistake to simply accept 'facts' which someone (or society) tells you to be truth, without an honest effort to determine whether or not it is based upon reality. The film explores the birth of Christianity, and OTHER possible HUMAN scenarios of how the current bible came to be--- instead of some supernatural series of events (which the majority of Christians unknowingly accept).

No matter who you are, you should definitely check this movie out. Even if you are not a Christian, it shows how historical documents can easily be distorted into something they are not- and in this case, possibly form an entire religion around.

Great Movie, I wish there were more like it !

So-so

[Karl Self · 10 March 2008]

Filmmaker Brian Flemming used to be a fervent Christian and now he is a fervent atheist. He sets out to prove that Jesus didn't exist, but all that he proved to me is that radical atheists can just be as bloody annoying as proselytizing Christians. Flemming used to live in a black-and-white world then, and he does so now: whereas once he used to think that the man from Galilee was so real that he could have a *personal* relationship with him, now that he has fallen out with Christianity he necessarily concludes that Jesus H. is as *fictional* a figure as Gandalf or the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. But of course it is just as impossible to prove that there was no historical paradigm for the Jesus story as it is to prove that Jesus was indeed the son of god. Actually I am more sympathetic to most Christians here, who only claim to *believe* in their story whereas Flemming shrouds his flaky little theory with the claim of scientific-mathematical accuracy.

Like Michael Moore's more recent films, Flemming asks interesting questions (I agree with him that many Christians do not read the New Testament critically enough, and do not give sufficient consideration to the considerable time gap between JC and his apostles), but then he equally goes off into an esoteric rant backed up by flashy graphics, soundbites from academic talking heads, and the brainfarts of passer-bys who were naive enough to allow him to interview them on camera (in one case he interviews a woman attending a Billy Graham rallye about the origins of the New Testament, and when she understandably vacillates a bit trying to come up with a succinct answer to such a complex and offhanded question, Flemming, in a fallback to his days of being a model bible school student, sneeringly informs us in the subtitles that she has been a Christian all of her life, and that her parents were even missionaries).

Just a two more points I want to comment on: Flemming seems to think that the grand unifying element of Christianity is Mel Gibson's 2004 bible Schlocker "The Passion Of The Christ". Yeah, psych!!!

Secondly, there is an internet campaign in which you can get a free copy of TGWWT by posting a YouTube-like video of yourself bravely denying the Holy Spirit (according to Flemming this is the one thing in Christianity that you will not be forgiven for). I'd just like to say this: up until now, being an atheist was a cool thing. I have always associated it with being an open-minded, freewheeling and live-and-let-live type of guy with a different girl in every port. Let's just keep it that way and leave the whole public-confession-born-again-shtick to the Christians, OK?

The follow through wasn't there

[nathanschurr · 7/10 · 25 October 2005]

He's not quite as pushy and annoying as Michael Moore, but the narrator of this film is on a mission nonetheless. I propose that we create a new genre of to distinguish biased documentaries: bocumentary? Not that I am faulting this "bocumentary" for it, nor do I believe that a documentary can be completely without bias.

The amazing first half of the film has a lot of interesting facts about the early days of Christianity, however the film devolves into almost a personal vendetta that the narrator has for the private Christian school he attended while growing up. The soundtrack is really hit or miss, at times heightening, others distracting. I don' think that you have to be Christian or atheist to enjoy this one. Fun to watch if you are still questioning...which we all should be.

Excellent Introduction to the Topic

[taylor-78 · 10/10 · 6 July 2005]

The documentary brings up some very interesting historical evidence about Jesus, or lack of. Christians and many non-Christians have always taken for granted that Jesus was real without ever knowing that the words of the bible were written many years after Jesus was suppose to live. This film is the the research of one former fundamentalist's search for the truth.

A lot of facts are brought out but there are so many more that are not touched upon. But when taken into consideration this is one man's viewpoint and considering he has not had the many years of experience studying this topic as many I think this is a great film. It is meant to tell Brian Flemming's story and get others to just think about what they perceive as the truth.

Religion has always been about control and power over people by restricting pursuit of knowledge and even in today's more open society to information certain subjects are kept from the general public. This film is an excellent introduction for those with any questions or curiosity of the subject.

well produced, poor content

[ca26 · 6/10 · 13 December 2005]

This "documentary" is one man's examination of the Christian religion and the problems he finds with it.

I use the term documentary loosely because rather than even trying to be objective about the topic - historical accuracy of the religion - he has a decidedly biased view from the start and selects his interviewees accordingly. By taking this approach, he's doing no worse to the genre than Michael Moore, but he's also not winning any "converts" as anyone who already agrees with him will applaud the effort, and anyone who doesn't will abhor his approach.

It's actually a very thought-provoking topic which MANY far more articulate and educated authors have already covered well. But the director only just begins to touch on (first half of the movie) this topic before it descends into his own personal struggles with the religious institution he attended in his youth (second half of movie).

I rather enjoyed the first half. The director gave an easily digestible, very visual, well-edited account of his problems with a few of the facts of the religion as he's researched it. Entertaining, great graphics, well-produced to this point.

The second half, on the other hand, reminds one of a pre-teen who finally confronts his parents about "Santa". The slick video effects drop away quickly, as does any hope of searching for the truth (aka facts). In fact, he approaches his former religious leader under the false pretense that they're going to discuss religion and the institution, but the interview QUICKLY turns into aggressive "baiting" as the director asks ridiculous questions like, "how can you teach religion if you can't prove it?" That's about as bright as asking the Pope why there should be a church.

Anyways.. predictably the interviewee sees where this is headed and makes the wise choice to leave, and our director acts confused, asking what he could possibly have done wrong. lol.

Moments like this render the second half kinda amateurish. Especially when he chooses to include "illuminating" comments from his interviewees such as, "well, church leaders are bad because they don't like gays. that's just wrong." Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, you've gotta be able to back up your opinion with more than, "because I said so." rofl. And that's what starts turning the second half into more of a student project.

But, at least the movie was made. And that's an accomplishment in itself. So, while I wouldn't call it trash, by giving it a 1-3 rating, it certainly wasn't Ghandi, Terms of Endearment, or The Godfather. So, I give it a 6, because for an average movie, it was more honest and thought-provoking than your typical Hollywood formulaic fare.

A groundbreaking documentary!

[duckdog · 10/10 · 23 June 2005]

This movie was simply stunning. Well worth viewing by non-believers and believers alike. Many will criticize it based on the quality of it's scholarship - but these people are completely missing the point. This film is GROUNDBREAKING as the first one to shine the spotlight on a centuries old line of scholarly biblical criticism. It's made by a film-maker, not a scholar, but it's founded on the works of many actual scholars. Critics of the film's scholarship should have the backbone to challenge the scholars, not this film-maker! So many times I have hear biblical literalists hog the popular media bandwidth and pronounce unequivocally that there is no serious scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus. This is simply false. Bravo to Brian Flemming and Amanda Jackson for ending the one sided conversation about Christianity in the popular media, and starting a true DIALOGUE!

Interesting and Funny Movie

[musicalpenguin2 · 7/10 · 15 January 2008]

After reading some of the comments on here, some may be surprised that I am a lifelong Christian and I found this movie quite hilarious. It's well-done and from a point-of-view that many people hold. It's relatable, even personally at times, and keeps the viewer entertained.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that are either misconstrued or completely wrong within the movie. Flemming completely misconstrues some of Jesus teachings when he includes the scripture Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me." Flemming was insisting that this was the philosophy of Christ because the words are written in red in certain editions of the Bible, but what he forgets to include is that these words are part of a parable, a story Jesus is telling in order to teach a lesson and these words are spoken by a fictitious character.

Flemming also spends a good amount of time talking about how the story of Christ is unreliable because nothing was WRITTEN about it until approximately seventy years after the life of Christ. The thing here is, in period in which Jesus lived did not see many people who could write. Most people were not literate. Histories were passed down orally rather than through the written word. Also, seventy years, in the grand scheme of things, is not very long. If we are going by what Flemming claims in the film, none of us can speak about either World War or Pearl Harbor or the Civil War and be believed because that was around or over seventy years ago, so the information we might give is unreliable because that is too long a time for the information to be accurate. The accounts of the veterans who are still alive cannot be believed, if we are basing the validity of information on Flemming's claims. Another thing is that there are no known accounts during that time refuting anything written in the Bible, from a purely historical aspect. As far as we know, no one during that time denounced the events as hogwash and inaccurate. Simply something to consider.

Could have been good.

[myst-lizard · 2/10 · 20 November 2006]

OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).

As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.

If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.

All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.

Very good movie, entertaining and informative

[kenl-5 · 9/10 · 15 August 2005]

This movie (more like a documentary) was very well put together, entertaining and very informative, and like with any documentary, the information contained should be researched and verified. Brian Flemming makes it easy to do. The content is not derogatory to Christians (although, they may disagree) and the information included should be known to them (although, their churches would disagree). The movie makes some very good points about the most basic of peoples beliefs and will lead to a heavy debate (unless you watch it alone). I have shared this movie with quite a few people already, most give great reviews, the only negative so far...it's not long enough. While I enjoyed the bonus interviews, I found the background sounds a bit distracting.

God is a myth. Get over it!

[siderite · 7/10 · 29 January 2007]

Just having watched Jesus Camp, which speaks against extremist religious indoctrination of kids in America, I watched this movie with apprehension. It started with the same kind of editing tricks and smart voice narration that I found in 9/11 conspiracy theory films and while I am an atheist myself and rather against organized religion of any kind, I am also against people who use atheism as an excuse to make political statements, like against Bush.

But I was wrong. In the middle of the movie the narrator reveals that he himself was brought up in the evangelical world, educated from a child to accept Jesus or suffer eternal damnation. During Jesus Camp I often wondered "how do this kids grow up and still believe all that crap?" Well, some don't. Some understand what has been done to them and strike back.

The information itself is rather one sided, but makes a lot of valid points. The Jesus myth has nothing really special. A lot of other religions before Christianity had the same stories with some of the same details, what makes this one special? How much of the Bible can you take as literal truth? And if your answer is "all of it" why not start killing disbelievers and gay people right away? Why stop or hinder scientific research based on lame metaphysical beliefs?

The rather direct way in which the movie attacks Christianity in general and evangelists in particular is likely to make it really hard to stomach for that kind of folk. It also seems to be a part of a bunch of movies inspired by the ridiculous pseudo-religious policy of the White House. That might make one think they are either politically motivated or based on some personal grudge. But even if you think it's evil or in bad taste or unchristian or whatever, just listen to what it has to say.

Bottom line: very informative, could have been better. But just consider it is a one man show, without the finances and resources of large religious organizations to back it up.

A missed opportunity

[assassthenation · 4/10 · 29 September 2005]

I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.