Reviews

I don't know what it MEANS to necessarily be a "spoiler", so the warning is there...I won't try to reveal ENDINGS or SECRETS of the movie...but I put this there so I don't get "blacklisted". :) The film is, at its core, a debate between those who believe God exists and those who believe God is a fairy tale.

God's Not Dead is a reasonably decent film...lots of story lines and threads that intertwine, one wonders why so many were chosen--but the whole "stew" mixes well with the theme, and towards the middle and the end, the threads come together pretty well.

Like my title says, the movie DOES start out a bit choppy...we see several different "players" in the film, most (but not all) of them generated around Hadleigh University. One is a freshman Christian student Shaner Harper), one is a university cafeteria employee--a girl who grew up in a Muslim home (Hadeel Sittu), one is a Chinese exchange student (Paul Kwo).

We also have the atheist professor (Kevin Sorbo) and his friends in academe...and his girlfriend (Cory Oliver). The girlfriend tries to convince her rich and successful brother (Dean Cain) to help care for their ailing mother. The brother is about as callous as he can be--not really showing much care for his family or his girlfriend.

We also meet up with a local minister (David A.R. White) and his missionary friend from Africa...

Yes, lots of players and somehow they all kind of interconnect in this great debate on whether God exists.

While the debate is waged in the classroom in a formal sense between Sorbo and Harper, we also see it waged in the lives and behaviors of the characters...at times with pretty believable intensity. Trisha LaFache, who plays Amy--the girlfriend of the successful but materialistic stock broker has one of the best moments of emotional fear/frustration/anger/heartbreak I think I've seen in any film.

What one has by the end of the film is assurance--there are reasons to believe in God, and theism is not a fairy tale. Not every character in the film comes to that conclusion--and there aren't quick and easy answers, but the choices are made clear. You really cannot go "halfway"--either God is, or He isn't.

We read the book "Robinson Crusoe" as a family...and chose this film as the movie to watch after having read Defoe's novel--considered by some to be the first true English novel.

The book gives quite a "back story" to the familiar one most people expect: the survival of a shipwrecked Crusoe on the deserted island. Crusoe's relationship with his parents, his decision and yearning for the high seas, his toiling as a slave himself to a Muslim master (and eventual escape), and his purchase of a plantation in the Brazils all preceded his one great adventure. The film blasts through all this in a quick minute or less! I guess that is understandable...it isn't easy to tell a 350 page novel in such detail in just 90 minutes.

According to the short biography on the DVD we read, the director Buñuel was hostile to religion...perhaps he was "smothered" with it in childhood. This may explain the omission of much (but not all) of the spiritual aspects Defoe had throughout the book.

Defoe's character struggles with ungratefulness to God, then re-discovers how blessed he is in his life despite the problems of loneliness and despair. Truly, the novel is inspirational for anyone who faces these fears (and who doesn't?) Defoe's hero isn't a mere spiritual wanderer, though--he works and works hard for his sustenance....the island is a bit of "Eden" that Crusoe must work. This movie avoids a lot of this struggle.

Buñuel took out much of the spirituality of the book instead, he added a deep friendship Crusoe has with his dog "Rex". The subplot of Crusoe's attachment to the dog is an important way the director shows the character's need for friendship.

The 1954 film does a good job in the more "physical" aspects of the story. O'Herlihy is a fine Robinson, changing his look as time goes on. And his eventual befriending of the savage whom he names "Friday" is an interesting turning point. Crusoe craves friendship--but he also is suspicious of his new companion.

The "adventure" portion of the film is interesting and well-done even for a film shot 50+ years ago. Crusoe's building of his home, his survival in the hostile environment, and his hard work of husbandry and farming are shown with good faithfulness to the book. Especially endearing is the scene where Crusoe eats his first hot, fresh baked "bread" in several years...bread he has just made.

Crusoe is a man of integrity and eventually helps save the captain of a ship whose crew is engaging in mutiny...he and Friday do a good job of assisting the stranded captain. He even extends a kind gesture to the mutineers--instead of taking them back to civilization to be hanged, he leaves them on the island with detailed instructions on how to survive...as he did for 28+ years.

Overall, a pretty decent adaptation of the book...BUT...what Daniel Defoe's novel truly awaits is for a detailed telling of the story (perhaps in a miniseries) that shows Robinson as a young man--rejecting his father's sage advice--and going through the various struggles detailed in the book...before he is rescued to tell his tale of survival.

Ben Stein and his producers really struck a nerve with this film. Perhaps its full effect will not be felt in the culture until several years have passed. Indeed, in Stein's closing remarks near the end of "Expelled", he challenges the viewer to take a stand for full and open debate about the complexity of biology.

The evolutionists are allowed to speak for themselves, as are the scientists (some still evolutionist) who were ostracized for just DISCUSSING the possibility that there might be an Intelligent Design to the universe. :) An amazing film, considering so many who denigrate it don't want people to even watch the film. The very fact they don't even want you to *watch* it should tell you something. Frankly, I think they don't trust you to think for yourself.

The most humorous interview is the final one with atheist best-selling author Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is adamant God does not exist. The best origin of life proposition he can posit--in his own words, now--is that some intelligent life from another PLANET came and put life here on earth. :) Don't be afraid to watch the movie--probably most of the naysayers on this board haven't seen it, either. And just be prepared to ask questions on BOTH sides of the aisle.