As for the main theme of the movie, that is, God is not dead, the movie was shot like this: The audience in the trial seemed to agree that this Jesus who had appeared as a man was God, so if it proves that there was a person like Jesus, it proves that God exists? The lawyer proved that Jesus existed, and it became a big victory for theism over atheism? So that people outside held up big signs and called God's not dead? IMHO, this logic was too far-fetched, and it took me three seconds to figure out why the movie was shot like this. The screenwriter seems to have forgotten that what you still need to give the atheistic audience is: the rationality of the link from Jesus as a man to Jesus as a god? The court debate is relatively weak, not enjoyable, and not convincing enough. Then as an atheist audience, you will feel that a big victory party full of religious fanaticism will be particularly brain-dead.
Generally speaking, the front is good, the middle is weak, and the end is a bit high. The overwhelming fanatical celebration is offensive, it is better to silently joy and blessing.
I am not an atheist, nor do I dislike religion, nor do I exclude directors and screenwriters from promoting their ideology, but if you want to discuss religious issues through the film, the screenwriters of the film are still a bit tender.
View more about God's Not Dead 2 reviews
