If you're reading these reviews you've undoubtedly seen a wide variety of reviews, spanning from "FIVE STARS THIS TOTALLY PROVES JESUS IS GOD HIGHLY RECCOMENDED!" to "One star. This book uses faulty logic and straw men to 'prove' what was already presupposed". So where's the book really fall? In my opinion, somewhere in between.
The structure of the book is well crafted. If you're going to try and prove that Jesus is God, the first thing you have to do is prove that we know about him is reliable, and that's what Strobel sets out to do from the beginning by interviewing various biblical scholars. After that's done Strobel moves on to analyzing Jesus himself, attempting to answer questions such as "Was he a lunatic? Did he match the idendity of the Messiah?" and then finally moving on to the Ressurection.
Many have complained that Strobel only interviews Christians. I did not have a problem with this. If you understand what Lee was doing at the time, trying to find answers to the objections to Christianity that he had, it's only natural for him to interview Christians to try and find those answers.
However, what keeps this book from being a real sucess is that while it answers every objection to Christianity raised within it pretty swiftly, there are mountains of issues that were not raised at all. Personally I don't believe they were avoided intentionally, but they're still there. That is why I think a follow-up to this book would be great. It would be really great if it could somehow incorporate reader-submitted inquiries. I think alot of people would be very interested in reading that.
So, in conclusion, the Case for Christ doesn't present a clear verdict in the case for Jesus being God, but the information contained here will probably surprise alot of agnostics and open doors into further research.