Film reviews for "Religulous"

Bill Maher's film Religulous is being touted as a comical-serious examination of the beliefs and practices of religion, with particular attention paid to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. According to the film's site, Maher is "known for his astute analytical skills, irreverent wit and commitment to never pulling a punch." You can go here for the film trailer.

Baltimore Sun

Maher's subject in Religulous, and it's a useful one, is religion as it is actually practiced in the suburbs, the country and the streets. He's an agnostic, not an atheist. His goal is to proclaim doubt about the mysteries that surround our mortality (such as what happens at death), and thus promote rationalism. He leaves certainty to true believers. He doesn't ponder what faith can do except summon a vision of the afterlife or provide an alternative to nothingness for the jailed or destitute.

Beliefnet

Early on in the movie, Maher makes a trip to Raleigh, North Carolina. Good choice. It's actually one of my favorite places to visit. But the Raleigh that Maher visits in the movie looks nothing like the Raleigh I know. His entire visit seemed to consist of a trip to a tiny chapel at a truck stop where a few truckers meet for church. They obviously didn't know who Maher was, or what his shtick was, and they quickly become offended when he peppered them with questions about the credibility of the gospel they passionately believe in. Watching that scene, I had only one thought in my head: If you want to pick on someone your own elitist intellectual size, Duke University Divinity School is right down the road!

And that incident more or less sums up the problem with this movie. There is plenty to satirize about religion. There is plenty to debate about religion. But Maher spends time offending those believers of all faiths who are easily offended or fearful and never engages with believers who aren't afraid of clever banter, witty one-liners, and cheap shots. Not only is there not much sport in that, but, come to find out, there's really not much entertainment value in it, either.

Cinematical

Religulous will not inspire any person of faith to give up their beliefs, of course -- and whether you see that as a demonstration of unyielding devotion or unthinking dogma will, again, depend on your point of view -- but Maher and Charles, to their credit, seem to be focusing their film more at challenging non-believers than believers. Maher's big finish for Religulous is tonally very similar to the way he closes out his HBO show Real Time -- a stern, serious discussion that follows the jokes like serving broccoli after dessert -- where Maher's line of argument is that non-believers need to step up, speak out and be heard to try and change the course of public opinion, that religious 'moderates' need to see their behavior as dangerous, enabling complicity that helps empower radical elements which cannot go unnoticed or unchallenged in an age where, as Maher puts it, "We learned to precipitate mass death before we got over the neurological disorder of wishing for it." And Maher also -- in his own words, in his own way -- conveys the conflict felt by every non-believer who would like to believe in a just, kind and loving god but can't. Religulous is full of contradictions -- it's a funny film about some depressing things, it's a lighthearted tour through terrorism, injustice and intolerance. But those contradiction and challenges are, ultimately, what make the film linger uneasily in your mind, reaching past comedy and confrontation to challenge the audience with a fierce and forceful prayer that there might be no god.

Newsday

You don't need to believe in God to take issue with Bill Maher's Religulous, a quasi-documentary that mocks religion as ridiculous, crazy, even dangerous. It's a nasty, condescending, small-minded film, self-amused and ultimately self-defeating. Its only accomplishment is to make atheists look bad - and in this political climate they didn't need Maher's help with that.

San Francisco Chronicle

In the end, Maher reveals his serious intent, to put forth the idea that not just fundamentalism but religion in all forms is a danger to the survival of civilization. Agree or not, that's a serious idea, but the obnoxious interviews and the zany treatment undercut it. Certainly, if his intent was to persuade anyone of his view, well, fat chance of that. (If anything, Maher is obnoxious enough to make people want to get religion.) In the moment, the message of "Religulous" is that everybody who believes in God is stupid, cowardly or intellectually dishonest. That's a sentiment better expressed in a single wisecrack, not a feature-length documentary.

the balcony is closed

Roger Ebert talks about the end of Ebert & Roeper at the Movies.

"The Dark Knight"

(Be warned: spoilers will be revealed)

The following Bible verse, from Jeremiah 17, kept coming to mind as I watched The Dark Knight, last weekend's record-breaking #1 movie ---

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Who can, indeed. Batman Begins examined the nature of the heart, especially in regards to justice and redemption. You will remember that Henri Ducard (revealed to actually be Ra's al Ghul) and his League of Shadows came to Gotham seeking to destroy it because, as Ra's Al Ghul's decoy told Bruce Wayne, "Gotham's time has come... it is beyond saving and must be allowed to die." Gotham has housed too many criminals over the years, a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrha. Ducard saw himself as God without the hassle of having to haggle with Abraham over how many good souls were left in the city. Everyone, good and bad, would pay.

The Joker of Dark Knight, exceptionally well played by the late Heath Ledger, sees justice as only a thin veneer layered over chaos. The Joker says that he is himself "an agent of chaos." People only need a little push to exit the light and enter darkness, and he's the perfect man to do the pushing. I think history will show Ledger's Joker to be one of the most memorable villains of the cinema. I would put him on par with Dr. Hannibal Lecter of The Silence of the Lambs, except that the Joker is even more villainous. Lecter may have been prone to cannibalism, but at least he had some standards by eating only rude, offensive people. The Joker wants the whole world to burn.

The Joker succeeds in pushing Harvey Dent, a "white knight" of a district attorney, into the darkness. Dent begins the movie as a man on mission to bring down Gotham's mob members. He's not a perfect knight, though. When he catches one of Joker's fiends in an assassination attempt, Dent comes awfully close to pulling the trigger. Batman arrives and chides Dent for behaving in such a manner. Dent seems to recover from this episode but then goes on to lose something of extreme value to him - something more than merely half his face - and he decides "the only justice in an unfair world is chance."

Speaking of Two-Face, whom we see in all his glory in the film's final act, I was struck by how different his story is from that of the character in 1995's Batman Forever. In that film, Tommy Lee Jones plays a good man who becomes an insane criminal after acid is thrown on his face. Actually, we only see his transformation in an extremely brief flashback - at the start of Forever, Dent is already a Two-Face who desires to kill Batman. The Two-Face of Dark Knight, following a horrific experience, essentially chooses to become a vigilante. Both characters share the same idea that the random toss is the only true form of justice, but they are different in a fundamental and important way.

I think it's fantastic that Gary Oldman is playing more noble characters these days. It's almost as if he has had enough of playing evil people like vampires (Bram Stoker's Dracula) and terrorists (Air Force One). He plays the bad guy effectively - I especially like him in this film - but I think his "good" characters like James Gordon and Sirius Black of the Harry Potter films are even more compelling.

I don't think a movie based on comic book (or graphic novel, if you prefer) characters has addressed so many important issues as The Dark Knight. This is nervy and penetrating stuff that keeps you thinking after you've left the darkness of the theater. White knights versus dark knights. Order versus chaos. Redemption versus destruction. Justice versus revenge. Truth versus lies.

The kind of issues that cut us straight to the heart. If only we could know it better.

For more on the film and the issues it raises, visit some of these links:

• Ken Brown
• Todd Hertz
• Jeff Overstreet
• Ben Witherington

"10 Ways to Become a Better Film Critic"

Evan Derrick of MovieZeal is offering ten tips to improve your skill at reviewing films. He has posted part one and will soon offer part two. UPDATE: He now offers part two.

His suggestions:

1. Expand your cinematic vocabulary.
2. Respect the medium you are criticizing.
3. Develop an appreciation for all the arts.
4. Study classic film criticism.
5. Develop a unique voice.
6. Don't be dull.
7. Invest yourself in other pursuits.
8. Become an excellent essayist.
9. Avoid the reviews of others before writing... study them afterwards.
10. Develop a philosophy of trash.

"... there is a lot of sex and nudity in the movie."

It is bizarre to see a review of Sex and the City here, but not entirely unexpected.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"

Let's get the whole age thing out of the way, okay? Harrison Ford was 65 years old when he took up the whip and fedora of Indiana Jones, perhaps his most famous screen character, for the fourth time. There has been some concern about how his age would affect his ability to handle - and make believable - all the stuntwork that Indiana Jones movies seem to demand. After all, he had to fight Nazis twice his size and slide in the dirt behind a truck in Raiders.

Rest assured - Indy is more than capable of handling Russians half his age, maybe a third his age. He jumps across the beams of a warehouse ceiling. He leaps from car to car to pummel some bad guys. He figures out the best way to evade a nuclear blast. He still knows how to use his whip for maximum effectiveness. He even takes off his shirt - something he didn't do in Last Crusade, when he was merely 46 years old - to show off a chiseled look.

The plot, revolving around a crystal skull that defininitely does not appear human, is a bit thinner than the three previous movies. There's a lot more exposition this time around, presumably because the audience knows less about crystal skulls than it does about the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant. Without giving away too much, I'll just say that the ending is reminiscent of two previous Spielberg films - if you've seen Crystal Skull already, you know which ones I mean.

The much-discussed return of Marion Ravenwood to the Indy saga is indeed welcome. She's the pluckiest and spunkiest female lead of the entire series, the perfect antidote to the chilliness of Elsa Schneider and the whininess of Willie Scott. Her voice may be less husky than it was in Raiders, but her spirit has certainly remained the same. And, yes, there is certainly a connection between Indy, Marion, and her son Mutt, played by Shia LaBeouf.

If you want a film that's intricately plotted with a firm grounding in reality, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. If, however, you are seeking a thrill ride of a film that fits perfectly into the Indiana Jones canon, then Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is for you. If you're not yet convinced, let me offer two final words: giant ants.

"Cloverfield"

Almost since the dawn of cinema, there has been a celluloid monster to terrorize both the denizens of the screen and the audiences in the dark. King Kong was the most notable of the early beasts, and we've had many more since then. After the gigantic gorilla, Godzilla and Gamera are the most notable. Godzilla has been the subject of numerous movies, both good and bad. With all these monsters, we've been able to view them from an all-seeing perspective. We've seen them in quiet moments, when they are taking a break from terrorizing the masses.

Not so with the finely-executed Cloverfield. We view the events from the camera of a man who had planned on taping his friend's going-away party, but ended up with footage much more compelling. The party is interrupted by what at first appears to be an earthquake or possibly a terrorist attack, but which turns out to be gigantic beast. There is much speculation but no explanation given as to where the beast came from or what it ultimately seeks to achieve. All we see is the mayhem is has produced.

Will Smith sought in I Am Legend to redeem humanity from its infected state. The creature of Cloverfield knows only mayhem and destruction. The Army runs through the city trying to stop, but to no avail. In its world, we're all legends.

There are a few tense moments, but it's not as scary a film as traditional monster movies have been. Beyond the existence of a gigantic monster, there are several implausibilities, including a cell phone that's able to work no matter where the main characters go. But the film works. The audience member is able to completely buy into the world this film shows, a ruined Manhattan where people are desperate to save the ones they hold dear. In the YouTube age, Cloverfield fits right in.

More about Cloverfield from Rogert Ebert and Peter Chattaway.

"The Host"

The Host is a monster movie that transcends the horror genre. There are several scary scenes, to be sure (including a fantastic crowd chase scene), but there are also moments of political conspiracy, family dysfunction, medical melodrama, and humor. During one scene, a family mourns over the supposed death of a young girl, but their mourning devolves into an absurd, slapstick fight. Since I'm unfamiliar with Korean culture, I didn't understand if their mourning was proto-typical or merely played as a comic device for the film. I felt guilty laughing during the scene, but only a little. No matter - I've always been a fan of monster films, and The Host certainly delivered on many levels.

On orders from his American superior, a Korean mortician dumps "dirty" formaldahyde down the drain, pipes that lead directly to the Han River. Several years later, a beast rises from the river and starts to hunt, prefering people above any other creature. The monster looks like an elongated fish with legs, but it's much more than that. It's truly a wonder to behold, and certainly the best film monster since Alien. The creature grabs a young girl, dragging her to its lair in the city sewer system. The film focuses on the family of this girl, and their struggle to bring her back to them. If you're in the mood to see a film involving family melodrama, political intrigue, killer chase scenes, and a hideously beautiful monster, go rent The Host.

You can read Jim Emerson's review, on Roger Ebert's site, here.

"I Am Legend"

***SPOILER ALERT - YOU'VE BEEN WARNED ***

I've been to New York City once in my life, in my teen years on a vacation with my parents and Cincy Sister's family. NYC is the most densely populated city in the United States, holding over 8.2 million souls in its five boroughs. A person could easily lose himself in the human sea that sweeps through the streets every morning, afternoon and evening. With that many people around him, he could easily hide and not be found. I found the city a marvel to behold.

As I Am Legend neatly shows, the city is even more a marvel with no one in it. The film begins with a lone man, gracefully played by Will Smith, and his canine companion racing through the deserted streets with a high-powered shotgun, chasing deer in a hot red sportscar. Years of neglect have allowed trees and tallgrass to break through the concrete, turning the urban jungle into a real one. Broadway signs for Wicked and a Batman/Superman movie (fanboys, take heart - it could happen!) cry out for attendees to come to stages that have been darkened for years. The scenes featuring a destroyed Brooklyn Bridge are particularly engrossing.

I Am Legend is based loosely on the 1954 novel by Richard Matheson, and tells the story of a man who believes himself to be the last person alive, or at least the last one alive on the island of Manhattan. Robert Neville, a virologist and an Army colonel, is apparently immune to strain of genetically-engineered measles created to cure cancer but with the unfortunate side effect of turning people into sunlight-abhorring mutants with super-human abilities. Neville left a radio message for anyone who might hear, explaining that he would be at a dock everyday "when the sun is highest" to offer food and shelter to anyone who comes. Besides hunting deer, he works on what he hopes to be a cure to help those who are infected.

What are the infected like? Well, they are never actually given a name, except perhaps by one character who calls them "dark seekers." The virus seems to disfigure those infected so that they become more like a CGI character than an actual human, so it's hard to have any kind of sympathy for them (at least not the same kind that Neville has). They also seem to have the ability to climb buildings and withstand an incredibly high pain level. Is there any kind of virus that comes to close to this?

There are so many spiritual themes present in the film that I found it hard to believe that Roger Ebert and Owen Gleiberman, two of my favorite reviewers, completely ignored them in their review. Perhaps Roger and Owen missed them, but I noticed several.

• In a flashback scene, Neville's daughter encouraged him to "follow the butterfly." Near the end of the film, Neville meets a character with a butterfly tattoo. The metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly represents new life. The spiritual implication here is that a new life is possible for those that are infected. The Christian begins her new life when she realizes that she is a sinner and only belief in the risen Christ can save her.
• Neville discovers that salvation for those infected lies within his own blood, since he is immune to the virus. The Christian believes that Jesus died on the cross, shedding His blood, for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
• The infected can only move around in darkness; they cannot abide the light (John 3:19).
• Neville gives his life so that others can carry the cure to give to those infected. The Christian believes that Jesus offered His life to save sinners (Mark 10:45).

There are a few tense moments within the film, especially when Neville chases his canine companion into a dark building. Later in the film, Neville is forced to commit an act that he never wished to do. The look on his face is one of profound horror, and tells you what he is doing what actually showing the act. In that scene alone, Smith shows that he's become a premier actor.

Roger Ebert picks the year's best films

2006, that is. He explains:

Yes, I know it's a year late, but a funny thing happened to me on the way to compiling a list of the best films of 2006. I checked into the hospital in late June 2006 and didn't get out again until spring of 2007. For a long while, I just didn't feel like watching movies. Then something revolved within me, and I was engaged in life again.

I started writing reviews of the 2006 films, starting with The Queen, and screened the Oscar nominees to make my annual predictions. Then I began doubling back to pick up as many promising titles as I could. Am I missing some pf the year's worthy entries? No doubt. But even in a good year I'm unable to see everything. And I'm still not finished with my 2006 discoveries. I'm still looking at more 2007 movies, too, and that list will run as usual in late December.

Nothing I am likely to see, however, is likely to change my conviction that the year's best film was Pan's Labyrinth.

I absolutely hated the ending of Pan's Labyrinth, but that doesn't make Ebert's assessment any less correct. The film is truly an imaginative wonder. Of all the movie monsters I have seen, the Pale Man is the one I'd least want to meet in real life.