Movie Review: Religulous (2008)

[Dave Gray]

Premise: Bill Maher interviews a wide array of religious figures, to illustrate a point that we may be living a self-fulfilling prophecy for the end of days.

Rating: Good, but a missed opportunity.

I know that some of you on here are really religious.  If that's the case, this movie will probably just piss you off.  So, just avoid it, if you're sensitive about your faith.

For the rest of you, you might be a bit surprised by what you see.

Maher is in the "I don't know" camp and this movie isn't really about debunking religion.  Maher pretty much just turns the camera on people and lets them tell their own story.  Usually, that's enough to make people look pretty silly, when edited properly.  But also, it leaves you kinda liking some of the religious people who you feel really do care about Maher at the end of the interview.  Maher mocks his interviewees a bit, but never too much where it gets uncomfortable, and the interviews usually end with Maher and the subject having a good rapport.  And once in a while, you're surprised by some good answers and unexpected viewpoints of the interviews. 

Unfortuantely, though, Maher focuses too much on fringe religion -- those that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, speaking in tongues, Orthodox Jews, Muslims hell bent on global jihad, etc.  There are certain segments of the movie that even get crazier than that.   ...a guy that thinks he IS Jesus, for example.

He touches on the basics, too, but in my opinion, there's enough silliness in the basic tenants of the major faiths, not to have to dig too far into the fringe to find things worth making a movie about.  And then it ties up with how religious fundamentalists (of all religions) believe that the end of days is coming, and if we aren't careful, they're going to make it that way, through using nukes and an unhealthy appetite for God.

What I think lacked in this movie is that it was funny...almost to a detriment.  I would've liked to see Maher drive home some points, by using legitimate scientists to tell the average viewer just how much we DO know.  Stats are used on screen, but it wasn't as effective as it could've been.

For example:

[minor SPOILER]

Maher visits a creationist museum.  The owner of the museum explains some of the stuff about it, and we're treated to an exhibit where animatronic dinosaurs and children are playing together.  ...and that's kind of it.  It's ridiculous, but we're left to make that assertion ourselves.  It would've been nice to have an archaeologist on, explaining that not only were humans and dinosaurs not alive together, but that they were separated by 65 MILLION years.  ...and that it is not a disputed fact in the scientific community.   But nothing like that was done.

If you're open minded about faith, you will probably enjoy the movie, but you'll find that it's nothing more than an interesting look in the silly practices of the fringe.  If you're set in your faith, go to church instead.

[jtex316]

This movie does assume that the viewer knows that not only did humans NOT play with dinosaurs, we didn't have saddles on the back of diceratops's (Yes, there is a saddle on the back of a dinosaur at this museum). But I think that is fine, and I won't give points away for that.

I did think that the movie did drag on a bit towards the tail-end of it. The first 2/3rds of the movie seemed to me to be more "action packed" with stupid people and funny one-liners everywhere...and then it sort-of slowed down and got somewhat monotonous towards the end. I would like to have seen more "Bill Maher" time ranting and bitching about something, instead of that seemingly very-long interview with that man in Jerusalem.

Dave - I think that "Jesus" at that Orlando theme park doesn't necessarily think he is Jesus, but he is very "into" the character that he plays at that particular event at the theme park. He looks like Jesus, too...

Overall: Good, and a scary insight into some pretty whacked out people that are out there (like that American in Michigan who had a revelation after he asked for rain and "God" made it rain...WOW....)

[Dave Gray]

Dave - I think that "Jesus" at that Orlando theme park doesn't necessarily think he is Jesus, but he is very "into" the character that he plays at that particular event at the theme park. He looks like Jesus, too...

Yeah, I know.  I'm not talking about that guy.

There was one guy who thought he was the 2nd coming of Jesus.  He was that Hispanic guy that had a church. 

Also, most of this stuff happened in Florida.  What's up with that?

[run_to_win]

Maher pretty much just turns the camera on people and lets them tell their own story.  Usually, that's enough to make people look pretty silly, when edited properly. 

That pretty much explains a lot of your "man on the street interviews".  It's refreshing, and quite surprising, that Maher did not use this tactic.  Perhaps he's a bigger man than I give him credit for?

Unfortuantely, though, Maher focuses too much on fringe religion...

Of course.  *sigh*

If I wanted to mock .... abortion, for example, I wouldn't visit a bunch of teenagers who were the victim of rape or incest.  I'd find the one lady who uses abortion as birth control.

Our society seems to always argue the extremes.  For views that we oppose we always focus on the extremes of that view to make our case.

If you're open minded about faith, you will probably enjoy the movie, but you'll find that it's nothing more than an interesting look in the silly practices of the fringe.

Does he ever state that these are the extremes or does he try to pass them off as mainstream?  


Good review.   It sounds better than I expected.

[run_to_win]

Also, most of this stuff happened in Florida.  What's up with that?

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day when I heard about Congressman Tim Mahoney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14mahoney.html?ref=politics

[Dave Gray]

Does he ever state that these are the extremes or does he try to pass them off as mainstream?

He lets you know that they are pretty extreme, I think.  And he does touch on the main religions, too, but it doesn't make as interesting a story.  But you don't really need to be told what's fringe and what's not.  It's pretty obvious.

[SCFinfan]

Maher is the H.L. Mencken of our day, plain and simple.

I'm kinda interested to see this movie.  Good review, Dave.

[run_to_win]

Maher is the H.L. Mencken of our day...

Elitist and anti-semitic?

[SCFinfan]

^

Amongst other things...

[Spider-Dan]

I think it's a little disingenuous to call Mencken anti-semitic.  He had the same lack of regard for all religions, not just Judaism.

"It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and
omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of
gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the
board of a corporation that is losing money."

"The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live
is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense
and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."

[jtex316]

Bill Maher just makes a lot of sense to me. He doesn't believe in 2000+ year old fairy tales and neither do I. We connect.

[Sunstroke]

I think it's a little disingenuous to call Mencken anti-semitic.  He had the same lack of regard for all religions, not just Judaism.

I'm glad someone noted the distinction...and am surprised, nay, shocked that RTW would stoop to an inflammatory mislabeling just to flash his rapier-like wit.

(...and )

"The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live
is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense
and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."

I thought the best part of that came later in the quote...

"This convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency."

[landlocked]

If I ever meet Biill Maher,I will most likely kick his ass(slowly and methodically while I mock his political views)........and then I will ask God to forgive me.

[SCFinfan]

Bill Maher just makes a lot of sense to me. He doesn't believe in 2000+ year old fairy tales and neither do I. We connect.

Atheism is just as old, and in my view, more of a fairy-tale than any religion ever will be. Try reading Lucretius and Democritus and you'll see what I mean.

"This convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency."

This statement, while in context an insult against Christians, is certainly applicable to both the religious and the not-so.  That you happen to apply it solely to the religious shows only your lack of experience with articulate believers, and very little else.

Furthermore, we ought to hope that convention protects all of our religious views.  Don't atheists gain great benefit from this?  What exactly are you attempting to say, that you want this convention to disappear? Certainly that would wreak quite a traumatic effect on snobbish atheists who tend to think they have a monopoly on reason. Y'all go around poking us in the eye all the time and calling yourselves reasonable for doing it. C'mon now, if anyone has to be placated and tolerated it's  atheists.

I think it's a little disingenuous to call Mencken anti-semitic.  He had the same lack of regard for all religions, not just Judaism.

"It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and
omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of
gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the
board of a corporation that is losing money."

"The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live
is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense
and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."

You are viewing the word anti-semitism too narrowly.  The word is anti-semitic, not anti-Judaic. It is possible to hate "Jews" for non-religious reasons. In that light, Mencken can also be quoted, in his foreword to Nietsche's The AntiChrist as saying:

On the Continent, the day is saved by the fact that the plutocracy tends to become more and more Jewish. Here the intellectual cynicism of the Jew almost counterbalances his social unpleasantness. If he is destined to lead the plutocracy of the world out of Little Bethel he will fail, of course, to turn it into an aristocracy--i. e., a caste of gentlemen--, but he will at least make it clever, and hence worthy of consideration. The case against the Jews is long and damning; it would justify ten thousand times as many pogroms as now go on in the world. But whenever you find a Davidsbündlerschaft making practise against the Philistines, there you will find a Jew laying on.

I think it goes without saying that the foregoing is MIGHTY anti-semitic.

Now, of course, had anyone even tangentially associated with religion blathered such unthinking idiocy, y'all would all dogpile on the rabbit. But instead, showing cool, unbiased intellectual superiority and disrespect of the merely social convention of respecting others' religions, y'all rush to his defense.  O God, if only I could see so clearly! If only I could be so logical, so intellectual! Perhaps then I'd dip my hand into scalding acid or set my house on fire.

If I ever meet Biill Maher,I will most likely kick his ass(slowly and methodically while I mock his political views)........and then I will ask God to forgive me.

Don't say silly things like this.  You shouldn't let him get under your skin.  He's in the wrong.  Not you.

[Sunstroke]

This statement, while in context an insult against Christians, is certainly applicable to both the religious and the not-so.  That you happen to apply it solely to the religious shows only your lack of experience with articulate believers, and very little else.

Your assumption that I apply it solely to the religious, based on one instance where it is used against the religious, shows only your ability to jump to conclusions...even when they aren't conclusions, but merely suppositions.

O God, if only I could see so clearly! If only I could be so logical, so intellectual! Perhaps then I'd dip my hand into scalding acid or set my house on fire. 

I have complete faith that doing either of those things would be really stupid.

Oh wait...that's not faith, that's logic. My bad...

Y'all go around poking us in the eye all the time and calling yourselves reasonable for doing it.

Actually, it's God's eye that we poke at, and if it were as all-seeing as advertised, He'd probably move out of the way (or close His divine bulletproof eyelid) before it got poked.