kookooketchu
Joined May 2008
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
kookooketchu's rating
It's fun to read the reviews, because I found this movie on the safe side. Sure Bill Maher interviewed some people on the edge, but I've seen and heard extremists far more radical than any that Maher interviewed. I think he was more concerned with showing what the MASSES believe.
Maher repeatedly says he doesn't know. He isn't trying to provide anyone "an answer" but rather showing how people find and cling to their particular "answer." He was also generally polite, although it's tricky because the more serious the believer, the less humor they seem to have. So they become the straight man to Maher's comedy. He basically just asked questions. If trying to answer those questions makes someone's beliefs appear silly - is it the fault of the questioner? Besides, he didn't twist anyone's arm to speak with him. Each person interviewed agreed to be in the film.
I give Religulous a 7, because as a documentary, I'd have liked to see more information, and as for laughs, I was expecting something a little funnier. At least there were some gems under the special features (such as his monologues) that provided additional laughs.
Maher repeatedly says he doesn't know. He isn't trying to provide anyone "an answer" but rather showing how people find and cling to their particular "answer." He was also generally polite, although it's tricky because the more serious the believer, the less humor they seem to have. So they become the straight man to Maher's comedy. He basically just asked questions. If trying to answer those questions makes someone's beliefs appear silly - is it the fault of the questioner? Besides, he didn't twist anyone's arm to speak with him. Each person interviewed agreed to be in the film.
I give Religulous a 7, because as a documentary, I'd have liked to see more information, and as for laughs, I was expecting something a little funnier. At least there were some gems under the special features (such as his monologues) that provided additional laughs.
I have seen many films that I liked, that only received a 6.8 in here, and thus I have until now considered IMDb members to vote rather conservatively.
But a 7.3? Seems like Disney has many, many, "reviewers" working for them. This movie is BAD in so many ways that it's easy to lose count. In addition to being slow, and dull, they did not even try to show any realism. - Where are the daunting snow storms? Why is so sunny during the season where it is dark 23 hours out of the day? And why are the dogs being so polite? They show near-starving dogs catching a bird, and then passing the dead bird off to each other - "Here, you take it." "No, really. I couldn't. You take it." "No No No No. YOU take it."
How is it that when people are stranded, they may revert to the behavior of "lesser" animals, while these dogs act especially proper and polite? "Dewey has just slipped down the hill. Let us go help him!" If they were going to expend such precious energy trekking down to see (the now dead) Dewey - perhaps it would be to partake in their first real meal.
The "true story" this was based upon was a 1958 Japanese expedition to the South Pole. They left behind 15 Sakhalin Huskies (which they could not return for, due to bad weather), for eleven months. Two survived.
There was no scientist who found a "rare meteorite from the planet Mercury," nor one who dropped down an embankment, cracking through the ice requiring a dog rescue - ("Timmy fell down a very cold well. Bring him this rope Lassie!") nor any of the rest of his storyline. The writers could have done so much better. At least the beautiful and talented dogs remain blissfully unaware of the poorness of this movie.
But a 7.3? Seems like Disney has many, many, "reviewers" working for them. This movie is BAD in so many ways that it's easy to lose count. In addition to being slow, and dull, they did not even try to show any realism. - Where are the daunting snow storms? Why is so sunny during the season where it is dark 23 hours out of the day? And why are the dogs being so polite? They show near-starving dogs catching a bird, and then passing the dead bird off to each other - "Here, you take it." "No, really. I couldn't. You take it." "No No No No. YOU take it."
How is it that when people are stranded, they may revert to the behavior of "lesser" animals, while these dogs act especially proper and polite? "Dewey has just slipped down the hill. Let us go help him!" If they were going to expend such precious energy trekking down to see (the now dead) Dewey - perhaps it would be to partake in their first real meal.
The "true story" this was based upon was a 1958 Japanese expedition to the South Pole. They left behind 15 Sakhalin Huskies (which they could not return for, due to bad weather), for eleven months. Two survived.
There was no scientist who found a "rare meteorite from the planet Mercury," nor one who dropped down an embankment, cracking through the ice requiring a dog rescue - ("Timmy fell down a very cold well. Bring him this rope Lassie!") nor any of the rest of his storyline. The writers could have done so much better. At least the beautiful and talented dogs remain blissfully unaware of the poorness of this movie.
I like Ricky Gervais, but I have found him much funnier than in this movie, which is just a retread of various (better) movies. Perhaps if he were to write his own material. Tea Leone and Greg Kinnear had little to work with, which was a waste of both their talents.
There were not enough laughs, and some scenes were painful to watch - such as their discussion over the contents of the pot accompanying the mummy, and when Gervais' character was mocking Chinese names. (And it's not about political correctness, but rather simply not being funny). The one time I laughed out loud was when Gervais' character went looking for interrogation advice from his ethnic work associate.
This movie is okay, with some amusing moments and actors who are at least fun to watch. But there is nothing novel in the movie, and the ending is weak. I also miss not seeing what happened with the naked ghost.
There were not enough laughs, and some scenes were painful to watch - such as their discussion over the contents of the pot accompanying the mummy, and when Gervais' character was mocking Chinese names. (And it's not about political correctness, but rather simply not being funny). The one time I laughed out loud was when Gervais' character went looking for interrogation advice from his ethnic work associate.
This movie is okay, with some amusing moments and actors who are at least fun to watch. But there is nothing novel in the movie, and the ending is weak. I also miss not seeing what happened with the naked ghost.