imdb-3362
Joined Apr 2004
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.
Reviews15
imdb-3362's rating
Saw Bill Maher's Religulous yesterday. Regular viewers of Real Time with Bill Maher and Bill's stand-up shows will know what to expect, and Bill doesn't fail to deliver. Religulous is a good-humoured attack on religious beliefs in general and the big religious organisations in the US in particular. Through a series of irreverent interviews with ministers, priests, rabbis, 'formerly gay' evangelicals and 'escaped' Mormons, Bill paints a picture of hypocrisy, lack of logical reasoning, evasive answers and rigid doctrine.
The way Bill approaches these people is certainly a breath of fresh air. There have been other documentaries dealing with religion, but even the most critical of these usually display some (innate?) reverence towards 'persons of the cloth', whether they deserve any or not. Not Bill. When a 'formerly gay' minister decides to hug Bill farewell, the latter simply inquires about a possible hard-on. When a group of men in a truck stop chapel decide to bless Bill and pull him into a prayer circle, he claims to be missing his wallet afterward, etcetera. There are plenty of irreverent and funny moments like that.
Still it isn't all good. It's quite clear that Bill took a leaf or two from Michael Moore's and Stephen Colbert's editing play-books. Asking a difficult or trick question and substituting a likely answer with a puzzled or stupid look just to make the subject look goofy has been done before. It is funny when it's not overdone. In Religulous it is used a lot, and although it serves its comedic purpose quite effectively, it does look like a cop-out when done to death. Bill Maher is a very funny person, and religion hardly needs any parody; using editing tricks to stress either point makes it look a bit forced.
There is one other point that feels like a missed opportunity: Bill is so busy showing the downside and inconsistencies of religious beliefs that the case for atheism that he is clearly trying to make is underexposed. The documentary could easily have lost the UK rapper (who failed to utter a consistent thought), the Dutch cannabis guy (who failed to utter any thought until his hair caught on fire) and the gay Muslim guys (who failed to do more than sit there). That would have freed up ten minutes or so for people like Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens, both of whom are among the most eloquent and savvy defenders of atheism and critics of religious beliefs. They appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher numerous times, so they would undoubtedly have been happy to voice their opinion. It would have made Religulous into a more coherent atheist manifesto.
The rather one-sided (albeit humorous) approach fails to put Religulous into the 'ooompf!' class of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. It is preaching to the atheist choir (people who don't need to be convinced) and it will fail to cause even a slight dent in the religious mindset (people who only respond to strong-armed manipulation or even propaganda). Adding Richard Dawkins and Michael Moore as executive producers to the payroll of Religulous II might be a good idea
The way Bill approaches these people is certainly a breath of fresh air. There have been other documentaries dealing with religion, but even the most critical of these usually display some (innate?) reverence towards 'persons of the cloth', whether they deserve any or not. Not Bill. When a 'formerly gay' minister decides to hug Bill farewell, the latter simply inquires about a possible hard-on. When a group of men in a truck stop chapel decide to bless Bill and pull him into a prayer circle, he claims to be missing his wallet afterward, etcetera. There are plenty of irreverent and funny moments like that.
Still it isn't all good. It's quite clear that Bill took a leaf or two from Michael Moore's and Stephen Colbert's editing play-books. Asking a difficult or trick question and substituting a likely answer with a puzzled or stupid look just to make the subject look goofy has been done before. It is funny when it's not overdone. In Religulous it is used a lot, and although it serves its comedic purpose quite effectively, it does look like a cop-out when done to death. Bill Maher is a very funny person, and religion hardly needs any parody; using editing tricks to stress either point makes it look a bit forced.
There is one other point that feels like a missed opportunity: Bill is so busy showing the downside and inconsistencies of religious beliefs that the case for atheism that he is clearly trying to make is underexposed. The documentary could easily have lost the UK rapper (who failed to utter a consistent thought), the Dutch cannabis guy (who failed to utter any thought until his hair caught on fire) and the gay Muslim guys (who failed to do more than sit there). That would have freed up ten minutes or so for people like Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens, both of whom are among the most eloquent and savvy defenders of atheism and critics of religious beliefs. They appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher numerous times, so they would undoubtedly have been happy to voice their opinion. It would have made Religulous into a more coherent atheist manifesto.
The rather one-sided (albeit humorous) approach fails to put Religulous into the 'ooompf!' class of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. It is preaching to the atheist choir (people who don't need to be convinced) and it will fail to cause even a slight dent in the religious mindset (people who only respond to strong-armed manipulation or even propaganda). Adding Richard Dawkins and Michael Moore as executive producers to the payroll of Religulous II might be a good idea
This rates highly on my 'most boring movie ever' list. Went to see it with a friend, and we were actually on the brink of placing a bet on who would scream or run out first. By sheer determination, we made it to the final (and hardly deserved) credits without snoring.
One inconsequential, meaningless scene after the other, with 'look how interesting we edited it, and isn't this a cliffhanger' oozing from it. Unfounded pretense in its purest form.
I'm not fond of action movies at all, but this is ridiculous. Nothing happens at all, but we're supposed to feel at least ten intricate layers of tension all of the time? That's what the movie appears to suggest, but it does not deliver.
There's the guy from The Flying Doctors, or whatever that awful Oz soap my mother liked to watch years back is called. Hardly a credible character in what appears to pose as a psychological thriller/drama (which it isn't on any of its purported levels). And what are Geoffrey Rush and Barbara Hershey doing down there? Was the movie shot on some kind of an Actor Sabbatical Trip Down Under?
That's the trouble with movies that aspire to be all moody, interesting and ambitious: too many famous faces (not necessarily fitting the script) are injected into it, and the final question is "Why didn't they get Pacino and De Niro as well, in a package deal?". It is an unbelievable mix of characters in an unbelievable, and in the end very shallow, story, which made me so tired that I actually had trouble sleeping the same night, and produced a throbbing headache the next day.
One inconsequential, meaningless scene after the other, with 'look how interesting we edited it, and isn't this a cliffhanger' oozing from it. Unfounded pretense in its purest form.
I'm not fond of action movies at all, but this is ridiculous. Nothing happens at all, but we're supposed to feel at least ten intricate layers of tension all of the time? That's what the movie appears to suggest, but it does not deliver.
There's the guy from The Flying Doctors, or whatever that awful Oz soap my mother liked to watch years back is called. Hardly a credible character in what appears to pose as a psychological thriller/drama (which it isn't on any of its purported levels). And what are Geoffrey Rush and Barbara Hershey doing down there? Was the movie shot on some kind of an Actor Sabbatical Trip Down Under?
That's the trouble with movies that aspire to be all moody, interesting and ambitious: too many famous faces (not necessarily fitting the script) are injected into it, and the final question is "Why didn't they get Pacino and De Niro as well, in a package deal?". It is an unbelievable mix of characters in an unbelievable, and in the end very shallow, story, which made me so tired that I actually had trouble sleeping the same night, and produced a throbbing headache the next day.
Quite an interesting solution to the troubles of small-town, rural America in the end there.
It takes a bit of getting used to the stark set, but the minimalist approach to the lowest common denominator in human behavior does work after a while.
Nicole Kidman executes her role with admirable precision, although the final scenes appear to hold the middle-ground between being contrived and looking for a quick and dramatic finish after two hours of walking pace. I don't think I was the only one who suspected that there was more to the gangster story that brought Nicole to town than 'just an occasion to get her there'. The movie managed to close the circle, but with a bit of a clank. Or with a bell, to remain in style.
The display of basic human avarice, meanness and lack of self-restraint is presented in a convincing way by the rest of the cast.
One thing that did bother me quite a bit was the uneven camera work. In a (somewhat overestimated and overused) attempt to pull the audience into the scenes by becoming 'their eyes', a lot of nervous and shaky images, especially present when performing fast 90-degree pans and when trying to keep up with a moving actor in close-up, presented at least me with a mild, but annoying headache after a while. I would have preferred a more smooth, 'steadicam' approach to this embellished (and slightly long) stage-play. After all, when I look at something up close, I don't usually shake my head all the time, nor do I rotate on my heels to look behind me. This is a dead and dull town; it doesn't need a speedy, giddy treatment.
Anyway, interesting exercise, captivating set of circumstances, and fuel on the fire of the misanthropists, who know they're right in the end. And who would have loved to re-enact the last chapter for real, had they not been kind fools at heart, and hating themselves for it.
8/10
It takes a bit of getting used to the stark set, but the minimalist approach to the lowest common denominator in human behavior does work after a while.
Nicole Kidman executes her role with admirable precision, although the final scenes appear to hold the middle-ground between being contrived and looking for a quick and dramatic finish after two hours of walking pace. I don't think I was the only one who suspected that there was more to the gangster story that brought Nicole to town than 'just an occasion to get her there'. The movie managed to close the circle, but with a bit of a clank. Or with a bell, to remain in style.
The display of basic human avarice, meanness and lack of self-restraint is presented in a convincing way by the rest of the cast.
One thing that did bother me quite a bit was the uneven camera work. In a (somewhat overestimated and overused) attempt to pull the audience into the scenes by becoming 'their eyes', a lot of nervous and shaky images, especially present when performing fast 90-degree pans and when trying to keep up with a moving actor in close-up, presented at least me with a mild, but annoying headache after a while. I would have preferred a more smooth, 'steadicam' approach to this embellished (and slightly long) stage-play. After all, when I look at something up close, I don't usually shake my head all the time, nor do I rotate on my heels to look behind me. This is a dead and dull town; it doesn't need a speedy, giddy treatment.
Anyway, interesting exercise, captivating set of circumstances, and fuel on the fire of the misanthropists, who know they're right in the end. And who would have loved to re-enact the last chapter for real, had they not been kind fools at heart, and hating themselves for it.
8/10