Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Religulous (2008, duh)

This is topic Religulous (2008, duh) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001466

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-03-2008, 07:51 PM:

I haven't seen this movie in its entirety and I am certainly no Bill Maher fan, but the movie does have its moments. I certainly agree with the point of the movie, but I don't like how the movie itself was made. When peeps are being interviewed, it keeps cutting back to a camera which is way behind all of the others just so they can show a shot of the camera that is two feet away from Bill and guest. This happens often and annoys me greatly. I am also annoyed by the "alternative angles" that sometimes occur when Billy is talking directly to the camera and then it cuts to another camera which is also pointing at Bill, but he is still talking to the other camera and then it cuts back to the first one. I really despise that kind of shooting/editing since it looks very amateurish.

Still, there are some genuinely funny moments and if you can stomach Bill Maher for 2 hours, it would probably be worth a look. This movie is doing surprisingly well. I thought we would have picketers outside being as it seems that most people love themselves some religion, but instead we can't sell tickets fast enough. Even 20 minutes after the show has already started, people are trying to buy tickets. Very strange! A documentary that definitely needed to be made... just preferably by someone else.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-15-2008, 10:47 AM:

I would like to suggest strictly for historical accuracy and the integrity of the Film-Tech website, that the actual spelling of this piece of crap appears to be "Religulous".

Not that anyone cares, I'm sure.

Have a wonderful day.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-15-2008, 01:35 PM:

My main problem with this movie is that most of the interviews are simply perfect examples of straw-man arguments.

For instance, it's disingenuous to label Orthodox Jews as "just as nutty as they come" then interview an anti-Zionist Rabbi as if he somehow represents Orthodox Judaism. Or interviewing another Rabbi who builds machines to do work for you on the Sabbath since he says that "in an emergency, you might have to do something." Or making fun of Christians because there's a group of them in Amsterdam who smoke pot as a sacrament. And in another, making fun of Christians by interviewing a guy who plays Jesus in a Passion play as if he's somehow a well-versed theological scholar?

He's a funny guy and I liked his "Politically Incorrect" show but this movie doesn't cut it. I expected something better from someone as intelligent as Maher.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-15-2008, 06:39 PM:

I feel anyone who believes in any kind of religion won't enjoy it and will probably be offended for daring to challenge their beliefs. This movie is likely to change no one. People have to make that change on their own.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-15-2008, 07:51 PM:

I don't even think it's that (though I am a Christian). I imagine there are plenty of atheists out there who would rather that "their side" be seen as doing something more substantial than making fun of people and would prefer intelligent dialogue to what's in this movie.

And I wasn't really offended by the movie (few things really offend me). I was more disappointed by it.

Posted by Robert Crabtree (Member # 4795) on 10-17-2008, 10:46 PM:

On the whole...I was expecting worse. While I knew he would be spending the bulk of his time interviewing Christians to make them sound like rubes, at least he attempts a veneer of balance by including some LDS, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists in the scope of his scrutiny. And I did like the inclusion of the Water analogy.

While a bit more time could have been spent with each of those other groups, I'm a bit amused that he completely ignored some of the wackier faiths out there.

And an interesting coincidence to note, I saw this at a theatre that was hosting a Christian film festival.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-31-2008, 01:07 PM:

This movie is highly entertaining and deals with some very important issues, and for those reasons, I would strongly recommend it. But as a movie, it lacks cohesiveness and a strong through-line. The film does not support its thesis very well at all. Instead, it feels like a collection of amusing anecdotes, with a semi-related message tacked on at the end.

But altogether, it's way better than 99% of the crap out there, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for some laughs or some thought-provoking material.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-01-2008, 11:31 AM:

Now that's an endorsement if I ever saw one! [Smile]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-01-2008, 02:28 PM:

To clarify, the content was outstanding. It just happened to be a structural mess.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-01-2008, 04:02 PM:

Sounds like it's safe to say that Bill Maher is no Michael Moore.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2008, 05:41 PM:

Bill Maher is entitled to make whatever kind of movie he wants to make. I don't agree with many of his views on religion, but at least he has the nerve and backbone to stand up for what he believes rather than bend and apologize like so many on the left. Still, religion is a very touchy subject. I'm at least a bit slightly concerned for Maher's safety as long as he keeps beating on that subject in movies and his HBO TV series.