User reviews

Two things about this film took away a star. One was that Bill Maher spent so much time with the ones he tried to make look bad that he didn't meet with enough experts who could further the points he was making. The second problem is that the people he interviewed could have easily made fools of themselves without him cutting them off and lecturing them. That being said, let's get to the good points.

For one thing, he makes it so clear how illogical the mass amount of people can be. He exposes phony beliefs and shows how they can become very protective against his film crew. The film stock they put into use is done masterfully. Plenty of laugh out loud moments (particularly the image of Jesus as a teenager, you will see). My word must be taken as truth when I say that the final part of the film MUST be seen. This isn't just about cracking jokes on faith. This film is about the human race taking responsibility of itself and stopping the damage it has been doing for far too long.

I truly hope religious people are not quick to brush this film off. For once, listen to the side from someone who is sincerely concerned about all of our futures.

Saw the world premier of this at the Traverse City Film Festival. I am a big Bill Maher fan and this was definitely the movie/documentary I was most looking forward to at the festival.

I was not disappointed, though I think it could have been developed a bit more. It seemed to play to the lowest common denominator in that a lot of issues were touched on, sometimes in rapid fashion, but none was examined closely for any length of time. Any astute viewer of Real Time already knows what Maher thinks about religion and many of his arguments with regard to the same. I was hoping for a more in depth analysis of some of the primary aspects of how religion can negatively affect our world in ways that people might not intend. The documentary did that only on the surface. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising as the need to draw people into contemplative thought in this area is probably more of a priority than retaining those that already are there (not to mention selling more tickets).

Subsequent to the showing, director Larry Charles had a discussion on stage with Michael Moore, with questions from the audience. Larry pointed out that he had many many more hours of footage that didn't make it into the final cut, and that he thought maybe a series could be released on cable of this material. I would very much like to see that happen as I think it would quell the thirst I had for more substance with less of the fluff.

However, kudos for Maher and Charles for doing this. If it is successful in getting people to think about religion in real world terms, then it has accomplished its goal.

I watched Bill Maher's new movie, Religulous at it's world premiere at the Traverse City Film Festival. It was one of the first films to sell out at the festival, selling out in just the first couple days of sales.

Okay... now for the movie review: for those of you who thought that Dawkin's "Root of all evil" or "Jesus Camp" were powerful statements, then you might want to wear diapers because you might just crap yourself. Religulous doesn't take prisoners. It addresses Christianity, Scientology, Mormonism,Islam, and other religions. Bill Maher travels around the word, visiting the Wailing Wall, USA Bible Belt, Salt Lake City, and other locations while interviewing a wide range of religious leaders and followers.

Throughout the interviews, Bill throws out zingers and the joke timing is impeccable. Like the pro-creationist movie "Expelled", Religulous cuts to a variety of old film stock when making jokes. Although it fails at times, I would say the vast majority of the cuts connect and generates hearty laughs.

The first third of the film deals with Christianity and several offshoots of it. Here, the movie shines. It is hilarious! Poking jab after jab into insane ideas by asking simple questions.

Unfortunately, the move starts to slow down after he lampoons Scientology. Dressed as a vagrant, he appears in Hyde Park's Speaker's Corner and runs through Scientology's belief structure... appearing as a raving lunatic while accurately describing what that religion teaches.

By the time it deals with Islam, a lot of inertia has been lost. Although it still delivers some funny bits, the movie is much more subdued. Granted, anytime you are dealing with a subject so inflammatory that people have been killed over it, you tread lightly, but I think Christians will criticize the movie for being softer on Islam than on Christianity. The sad thing is that it's true. Being the more dangerous religion, people seem to be treating Islam with kid gloves. I wonder how long before other religions start adopting that tactic as they become threatened by critics? The ending is a fiery call to action for freethinkers. Rousing music & inflammatory speech hammer the dangers of religion into the audience. Propaganda techniques? Yes. Pretty heavy-handed about it too. However, I think it's needed. The flow of the movie needed something to bring things together and although thick with images and rhetoric... it is a solid ending.

Is it worth seeing? Hell yes! Will people be offended? Most definitely. Will there be protesters? There should be, this is far more blasphemous than "Dogma", "Passion of the Christ", or "The DeVinci Code".

Comparing "Expelled" to "Religulous", it's pretty quickly apparent that Religulous is the better movie. Bill Maher, with his previous experience doing standup and conducting interviews shames Ben Stein. Nicely done Bill!

Just returned from a screening. Let me say I am a sucker for a good documentary and this film makes a load of powerful points that just cannot be refuted. As someone who believes in evolution as well as God, the film did enlighten me about a host of issues that I had been unaware of. In recent weeks my biggest fear has been that the Neo-cons were finally going to give someone the nuclear football that truly believes in the rapture. Bush and McCain and Reagan and even Bush Sr. catered to the evangelists because they are sheep and are as strong a voting block as this country has. But none of those politicians really believed things like every word of the Bible being literal. Now Palin comes along and she, like Huckabee who also scared me, is the real deal. The Neo-Cons have plucked an actual sheep to get the sheep vote this time. When people with beliefs like that are given power, the inevitable result is destruction, and that is the point that this admittedly at times hilarious film hammers in during the final 5 minutes. I call Maher a hero in that he fears the consequences of irrational religious so much that he is literally willing to put his life on the line to deliver his message.Make no mistake about it, this man will get death threats from the film and I will pray that that is all that he gets. I am not worried about a Christian extremist, though maybe I should be, I am worried about Muslim reaction to the film though he arguably treated that religion with a bit more of kid gloves than his other targets. I believe that everyone should see this film, but instead all the nuts that need to see this film the most, will probably be picketing in front of the theaters where the film is showing. Hugely entertaining, enlightening, hilarious and ultimately frightening what more could you ask from a couple of hours at the movies?

I found this movie exhilarating. I'm with you, Bill Maher! That said, this film attempts to cover the basic tenets and idiocies of several of the major religions, namely Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam. It also encompasses evangelical/American/born-again-type Jesus-focused religion, which considers itself "Christian" but I have never understood that title, since Catholics revere Jesus also. But anyway...

Maher is a smart man, and I would like to think that he considered the points I feel were left out of the movie and chose not to include them for the sake of condensing the film. However, there are several facts that I think would have made an even stronger case against mass religion in general:

1. Although Maher mentions several times that the Judeo-Christian Bible was written by men, and therefore contains the fallacies of men, he does not bring up the fact that the Bible has been constantly rewritten, translated from language to language, and amended to suit the needs of those in charge of its distribution -- for most of history since Christ, this was the Catholic Church and its founders. And for those of you who don't know, translation is not an exact science. Languages just do not translate word for word, and the accuracy of the translation depends on the skill, vocabulary, and motives of the translator (a human being, don't forget).

2. Catholicism was successful because it incorporated many old religions. Greek and Roman gods are just a few of those who have direct equivalents among the Catholic saints. Mahar discusses the inherent flaw in a monotheistic religion with bunches of demigods, but he does not point out that Catholicism deliberately found supposedly Catholic replacements for the more ancient, household-type gods. Why? Because those who wanted the religion to succeed decided that people would be more likely to convert to it if it weren't too different from what they were used to. Why did these men want the religion to succeed? For the same reasons that people promote religions today: to gain money and power, particularly in the form of influence. Maher reminds us that the story of Jesus Christ included many elements of older heroes or gods, but the film presents this as a matter of fact, not pointing out that Catholicism was built upon the success of these preceding stories and histories. The types of dramas that move the human spirit have not changed over thousands of years--they have simply been retold and reinterpreted.

3. My third point is more of a question. I was raised as a "nouveau" American Catholic, so I feel that I know a little bit about that religion, but I know next to nothing about Islam. However, it is my understanding that Mohammed did not want images of himself used to promote his teachings. Is this why some Muslims get so mad when an image, ridiculing or not, of the prophet is publicized? I wish Maher had included this, as he did talk a lot about the violence specified in the Koran.

This is a terrific film. It is funny and has a great soundtrack. My hat is off to Maher for his nerve in interviewing people who become belligerent when their religion is questioned. I guess it partly comes from being a comedian--one must have guts and a thick skin! The message of the film, however, is not humorous at all. It is truly terrifying to think of all the murder, torture, and oppression that is perpetuated in the name of religion. Why then, is someone who calls himself "Godly" or "religious" considered to be a person with wholesome morals?

I just come back from watching religulous. I had a great time. Bill makes a lot of fun of all those silly things people actually believe. Obviously since I am an atheist I really enjoyed this movie, and I know that most believers will reject it altogether. But there is one thing that just occurred to me as I read through the comments here, it's the fact that, yes, people like me do not go around advertising their atheism. And I saw someone writing that this was why the religious people would always dominate. Well there you have it now though... Bill Maher's movie is definitely a non-believer statement, and a wonderful one at that. I am also painfully aware that it won't change anything in the sad state of affairs in the USA. But at least it's one solid step in the right direction. Now, why do I say "worrying" in the title of my review, well it's because I think that Bill's got it straight regarding the dangers of religion. How can you expect people to make rational decisions when they reject the teachings of the very same science that provides them day in and day out better lives?

I was really looking forward to this film because the one thing I hate on Real Time is when Bill Maher goes off on one about religion, making massive sweeping statements about people not being allowed to vote if they believe in angels etc. It is not that I disagree with the basic argument he says but just that he doesn't seem to have a lot to back it up and, the odd time he is called on it by the guests he will move along and not really seem to have much behind his general opinion that people with religious beliefs are idiots. So for me this film was not an opportunity to get more annoyed by this but rather give him my undivided attention and let him lay out his case.

He manages to do this here and there but nowhere near consistent or good enough to make an argument capable of changing minds – although perhaps good enough to provide food for thought. At the end of the film he gives a very good speech that sums up his film and this is probably the strongest part of the whole film as it challenges and makes reasonable points. OK it is loaded with imagery that backs up his points in a very blunt way but I can forgive him for this. What I have a problem with is that the rest of the film doesn't have this same core of logic and reasoned argument. He hits it here and there but too often he is doing two things. The first of these two things is that he will never give up an easy joke and this is not helped that his goal often seems to be that he seems very keen to mock people rather than reason with them. Hence we get the personal barbed remarks that are thrown out for the audience but the interviewees either don't hear or don't get their response shown. The second thing he does is select really weak people if his goal is anything other than mockery. I do agree with a lot of what Bill says – particularly about the role of religion in world politics. I do believe in the concept that religious tenants within people's personal lives as guides and moral foundation is something I can live with but when things are taken as fact and taken totally literally then things get out of hand. So I do want to see Bill present a more rounded argument and have that debate with people who can talk to him at the same sort of intellectual level.

Sadly what we get are interviews with a priest who is a self-appointed doctor, a man who plays Jesus at the Holy Land theme park, a Muslim extremist British rapper (who let me say has ZERO profile over here), a man who is a reformed homosexual, a man who claims to be descended directly from Jesus and thus now leads the one true church and others of similar quality. We do have experts on the roster but they are mainly used to back up what Maher is saying. Now, I know many people do not like him, but to me Maher is too smart to need to be protected from reasonable discussion. The only exception I would give is the one priest he talks to who seems very liberal and open to taking the basics of his religion and getting away from dogma and ritual. Outside of him though Maher does not have a hard time showing them up but, when he occasionally gets someone who is a bit more careful with language and phrasing and can prevent themselves sounding like nuts, the film uses an even more cowardly trick. What we get are Maher filmed in the car talking about the interview, which very much gives him the final word and allows him to make responses and ridicule once the individual is not there to respond anymore. I do like Maher enough to watch his stuff, but this is a cheap trick and cheapens the film by extension. Of course this doesn't look as bad when you consider the heavy editing in of footage from other films – some of it is fine to provide images, stimuli or just as a base but again mostly this is used to mock the subjects after the fact, the most unnecessary and annoying example being the use of Scarface – the guy was doing fine making himself look crazy, it didn't need the heavy hand.

I read a comment on this website that said if you disagree with Maher then the film is not for you, it is about you – sadly I have to agree with that. This film will do best with those who are coming to watch Maher put the boot in without a lot of finesse or intelligence – just like he often does on Real Time. There are plenty of moments where he makes very good points and allows his subjects to talk themselves into a corner but too often he is selecting weak targets (people at a theme park!), mocking them with easy gags, letting them make themselves look like idiots (which many are) and then standing back as if he has proved something beyond the point that this person, right here, is an idiot, which he has not. It is a real shame because this should be a film for everyone – even if not everyone likes it. If he is serious about his plea for moderates to look in the mirror then he needs to make a film that does that and, sadly, this isn't it. It provides food for thought and I did find it a rousing challenge to religion but it is nowhere near the film that he should have made.

This film was everything I expected and more... To admit, I never really knew much about Bill Maher when I went to see this film. I saw this at the Atlantic film festival and I loved it. My friend had told me that it was going to be good, so when I saw it in the schedule I said " Hmm, maybe i'll see this." So we did. It was hilarious, I wet myself at several points. But! It was also VERY insightful. I actually learned quite a bit about how religion can be REALLY stupid. And it's true. I really enjoyed the interviews with some people who just take everything way to seriously. I loved the comedy being used to explain things that are very serious. So I completely suggest this to everyone, not just Bill Mahers fans.

" You don't need to pass an IQ test to be a senator."

Maher is a hilarious and very smart dude, and his monologues in the movie are good. But overall, this documentary really missed the mark. My biggest problem was with the editing of the interviews he conducts, which are clearly cut on numerous occasions to make the interviewees look dumb, cutting to reactions that they almost certainly didn't make in response to the things Maher is made to seem as though he just asked or said to them.

Not just a propaganda piece, and more accessible than most of Bill Maher's creative output, Religulous still preaches to the choir (please excuse this phrase). However, the film does not seek to convert; rather, Maher wants current agnostics to gather their courage and preach their doubts. Deeply atheist and deeply religious people who see the film will likely be offended or feel as though their time has been wasted.

While this film is not as funny as Borat, Religulous (which, at times is actually pretty scary) is a more powerful film because this film is true. For a project written by and starring Maher, the clips in the film are (for the most part) surprisingly fair. Maher does not try to make any of the people in the film look stupid (at least no more stupid than himself); in fact, he (usually) tries to help people consider the position not that their personal/religious beliefs are incorrect but that their personal beliefs may be incorrect. Most people in the film will not consider this possibility (these are the people Maher is warning us about), but several important and seemingly wise religious figures also featured in the film agree with Maher about the danger of certainty.

I recommend Frailty to anyone who would like to see a fictional, story-line illustration of the main theme of this documentary/propaganda film. I recommend Religulous to anyone who is comfortable enough with himself/herself to doubt their personal beliefs, to consider the possibility that (s)he might be wrong.

With 16 percent of the U.S. population, the un-/non-/anti-religious represent a larger segment than blacks (13%), gays (3%), or NRA members (2%). Never mind the exact figures (which vary from source to source), focus on the question what kind of lobby do the non-religious have, with impact approaching those other groups? None, alas. Why is that?

It could be this: The militantly religious must be *right*, the secular - by definition - will not fight to the death for his truth (or god, not in evidence). My money is on the righteous, the fervent, the militant, the possessed. One day, they may even have an influence over the U.S. government! Meanwhile, in our corner, there is Bill Maher.

His "Religulous," directed by Larry Charles, is an entertaining, funny, angry, thought-provoking journey from the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Via Dolorosa, the Qumran Caves, to Stonehenge, Habibi Ana (and a Moslem Gay bar), the Vatican, the Holy Land Experience Park in Florida, the U.S. Capitol, Mormon Tabernacle, and many others.

Everywhere, Maher is asking a few simple questions: What do you believe, why, and how can you possibly...? Half Catholic, half Jewish, and fully agnostic, Maher is incredulous, in every sense of the word, but curiously warm and gentle asking questions about the "the final battle between intelligence and stupidity that will decide the future of humanity."

In Larry Charles' words, the situation confronted is like this: "An old God, a very buff old God that lives in space decides to create the first man from earth dust, then makes a woman from that man's rib. They get to live forever if they don't eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge, but the woman is tricked into eating a piece by a talking snake and all future humanity is cursed." And that, of course, is just the basic tenet of one religion. Discuss.

Maher goes on in his polite crusade to dissect some of the similar Star Wars/Disney scenarios in Scientology, Mormonism, among Orthodox Jews and televangelists. All interviews are interesting, but some are amazing and memorable. Father Reginald Foster - a senior Vatican scholar, principal Latinist for the Pope - will stun you as he agrees with Maher on some points. There is unexpected goodwill and kindness from a group of evangelists "attacked" by Maher; they pray for him, and really mean it.

You may have chills running down your back as you listen to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas), sitting in his Capitol office, speaking about his belief in Creationism and the literal interpretation of the Bible. You don't need to be a Christian to be offended (and amused) by the commercial Jesus impersonators Maher interviews, and you may feel a bit sorry for the Pentecostals speaking in tongues. (Gov. Palin and John Ashcroft, neither featured in "Religulous," are members of that church.)

After comedy, irony, and sarcasm, Maher turns serious at the end of the film, and asks with deep concern if the future of the world can be entrusted to the many varieties of believers in the unreal, the illogical, the incongruous, the phantasmagorical. Looks like we are well on our way to that eventuality.

Yes, it is funny. Just like when Bill Maher is funny. Often but not always. One of the things I like about Maher is that behind every derogatory outburst there is, usually, a real thinking process. In his "Religulous" he commits a startling mistake. He doesn't allow the possibility of "faith" as a positive not even by mistake. Agree that organized religion has been monstrous in so many different instances that it is a bit of a miracle that it survives but there is also the other side, the positive strength that faith provides and it does in so many different and powerful ways. The one sided views are always annoying and "Religulous" sins of that. I did laugh though, God forgive me.

While it may turn off some people when Bill seems to be disrespectful toward religion, he's still asking very logical questions that most people who believe in any faith should be encouraged to ask those who teach it to them without being ridiculed or shunned, or worse! I liked how he questioned many different religions aside from just one and went all over the world! The end of the documentary and the last points he made were pretty much spot on about the decisions that humanity can make to save itself and make smarter decisions about what direction we go in, actively wanting destruction for ourselves or choosing to altruistically delay it for all of mankind. Do we act out of fear and a self-centered desire to control others and cast out those different from us or do we live our own lives independently free and be capable of questioning things that don't make sense? I know my choice!

This film has scratched exactly where it itching me. Truly great film! Even as documentary it had more than enough LMAO moments. His beginning and his ending was amazing!! Especially the ending scene, it was the most important and powerful part of the movie. I even applaud for it in the end. Best movie I've seen this year since Dark Knight.

Few things to judge was the people he found to speak with. I understand it wouldn't be easy or even possible to get interview with the Pope. I wish he had translator when he went to Isreal.

I'll say it again MUST SEE!!!... If I had it on DVD I would copy it to all my friends and family. (and all the crazy christians.)

One issue one could have with Religulous is that it doesn't seem reasonable to believe that the religious literalists who are the targets of the film will see it, realize the futility and archaic silliness of their beliefs and change. But, really, if you consider the way Bill Maher speaks to his interviewees, the way he comments as director Larry Charles interviews him during the film's road trip, and Maher's overall embitterment towards religion evidenced clearly in his stand-up act and on his show Real Time With Bill Maher, you will see that this film is not made to change minds but to reassure those who already understand that lack of necessity and the danger of futility and bigotry in religion that they are not alone and that there are hit movies like this that defend the viewpoints they are reticent to voice themselves.

At a recent book signing at Joseph-Beth Booksellers here in Cincinnati, I spoke with screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, who recently found Christianity through his dilemma with throat cancer. (Yes, that Joe Eszterhas.) He claims to find it nearly impossible to sell his new script about St. Paul to Hollywood, professing that it's because there is a bias against Christianity in the studio system. Maher feels otherwise. His admitted intention behind making this comic documentary is because religious epics that have poured out of Hollywood since the dawn of cinema have endeared audiences to religions that, especially in their organized forms, preach and imply startling aversions to scientific and historical facts, take advantage of certain texts as means of racism, sexism and homophobia and other such things.

I am just now getting around to writing about Religulous, which I saw weeks before the Joe Eszterhas book signing, but I can't help but wonder about the differing viewpoints of a hilarious, righteously cynical Libertarian with whom I consistently agree and one of the highest-paid screenwriters who has worked for nearly half a century in the very system that he claims to oppose his newfound beliefs. Really, the truly surprising breadth of this film's release and commercial success (though I do know a few people in St. Louis who, last time we spoke, claimed it had yet to show there) should affirm Eszterhas's viewpoint, but actually seeing Maher's film is a different story.

This admittedly and purposely biased documentary is about Bill Maher's view of religion. As I find that he usually is, he's very smart, shrewd and funny, and I found the film pleasurable, even if from time to time he's a little unkind to his interviewees, who come off as objects of ridicule. He goes to holy places in Italy, Israel, Great Britain, Florida, Missouri and Utah, and talks with fanatics of the religions he confronts there.

A good confirmation of what I said earlier about opponents of Maher's views not being affected at all by this film is that he interrupts, talks over, spots subtitles and inserts movie and TV clips. The film's preaching to the converted and alienating of the non-converted is not a misstep by Maher and director Charles, but rather the intention. We relish his misconduct. The people he interviews are shockingly patient and tolerant, even most, not all, of the truckers in a makeshift truck stop chapel. You are dreading the point where one assaults Maher, but nobody does, although one trucker balls a fist and says, "You got a problem." Later in the film, there is an interesting moment where Maher walks out on a rabbi who favorably attend a Holocaust denial conference in Iran.

Persistently, Maher's altercations regard logical inconsistencies of holy books. Did Jonah really live for three days in the belly of a whale? No, of course not! It was a large fish! There are people who believe it. Is the End of Days nigh? A rather decent U.S. senator thinks so. Will the Rapture arise in our lifetimes? Common accord. Mormons believe Missouri will be the place to be, to which Maher quips with impeccable timing, "Branson, I hope." Maher visits the Creation Museum, to which I've been, thus I can corroborate the diorama of human children playing at the feet of dinosaurs. He didn't even penetrate the surface of what I saw there.

His two most logical guests, ironically, are Vatican priests, who with pleasure write off large parts of widely perceived Catholic beliefs, including the existence of Hell. One of these priests dies laughing as he mentions various beliefs that I was taught at Nativity Elementary. The other remarks that Jesus is polled sixth person to which Italians pray in crisis. The Hispanic pastor who believes he is the second coming of Christ will be disappointed.

Maher also has ominous questions Muslims about whether or not the Koran orders the death of infidels, leading to a frightening climax where he ties organized religion to a premature nuclear apocalypse, leaving us with the feeling that religion must be overshadowed for us to survive.

Religion is harmful to progress. Faith is the benefit of not thinking. Doubt is respectful. The Republicans I know personally all hate Bill Maher. No surprise there, but my point is this: There is little to zero chance that they, who tend to believe what this film ridicules, will see this film, and every chance that those of us, like me, who already love him, will rush to see this because essentially, it turns out to be a rallying of secularists who should be more alarmed and more active than they are. Maher's persona and his approach to the material are totally in sync with the midpoint of your any given agnostic intellectual young person, like me for instance.

Religulous is a hilarious, comprehensive and thought-provoking documentary pinpointing the ridiculousness and terror of different religions.

Some human beings, in the name of God, invade other countries, kill people, ask others not to use condoms, spread seeds of hatred for homosexuals and so on. Does God really exist? Is it likely that humans distort his words? Is religion detrimental to the progress of humanity? Is it good to have unquestionable faith in God? Out of many gods in the world, which one is truly the creator of the universe?

Thanks to Bill Maher, a very humorous, eloquent and quick-witted comedian; the observant cinematography capturing the right moments and facial expressions; the effective soundtrack highlighting different tones of the film; as well as the witty editing inserting footage of old movies, speeches, news, etc, at the right moment, the movie guarantees hearty laughs among atheists, offended frowns among believers and, the most importantly, enlightened expressions among some human beings who begin to doubt (e.g. the virgin birth, a talking snake, a man living inside a fish for 3 days, etc), instead of asserting with arrogant certitude the existence of gods which cannot be scientifically proved.

Believers should be forewarned that the movie makes jokes about religions and they may feel offended. Nevertheless, some find the jokes necessary because they hammer the irrationality and danger of religions into people's hearts. That is also why the film is called Religulous, a hilarious blend of ridiculousness and religions.

If there's one thing I believe to be the worst thing ever invented it's religion . Having been brought up in the west of Scotland , having traveled in the Middle East and the Indian sub continent I've not seen any evidence that religion is all its forms as being a force of good . I also find it impossible that after Marx stated that human beings are a product of conditioning and Darwin stated we're merely vessels to carry on our DNA to propagate our species anyone can believe in a creator or afterlife so anyone making a documentary putting the boot in to religion is only a good thing in my opinion

The film with comedian Bill Maher giving the audience his background as being brought up in a mixed Cathoilc /Jewish background and any fears that RELIGULOUS was going to be more about Maher's rather than religion are soon dispelled as he arrives in a " Truckers Chapel " for his first set of victims who inform Maher and the audience that the Turin shroud was tested and was found to have female blood on it hence it proves a miracle has taken place . Hmmmm I can see why they're driving trucks for a living and not lecturing at Harvard on subjects like Astro-physics and logic . To be fair though this Chapel has a slightly more multi-ethnic flavour than you'd expect to see in a lot of mainstream churches in America

The first two thirds of the film play along in this irreverent style . Maher interviews someone and the interview is cut with clips from Hollywood movies . Everyone will their favourite LOL bits such asformer singer Dr Cummingsfailing to remember the passage from Matthew that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God , the Senator stating that you don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate and my favourite moment Jose Miranda cheerfully telling the world that he is directly descended from Christ and is indeed the second coming . Cut to a clip from SCARFACE with Pacino saying " You know what I'm talking about you f--ckin' cockroach " . One thinks Dan Brown has the same opinion of Miranda and might find himself the subject of a court case . Miranda after all isn't short of money and his talent for spinning out unlikely stories is better than Brown's tall tales

Some people have a problem with the way the interviews are edited . You have to take onboard that this is the curse of all documentary film making - you've no idea what has been left out and what's taken out of context . This is irrelevant since it doesn't matter what's been said - the subjects have said it and it's nonsense no matter what context it's been said in . Where the documentary does fail is when Maher takes on the Muslims and the whole tone changes . He interviews a couple of gay Muslims in Holland who enjoy Maher's jovial style but Maher doesn't seem keen to rip in to Muslim interviewees with his style . I guess the subject of Salman Rushdie being brought up might have had something to do with this . Likewise Maher suggests Muslims aren't keen to criticise their religion to outsiders . Why didn't you say this to the Muslims you were interviewing instead of saying it to your film crew Bill ? Somewhat unforgivably Maher interviews an Iman in The Dome On The Rock and and some Muslims in the background start speaking to one another . As the trivia section of this page says what the men are really saying isn't being translated on screen correctly . So much for the moral superiority of secularism

Maher also lets himself down finishing with a montage of clips of war , carnage and all other types of apocalyptic imagery but both Maher and director Larry Charles should have picked these clips more carefully . We're shown clips that include both Yasser Arafat and Colonel Gadaffi both of whom were secular , leftist leaning leaders who unlike so many leaders in the Middle East at least didn't subjugate women simply because they were women . They murdered people and played the religion card when it suited them but even they don't deserve to be labelled as theocrats . Likewise is there a moral equivalence in showing clips featuring George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmidinejad . Say what you like about America but at least it's a democracy unlike many countries in the Middle East

Finally Maher ruins much of what has gone before by finishing with the statement that no one knows what happens when we die and anyone who does shouldn't be listened to . . The problem with this argument is that from a totally logical point of view the both the religious and secular point of view are of equal grounding ie " ! believe in an afterlife " has the same evidential argument as someone stating " I don't believe in an afterlife " . It's an agnostic argument . An atheist argument would be " People have claimed through the ages there is a creator and an afterlife but have failed to produce a single shred of evidence for this . It's more logical to assume eternal oblivion awaits us after death and that's why there's no evidence offered for an afterlife "

This movie raises a lot of important questions about religion, though you could only wish he did so with a more objective mind, cause its certainly very clear, that he starts out the many interviews with intentions of showing how dumb they sound when answering.

Towards the end he puts his attention to the Islamic belief, however not once do you see him ask any question related to, what Islam brings as evidence if its the truth. Instead he focuses on how Muslims see women, and try's to show that Muslims are aggressive people. A VERY subjective documentary.

Which brings me to the conclusion. Its one thing showing the "crazy" things you see in religion... But not exploring what evidence each religion brings as proof, changes this from a documentary about religion, to a documentary about things from religion that will sound crazy to you.

It has its funny moments, and even though i only gave it 6 out of 10, i can still recommend this, but only to people who shares his opinion. Cause if your deeply Christian, Jew or Muslim, this movie might offend you a lot. Or make you bored.

I'll start off by pointing out that Bill Maher is an arrogant and pompous a**hole. But for the purpose of this documentary skewering religion, no one could have done a better job of pointing out the hypocrisies of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Maher meets a guy who dresses up ad Jesus, and of course, he has fun with the 21st century messiah. Another discussion is with a self described devout Christian who is asked by the smirking host he actually believes that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale. The answer is predictable.

A creationist gets the same mocking treatment for silly statements regarding the age of the earth and mankind. We ran with dinosaurs, you see; Kentucky is a scary place, with its' very own creationism museum. Another preacher comments on the sinful lifestyle of gays. We get a full spectrum of delusional thinking over the course of the film, and your opinion will be based upon personal religious views. As a retired Catholic and rational human being, I loved Religulous.

Some people just wont see this movie, that's the first thing. They see that Bill Maher, one of the most outspoken critics of religion on all counts (even going as far as to say it's a neurological disorder, which is pointed out at one point in the film as what defines 'crazy'), is presenting a film attacking religion and God and belief and with a final thesis that is basically a rant against all sects including moderate religious believers as enablers of what could be a self-fulfilled prophecy on the end of the world, and will steer clear. It goes without saying that 95% of the country, or just the world, has some level of belief in a higher power if not total unadulterated faith in their religion. If you don't want to get engaged in a dialog of doubt, or are too ignorant to do so, do look elsewhere.

But if you've wondered if some of the things in Christianity or Judaism or Islam are strange, kooky, backwards, primitive, or just downright silly and stupid, then Maher delivers about as absorbing a discussion as one could hope for in a popular-documentary format. Popular in the sense that this is meant to be seen by a larger number of people than the average documentary (save for, of course, Michael Moore, whom there is some comparison), and that Maher is a fairly well-known public figure. What he sells, basically, is the belief "I don't know." He may come off as smug to some, but he isn't unfair. One might expect him to go after the simple truckers at their sermon in a Truck-stop chapel build inside of a truck, but he's actually understanding and sympathetic to why some people just need to believe in something if they have nothing else. Insensitive he is not, at least in entirety.

With the bigger figures, however, Maher doesn't pull punches, and this is where Maher and Borat director Larry Charles get their gotcha-tactics in perfect swing. Interviews with evangelists, a Senator, an Anti-Zion Rabbi, a British Islam rapper, biggies where Maher asks flat out what they believe, to explain it, and often they're left talking in circles or just saying total malarkey. It's not out of bounds for Maher, as an intelligent interviewer and as a comic, to go for this as he's probing how much these people actually know about their faith (which is sometimes not as much as they'd like to let you believe), or if they are, color-us-shocked, hypocrites like the black preacher with a practical pimp suit tailored for him. Best of all though is a trip Maher takes to the Vatican (where, naturally, he's not allowed for big interviews) and at a Jesus-themed amusement park minutes from Disneyworld where a goofy 'Jesus' makes himself a fool and the park treats its viewers to mock representations of the Passion Play.

So Maher and Charles (the latter often appearing in his long hair and beard) have their targets, their point of view, and they include a variety of clips from film and TV to slam in some great jokes and jabs (sometimes as simple as slipping in Mel Brooks as an Indian from Blazing Saddles). But they aren't just crazily throwing out statistics and ambushing people in their interviews, or going for schlock-film-making out of something like Loose Change; they want to engage the debate with the audience as well as their subjects, to inform in good measure (did you know nearly the whole Jesus story is ripped-off from the Egyptians?), and at the same time entertain along the way. It's intentionally provocative, and with a target audience that isn't huge. It's for those who want a little uncertainty expressed where it aught to be, and if it's in fun gimmicks like Bill Maher standing in the spot where Armageddon may someday take place in Israel, so be it.

While watching this documentary I laughed, was shocked, was bewildered, felt pity, felt my Catholic roots being twisted and yanked on, was afraid for Mr. Maher's life, was fearful for the future of the planet (at least for the people on it), thought of many people I know who would absolutely hate the movie, thought of a few who would love it, felt validated for the way I have been feeling for years, felt a little sad -but mostly afraid, and then I laughed some more. Who could ask for more? Bill Mayer is just asking questions -he says it himself. People don't have to answer. One guy didn't like what Mr. Maher was asking so he got up and left. Good for him. Most people have never asked themselves why they believe what they believe. Mr. Maher is simply asking the questions that many of us have never asked ourselves. What's wrong with that? I think it's about time.