Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:16 pm



Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Religulous 

What grade would you give this film?
A 55%  55%  [ 11 ]
B 20%  20%  [ 4 ]
C 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D 15%  15%  [ 3 ]
F 10%  10%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 20

 Religulous 
Author Message
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Religulous
Monsieur Marin wrote:
I don't see any reason all docs have to conform to being a factual, unbiased look at the issues. I think that docs are generally used as a way to inform and educate, but that does not mean they have to, I think Maher's goal was more to entertain and confirm his points than take a reasonable look at the issue.

Ahmm...
be.redy wrote:
There are number of ways to add subjectivity to it without losing what documentary should be all about...

For example I don't find Herzog's docu's the best ones I ever saw but I admire at his ability to present all the facts completely and then put out his opinion, without making his opinion the conclusion or forcing it to the viewer as one. There were instances where I disagreed with him, but I understood and respected his opinion while forming my own based on the presented facts.
I cannot respect Maher's opinion as his approach was completely wrong.
Monsieur Marin wrote:
It would be like hating Milk because it wasn't entertaining but rather emotional and informative, that's it's goals and you can't hate just because there weren't car crashes and explosions to hold your interest.

Ahmm....
be.redy wrote:
It's funny. I laughed quite a few times.

I also never disputed that the movie is funny at times. It certainly is. But this is one of those occasions when even the positive stuff (no matter how much of it there was) can make me like something that's really, really, really wrong.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:36 am
Profile WWW
Z
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 7952
Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
Post Re: Religulous
How did you like 'Borat', be.redy?


Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:46 am
Profile WWW
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Religulous
Argos wrote:
How did you like 'Borat', be.redy?

I liked it. :funny:

But if I correctly see where you're aiming with that question I'll answer it right away. I don't find Sacha Cohen's approach as a wrong one. Borat is not a docu movie just because it was filmed like one. His mockery is in line with Monthy Python sketches (albeit more raunchy). He never presents it as absolute truth.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:57 am
Profile WWW
Z
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 7952
Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
Post Re: Religulous
'Borat' was making fun of the U.S.; 'Religulous', as the title indicates, makes fun of religion.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:05 am
Profile WWW
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Religulous
Argos wrote:
'Borat' was making fun of the U.S.; 'Religulous', as the title indicates, makes fun of religion.

But one is a feature film. A comedy. The other one presents itself as a documentary. And it's not, because everything in it was engineered to suit Maher.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:10 am
Profile WWW
Z
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 7952
Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
Post Re: Religulous
It was, surprisingly, even written by Maher. Also, apart from starring a comedian, there are many other indicators in the movie that you are not watching a dry Werner Herzog documentary, not a balanced educational film. It set out to show the lunacy of religions and religious people. It succeeded. The evaluation is up to you.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:21 am
Profile WWW
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Religulous
It's not hard to succeed to show crazy religious people. I'm not bothered by that at all. I salute that (as I have already said). I'm bothered with the approach.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:36 am
Profile WWW
Z
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 7952
Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
Post Re: Religulous
I salute the approach.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:42 am
Profile WWW
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Religulous
Argos wrote:
I salute the approach.

:thumbsup:


Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:47 am
Profile WWW
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post Re: Religulous
be.redy wrote:
I change my mind. Once I'm proven wrong.

Your counter argument is that the people in his documentary are real. I never said they weren't. I don't like the movie, because it has a certain theme, but it's not a good documentary.

Documentary is an objective art discipline. There are number of ways to add subjectivity to it without losing what documentary should be all about as the subject matter has to be dissected properly in order to achieve the goal you set out to make or maybe even the final conclusions prove you were wrong.

Maher explicitly told he found religion ludicrous and wanted to find out what the deal was with religion and religious beliefs. But not once during the movie have I felt like that's what he was really trying to do. His main goal and the way the movie was constructed was completely engineered to back his claims, without actually trying to understand why, what, where, etc. He just waited to make a "smart" remark at someone while he interviewed them and do stuff like that. You could see on his face he was as judgmental to people who believe as they are judgmental in certain things. I find both ends of that spectrum wrong.

I'm all up for bashing religion as people really do believe in some stupid things. But that has been present since the beginning of humanity. Maher was on some kind of a personal crusade, without understanding that some people need to believe. He never tried to understood why. He was just asking questions to provoke and get crazy answers.


Monsieur Marin wrote:
Hmm....
NOW I finally understand your point fully, and give you credit. Under the context in which you described a documentary, you are totally right, he utterly failed at achieving these goals, and if all docs are restricted to your context, than yes, this is an awful documentary.
Where I disagree is with your definition. I don't see any reason all docs have to conform to being a factual, unbiased look at the issues. I think that docs are generally used as a way to inform and educate, but that does not mean they have to, I think Maher's goal was more to entertain and confirm his points than take a reasonable look at the issue. Is this right for a doc? Sure, why not, he can make it whatever he wants it to be, and in what he set out to do, he achieved his goals thoroughly.
It would be like hating Milk because it wasn't entertaining but rather emotional and informative, that's it's goals and you can't hate just because there weren't car crashes and explosions to hold your interest.


The above pair of posts win the Best of Thread award in my book.

Though I agree with be.redy in regards to this particular instance, Monsieur Marin makes some interesting counterpoints...


Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:29 pm
Profile
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: Religulous
be.redy wrote:
Documentary is an objective art discipline.

No, it's not.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:48 pm
Profile
Jordan Mugen-Honda
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 13400
Post Re: Religulous
Monsieur Marin wrote:
It would be like hating Milk because it wasn't entertaining but rather emotional and informative, that's it's goals and you can't hate just because there weren't car crashes and explosions to hold your interest.


Can i hate it because its a lifeless piece of cinematic tedium?

_________________
Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message


Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:56 pm
Profile
 

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am
Posts: 6245
Post Re: Religulous
Gulli wrote:
Monsieur Marin wrote:
It would be like hating Milk because it wasn't entertaining but rather emotional and informative, that's it's goals and you can't hate just because there weren't car crashes and explosions to hold your interest.


Can i hate it because its a lifeless piece of cinematic tedium?


If that's how you saw it, naturally. I'm simply saying that the point of the film was not to be exciting, and should not be evaluated as such. The film's purpose was to convincingly convey the life of Harvey Milk depicting the dramatic aspects, and educating the populous on his impact in the gay society and society in general. It should be evaluated on those terms, if you felt it failed to do so, than hate it. However if you simply didn't want to see a movie that did that, and did not like the film because it was aiming at something you find pointless, you should never have watched the movie in the first place.
All of that goes for this film as well.

_________________
Mr. R wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself.

Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:28 pm
Profile
Jordan Mugen-Honda
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 13400
Post Re: Religulous
Monsieur Marin wrote:
Gulli wrote:
Monsieur Marin wrote:
It would be like hating Milk because it wasn't entertaining but rather emotional and informative, that's it's goals and you can't hate just because there weren't car crashes and explosions to hold your interest.


Can i hate it because its a lifeless piece of cinematic tedium?


If that's how you saw it, naturally. I'm simply saying that the point of the film was not to be exciting, and should not be evaluated as such. The film's purpose was to convincingly convey the life of Harvey Milk depicting the dramatic aspects, and educating the populous on his impact in the gay society and society in general. It should be evaluated on those terms, if you felt it failed to do so, than hate it. However if you simply didn't want to see a movie that did that, and did not like the film because it was aiming at something you find pointless, you should never have watched the movie in the first place.
All of that goes for this film as well.


Does this mean I should give Rendition an A+? I think you are saying one cannot seperate intent from cinematic quality. I would disagree.

_________________
Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message


Last edited by Gulli on Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:33 pm
Profile
 

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am
Posts: 6245
Post Re: Religulous
If I had seen that I would know the answer to that question better.

_________________
Mr. R wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself.

Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.


Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:39 pm
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post Re: Religulous
trixster wrote:
be.redy wrote:
Documentary is an objective art discipline.

No, it's not.

Documentary is an objectivish art discipline.


Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am
Profile
 

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am
Posts: 6245
Post Re: Religulous
Gulli wrote:
Monsieur Marin wrote:
Gulli wrote:
Monsieur Marin wrote:
It would be like hating Milk because it wasn't entertaining but rather emotional and informative, that's it's goals and you can't hate just because there weren't car crashes and explosions to hold your interest.


Can i hate it because its a lifeless piece of cinematic tedium?


If that's how you saw it, naturally. I'm simply saying that the point of the film was not to be exciting, and should not be evaluated as such. The film's purpose was to convincingly convey the life of Harvey Milk depicting the dramatic aspects, and educating the populous on his impact in the gay society and society in general. It should be evaluated on those terms, if you felt it failed to do so, than hate it. However if you simply didn't want to see a movie that did that, and did not like the film because it was aiming at something you find pointless, you should never have watched the movie in the first place.
All of that goes for this film as well.


Does this mean I should give Rendition an A+? I think you are saying one cannot seperate intent from cinematic quality. I would disagree.


I'm not saying that cinematic quality should be totally disregarded for certain films as they fall into various categories. Good acting, directing, and writing should be present regardless of the film and what it is. However, I think that we must evaluate films on there own basis. I.E.- ILYM did a pretty poor job of examining the emtional aspects of two people trying to get married and is not a very poignant look at this occasion. Nor does it properly analyze this couple and there commitment. However this is not the PRIMARY purpose of the film, which is to make you laugh. So I forgive the flaws easily because they are not that prevelant to the film. You can't hold I Love You, Man or Knocked Up to the same standards that you hold No Country For Old Men, because they are not attempting the same things.
All I'm saying is that each film has a different purpose, that's why genres were invented, and you have to analyze them on their own terms.

_________________
Mr. R wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself.

Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.


Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:35 pm
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post Re: Religulous
Monsieur Marin wrote:
I think that we must evaluate films on there own basis. I.E.- ILYM did a pretty poor job of examining the emtional aspects of two people trying to get married and is not a very poignant look at this occasion. Nor does it properly analyze this couple and there commitment. However this is not the PRIMARY purpose of the film, which is to make you laugh. So I forgive the flaws easily because they are not that prevelant to the film.

That's odd - - I thought I Love You, Man had an unusually high level of truth in it regarding relationships, including some uncomfortable truths about marriage...


Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:34 pm
Profile
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: Religulous
Bradley Witherberry wrote:
trixster wrote:
be.redy wrote:
Documentary is an objective art discipline.

No, it's not.

Documentary is an objectivish art discipline.

As objectivish as any other.

Anyways, I enjoyed the film, and laughed a lot, though it clearly works better when Maher lets the crazies speak for themselves than when he goes off on tangential tirades about talking snakes and virgin births. Maher's always been a comedian better at playing off of people than at pure stand-up, and it shows here; his solo bits are smug and embarrassing, and his apocalyptic rant at the end is downright terrible. No way a film this lighthearted should have ended on such a downer.

Still, it's generally amusing and enjoyable, if not informative. It's also rather cleverly (if not craftily) edited - those snippets of old movies and biblical re-enactments inserted at just the right time made me laugh the most. People are complaining that the interviews are "cut to ribbons" - that's the point! You don't think every other documentary manipulates the footage to achieve maximum effect, too?

Maher's self-righteous smugness threatens to overwhelm the film, and nearly does, but it's mostly kept in check. It also didn't hurt that I (mostly) agree with him. Though I'm not quite so coarse.

Good flick.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:53 am
Profile
"no rank"

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:43 pm
Posts: 24502
Post Re: Religulous
I don't separate documentaries from other genres of film. The same objectives exists for the filmmakers: to entertain, to educate, to excite, to enlighten.


Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:37 am
Profile
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 67000
Post 
Religulous

I enjoyed Religulous. I happen to like Maher and his comedy, and I agree with him wholeheartedly about religion so it's fairly easy to enjoy this documentary, but it is quite a shallow effort. There is not really any exploration. It is a man that has already made up his mind, going around the world goading people from different religions. Which is never not enjoyable because religion is absolutely ridiculous, but it gets a bit samey. It would have been better if Maher grew his views or grew to an understanding of how religion can be good for the world or something. And the incessant clips after every unsuspecting interviewee says something stupid were a bit shit.

B


Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:43 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.