The religiously critical documentary 'Religulous' can be viewed for the time being here:
http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/02542/atheist/religulous-full-movie
It lasts for about an hour and a half so compared to Expelled!, the editors seem to be muc hmore qualified for the job. Or maybe not: Expelled lasts as long as Religulous, and yet I could not watch it through. The main message of the movie, Doubt, maintains through the film. There are, however, certain less glorifying moments when things are simplified but as said, they don't change the main point unlike a certain other film. Much more entertaining than Expelled! and also more coherent. Since the point is to encourage doubt, the film does not pursue to prove anything but the harm of religion both ao individual and societal level. This, in my opinion, it does achieve. The movie has received the status of 71 percent (= Fresh) on RottenTomatoes.com. Expelled!, on the other hand, has 10% (= wouldn't eat it).
There has been a lot of controversy conserning the interview tacktics of Bill Maher and the rest of the production team. Surprisingly enough, it's nearly the same tactique that was used by the Expelled! production team. Difference: Maher & co. can actually say it out loud without circling. The reasons are obvious for both sides: as Richard Dawkins said, he would have never accepted to be interviewed if he had known what the object of Expelled! was. Same thing for the yahoos.. ahem, religious activists. Difference: Dawkins is about scientific facts, religious activist go with the feeling. But there's no denying it: they both did a good job in deceiving, so in that sense they are both difficult to take seriously (althoug Religulous is supposed to be a satire so it isn't to be taken seriously).
Sister Rose Pacatte, F.S.P., of St. Anthony Messenger said the following: "With the exception of two Catholic priests and one or two others, Maher has found the most uninformed members of each religion... Though well-intentioned, these folks are either unable to articulate the reasons for their faith or offer absurd explanations." There's just one teeny-weeny problem with this statement. All religious activists debate who is the true believer (Animal Farm, anyone?). Therefore it's quite useless to say who is an "uninformed member" of a religion since all believe what they want to believe and take the pieces of religious writings that support that view or interpret the writings to the favour of their own views. From this point of view all religious people are "uninformed" since there is no universal 100-per-cent-of-the-members-agree-on-this norm!
Final rating: entertaining and educating (Did you know there is a gay muslim bar? Only in Amsterdam!) but not a very academic source of information. Fun to watch and made me laugh as much as while watching Grinch (that's supposed to be a compliment, not an analogy).
