Religulous presents itself as a 'documentary,' but it most certainly is *not* one. Religulous is a shady, underhanded, anti-Christian hate movie. The ironic part of this is, all the legitimate Christians that Maher interviewed in this movie completely destroyed the arguments that Maher tried to bring against them.
Maher artificially tries to make himself look smart - and give the audience the false impression that he 'won' the interviews he conducted. Right after Maher makes a snarky comment, he cuts away to a different scene (I.e. cutting from the interview scene, to him driving in a car ) instead of showing the people he's interviewing having a chance to *respond* to his snarky comment. Obviously, anyone can 'win' an argument about *anything* if after he says a comment, he does not give the other side any opportunity to respond. This is the highest level of 'discussion' that the interviews in Religulous attains. The academic community, and moral persons everywhere, have no choice but to frown upon Maher's immoral dishonesty in this regard.
A *very* telling example of this: in one interview, Maher keeps trying to cut off the Jew who said Jews in general have departed from Holiness. This interviewee keeps telling Maher, 'Let me finish'. Then, a second later Maher *still* tries to jump right back in to interrupt with another snarky comment so that he can then cut away from the interview and pretend he 'won'. It's *hilarious* how that Jew humiliated Maher so badly, that Maher walked out of the interview solely because the Jew repeatedly refused to allow Maher to interrupt him. I'm sure Maher knew he couldn't get the upper hand in that conversation due to his inferior intellect, so better to cut his losses rather than be made an *even bigger*fool of. It's very shady how Maher interjects footage of the Jew at a Holocaust conference hosted by Iran's President, yet doesn't give him a chance to *explain* what his purpose was for going. Thus, immorally leaving the audience with the *false impression* that he went there to deny the Holocaust when chances are, he went there in order to *educate* people about the Holocaust. This is a great example of Maher's unscrupulous MO for all the interviews in the movie.
Religulous shows an old Rabbi answering the phone and saying hello 3 times when no one was on the other end; which is an artificial means to try to make the Rabbi look like an idiot (since Maher had no *legitimate* means for doing so). There was *absolutely no reason* to include that footage in the movie, other than to showcase how shady & dishonest Maher and the director are.
Before watching Religulous, I was under the impression from reading media reports, user comments on IMDb, and forums, that Christians were humiliated really badly in this movie; their faith made to look ridiculous & insane. But that didn't even happen!
The heavyweight Christians didn't falter for a moment; Maher couldn't make them look foolish. They made *Maher* look foolish.
The Christians in Raleigh destroyed Maher's arguments.
Ken Ham - founder of the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis website, which use real *science* to *prove* that the Bible is true - destroyed Maher's arguments.
The Jesus actor of the Holy Land theme park destroyed Maher's arguments. I don't even know why the Holy Land manager wanted to kick Maher off the property, considering that her employee, the Jesus actor, was *drastically* overpowering Maher in that conversation. The manager should have invited Maher to stay all day and talk to that actor while shooting *their own* footage of it and making a movie out of *that*. That would have been *far* more educational and interesting than *this* movie is, and Maher wouldn't have had the luxury of relying on shady editing techniques to artificially make himself appear smart & victorious.
If you are observant while watching Religulous, you will see that Maher gives *very little* screen-time to the interviews with Ken Ham and the Jesus actor --- because he had no way to beat them in conversation due to their superior intellects to Maher's.
The *only ones* Maher was able to make look foolish in this movie were the crazy cultists like the Mexican guy who thinks he's both Jesus, *and* the anti-Christ; and the guy who invented a weed religion. In other words, people who everyone *already knew* were crazy long before this movie was made. The legitimate, serious Christians remained totally unscathed by anything this movie had to throw at them. Maher devotes a *ton* of useless screen-time to the crazy cultist and weed religion founder, because he *can* hold his own vs. *those* crazies. But so what? Who cares? So could me, you, or *anyone*. There are a few nutjob cultists out there, sure, but they do not have a significant presence in society, therefore they are moot.
Religulous has no comedy, nor educational value. Which begs the question: what is *the point* even supposed to be? There isn't a single funny moment in it. Maybe Maher *thought* it was funny because he kept smiling at his own banal 'jokes' that he spouted after cutting away from conversations in which he got destroyed. Someone needed to send Maher a memo that he isn't funny. In fact, I don't think Maher has ever in his entire lifetime even said one funny thing. He *needed* to get that memo 40 years ago. It is mind-boggling that anyone ever actually *paid* to see Maher do stand-up. I think Maher is more delusional than the craziest people he talked to in this movie; because somehow Maher deluded himself into thinking he has comedy talent when in reality he has none whatsoever. Someone should make a documentary about how such an unfunny hack made a living out of being a 'comedian'. *That* would be a Maher documentary worth watching.
Maher artificially tries to make himself look smart - and give the audience the false impression that he 'won' the interviews he conducted. Right after Maher makes a snarky comment, he cuts away to a different scene (I.e. cutting from the interview scene, to him driving in a car ) instead of showing the people he's interviewing having a chance to *respond* to his snarky comment. Obviously, anyone can 'win' an argument about *anything* if after he says a comment, he does not give the other side any opportunity to respond. This is the highest level of 'discussion' that the interviews in Religulous attains. The academic community, and moral persons everywhere, have no choice but to frown upon Maher's immoral dishonesty in this regard.
A *very* telling example of this: in one interview, Maher keeps trying to cut off the Jew who said Jews in general have departed from Holiness. This interviewee keeps telling Maher, 'Let me finish'. Then, a second later Maher *still* tries to jump right back in to interrupt with another snarky comment so that he can then cut away from the interview and pretend he 'won'. It's *hilarious* how that Jew humiliated Maher so badly, that Maher walked out of the interview solely because the Jew repeatedly refused to allow Maher to interrupt him. I'm sure Maher knew he couldn't get the upper hand in that conversation due to his inferior intellect, so better to cut his losses rather than be made an *even bigger*fool of. It's very shady how Maher interjects footage of the Jew at a Holocaust conference hosted by Iran's President, yet doesn't give him a chance to *explain* what his purpose was for going. Thus, immorally leaving the audience with the *false impression* that he went there to deny the Holocaust when chances are, he went there in order to *educate* people about the Holocaust. This is a great example of Maher's unscrupulous MO for all the interviews in the movie.
Religulous shows an old Rabbi answering the phone and saying hello 3 times when no one was on the other end; which is an artificial means to try to make the Rabbi look like an idiot (since Maher had no *legitimate* means for doing so). There was *absolutely no reason* to include that footage in the movie, other than to showcase how shady & dishonest Maher and the director are.
Before watching Religulous, I was under the impression from reading media reports, user comments on IMDb, and forums, that Christians were humiliated really badly in this movie; their faith made to look ridiculous & insane. But that didn't even happen!
The heavyweight Christians didn't falter for a moment; Maher couldn't make them look foolish. They made *Maher* look foolish.
The Christians in Raleigh destroyed Maher's arguments.
Ken Ham - founder of the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis website, which use real *science* to *prove* that the Bible is true - destroyed Maher's arguments.
The Jesus actor of the Holy Land theme park destroyed Maher's arguments. I don't even know why the Holy Land manager wanted to kick Maher off the property, considering that her employee, the Jesus actor, was *drastically* overpowering Maher in that conversation. The manager should have invited Maher to stay all day and talk to that actor while shooting *their own* footage of it and making a movie out of *that*. That would have been *far* more educational and interesting than *this* movie is, and Maher wouldn't have had the luxury of relying on shady editing techniques to artificially make himself appear smart & victorious.
If you are observant while watching Religulous, you will see that Maher gives *very little* screen-time to the interviews with Ken Ham and the Jesus actor --- because he had no way to beat them in conversation due to their superior intellects to Maher's.
The *only ones* Maher was able to make look foolish in this movie were the crazy cultists like the Mexican guy who thinks he's both Jesus, *and* the anti-Christ; and the guy who invented a weed religion. In other words, people who everyone *already knew* were crazy long before this movie was made. The legitimate, serious Christians remained totally unscathed by anything this movie had to throw at them. Maher devotes a *ton* of useless screen-time to the crazy cultist and weed religion founder, because he *can* hold his own vs. *those* crazies. But so what? Who cares? So could me, you, or *anyone*. There are a few nutjob cultists out there, sure, but they do not have a significant presence in society, therefore they are moot.
Religulous has no comedy, nor educational value. Which begs the question: what is *the point* even supposed to be? There isn't a single funny moment in it. Maybe Maher *thought* it was funny because he kept smiling at his own banal 'jokes' that he spouted after cutting away from conversations in which he got destroyed. Someone needed to send Maher a memo that he isn't funny. In fact, I don't think Maher has ever in his entire lifetime even said one funny thing. He *needed* to get that memo 40 years ago. It is mind-boggling that anyone ever actually *paid* to see Maher do stand-up. I think Maher is more delusional than the craziest people he talked to in this movie; because somehow Maher deluded himself into thinking he has comedy talent when in reality he has none whatsoever. Someone should make a documentary about how such an unfunny hack made a living out of being a 'comedian'. *That* would be a Maher documentary worth watching.