“Religulous” is Bill Maher’s satirical and quick-witted feature-length exposition of his perceptions about organized religion. At the helm of the film is director Larry Charles of “Borat” fame. Together, Maher and Charles construct a comedically brilliant and factually insignificant documentary.
Assuming a basic understanding of linguistics, it is fairly clear the title of the film is a fusion of the words “religion” and “ridiculous,” ergo, religion is ridiculous. Such is Maher’s mantra, and he makes it abundantly clear throughout the film as he seeks out the most fanatical and mentally unhinged religious fundamentalists.
Maher traverses the globe examining the nature of religion and the motivations of its followers. Almost no religion is safe from Maher’s relentless lampooning. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Scientology, among others, are the recipients of Maher’s acerbically satirical derision.
There is no denying the fact that the film is funny, regardless of religious conviction. Bill Maher is funny. Period. There is also no denying the fact that he is offensive, but that does not negate his uncannily quick wit and his impeccable comedic timing.
The interactions between Maher and his subjects showcase his truly remarkable talent and demonstrate his comedic dexterity and his mastery of the art of satire.
The interweaving of Maher’s interviews with crazed religious zealots and an array of archival footage featuring bizarre religious-oriented banter and behavior maintains the pace and sustains the humourous tone.
There are myriad jokes and incredibly hilarious scenes, but a written reconstruction of even just one of these scenes or one of his jokes, would not only insult the integrity of his art, but it would also spoil a potential laugh for you, sweet reader.
But, the film does lose some gravitas in that it seems to present itself as a legitimate social commentary.
Bill Maher spends a percentage of his time dialoguing with pseudo-intellectual “sociologists” in seemingly scripted scenes where he strives to systematically dismantle the motivations for religion.
He attempts to logically demonstrate why religion is, in his mind, ludicrous. This is akin to beating a dead horse: it is futile.
Maher can say or do as much as he wants, but the religious fundamentalists have faith, which cannot be approached critically or cerebrally.
Also, conspicuously absent from the film are the third and fourth most popular world religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, respectively. The exclusion of two of the world’s major religions, and the amount of time dedicated towards deriding Christianity in particular, is indicative of his prejudices and perhaps ulterior motives with regards to the production of the film (“Bush is an evangelical Christian, FYI,” is his point).
Additionally, Maher detracts from his message by getting on the soapbox himself near the end of the film and preaching against religion.
Maher’s primary gripe, as I perceived it, was the preaching element of religion; henceforth, he almost foils the film’s objective with his 11th-hour sermon.
But let’s get down to brass tacks: this is a solid film. Although it is more grounded in fact than “Fahrenheit 9/11″ or “An Inconvenient Truth,” it is more of a mockumentary than a documentary, and it should be treated as such.
Maher’s comedic genius is effervescent, and that alone is worth the price of admission.