Although some would call Bill Maher's "Religulous" sacrilegious, it is not really a film that convincingly attacks religion, at least not the older monotheistic brands (it does a better job on the newer religious strands). Does it try and point out hypocritical positions? Yes. Does it use irreverent means to do so? Often. Does it succeed at times? Yes. But is it going to shatter religious views? No. It's just an entertaining film. While Maher does a reasonable job at pointing out inconsistencies and hypocritical positions of the Western religions (more successfully with religions that saw their founding in America), what harms the film is not so much what Bill says, but whom he chose to interview. Or rather whom he chose not to interview. Viewed properly, the film is largely an attack on extremist views of whatever persuasion as the majority of those interviewed are fringe characters who would likely embarrass mainstream members of their representative religions (with one or two notable exceptions, such as the Vatican's astronomer). If Bill chose to interview more mainstream representatives from among the non-extremist or non-fundamentalist members of the dominant Western religions (or simply avoid the fringe characters such as the anti-Zionist rabbi) -- which would arguably comprise the majority of adherents -- the film would have been more balanced and possibly more effective. A more balanced presentation with moderate monotheists who are at least as articulate and quick as Bill would have warranted this film at least one more point. As it is, the film, though well made and often absorbing, only rates a 7/10.
Review of Religulous
