Reviews

This episode takes the controversy about teaching religion in school to an entirely new level. It demonizes a Christian church funded school board for (gasp!) requiring that the school teach of all things, Christianity, and that the teachers be Christian. Of course, the leader of the board is a sanctimonious buffoon. The characterization implies there is something inherently wrong with a church funded school following the principles of Christianity, which is ridiculous.

First of all, a church-sponsored school would have a charter outlining a statement of faith and principles at the outset, which would inform the hiring practices and purpose of the school, one of which would be teaching principles of Christianity. To imply this is somehow evil and intolerant is ridiculous.

In the story, the board leader says flat out that those teachers not having Christian faith should be dismissed, but this soon is twisted into "Why do I have to deny my own faith to keep my job?" That was not what was being asked. Also, somehow this policy leads to students being dismissed as well.

Of course, something like this happening in the middle of a school year would be wrong, but that situation would never happen in the first place, as the teachers would have already been Christian.

There is nothing wrong with any parochial school, of any faith, teaching its students the basis of that faith. That's freedom of religion.

Based on many reviews, I did not expect to like this movie. I expected to see Sandra's character as annoying and charmless. However, I decided to watch it because the trailers did not show a self-involved boor, and thought it was worth a try. I found the premise intriguing. In reward, I saw the same Sandra as in many of her comedic turns: quirky, delightful, and thoroughly watchable.

People seem to have become bored with some of the tediousness of the script and missed that the reason Sandra's character, Mary, was clueless as to the fact that Steve wasn't interested, was that Thomas Haden Church's character encouraged her to ignore any negative feedback, saying that Steve was just "scared." Prior to this, Steve had always been perfectly polite, so she had no reason to believe he didn't like her, too. Certainly in the beginning, before she scared him off, he was giving her all the "go" signals. Her character is optimistic and like anyone inexperienced and with a big crush, will take any encouragement as a "yes." Mary is far more naive and hopeful than self-involved. She turns out to be a very sweet person who is socially backward, but tries very hard. Her trivia-spouting was hilarious as her compensation for social cluelessness.

I can only wonder if the naysayers of Sandra's performance either don't like her, period, or they got up on the wrong side of the bed that day and left their senses of humor at home.

Definitely not the greatest plot, but the comedic moments were frequent, some genuinely laugh out loud, and often touching. Since I don't watch Sandra Bullock comedies seeking profundity, I didn't come away disappointed.

I won't belabor the fact this movie can't hold a candle to the original, except that the special effects are up to date and the best the film has to offer. Yes, the always flat-affected Keanu is in his element. He was made for this movie.

The plot is arresting in the beginning, the special effects riveting. No one knows why the aliens have come. At long last, from which point everything begins to unravel, Klaatu the alien, who's emerged from a glassy sphere, cryptically tells the hapless humans they are destined to be annihilated because they "can't be reasoned with." About what? By whom?

As in the original, the response to his arrival with firepower appears to explain the motivation of the aliens, but since that happened *after* his arrival, that cannot be the entire explanation.

No, the problem is our planet is one of few which can support life and we can't be allowed to imperil it. So the aliens will not have dialogue with us, nor try to help or teach us - they will merely expediently destroy us, and everything else in sight, instead. Except, presumably, not the plants or animals, but that's unclear, except for those animals placed in spherical "arks" to be whisked away.

From here, we are treated to an incoherent Gore-ish dream come true, wherein every edifice built by man, from signs to buildings, are destined to be consumed by the robotic equivalent of a plague of locusts. It's not enough to get rid of mankind alone, but even his very imprint on the land must go.

The earth, we learn, is obviously not meant for the habitation of man, but is rather far more important than mankind or his inconvenient needs for shelter, heat and sustenance.

Interestingly enough, the seemingly all-knowing Klaatu and his ilk have not even realized there is more than one side to mankind until it is all but too late. Horrors! Condemning mankind without sufficient observation is a reasonable course of action for a "superior" race?

Along the way, while vilifying man for having need of vehicles and buildings, Klaatu, not unlike Gore, is not above making use of man's vehicles himself. Somehow, although he can kill and raise from the dead using power from a non-running automobile, he cannot propel himself from here to there without the use of evil polluting mechanical conveyances. For shame!

But, never fear, he wakes up to the error of his presumptions about humans before everything on earth is consumed by his nanobots. Having rescued man from his wrath, he is content to depart earth with his arks of rescued animals - for a price. All the lights go out in what buildings are left, all the oil drills and vehicles cease to function, and even watches no longer work. Glorious deliverance! All is well - the sun is shining, the birds are singing! Mankind but has to go back to living in caves without machinery, light, heat or appliances and heaven on earth will have been realized. The deus-ex-machina has banished all the machines we were too short-sighted to eliminate ourselves. Gore's in his heaven and all's right with the world. Isn't life wonderful?

Well, maybe it would be worth it to live in a world without alarm clocks.

Ben Stein explores repression and reactionary attitudes in the worlds of academia and journalism, interviewing scientists on both sides of the debate, as well as a journalist dismissed for writing articles on the creation/evolution debate from a neutral perspective.

Ben takes no position on intelligent design himself - he rather takes on the issue of academic freedom, stating he began the journey to investigate the claims of an evolutionary scientist who was dismissed for allowing to be published a peer-reviewed article containing mere mention of intelligent design. Others with similar claims are interviewed, including a teacher who was dismissed for including a few slides mentioning it in a classroom discussion on origins.

In the process, Ben exposes hypocrisy and repression in those who would be seen as impassive scientists. One of the unbiased evolutionary scientists talks about a book he published in which he called God a homophobe and child murderer among other neutral epithets.

Ben proposes that freedom of thought and unbiased scientific exploration is in peril. Those who have placed their faith in the evolution of the 150-year-old theories of the naturalist Darwin do not brook even passing mention of intelligent design, punishing those even breathing the words "intelligent design" with loss of pursuit of their chosen professions.

Juxtaposed against the footage of both those who have been punished for their ever-so-mild "dissidence" and evolutionists who assert there is no room for debate, are scenes of earlier repressive societies in action, as well as discussion about the broader philosophical and moral implications of the issues at hand.

Thought provoking look beyond the emperor's clothes.