Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

GREEN'S HOW TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL TERRORIST REVIEW:

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"
Dr. Richard Dawkins: "No, n-n-o, no, no, nor has anybody."
Stein: "Nor has anyone else."
Dawkins: "No."

Of course, Stein's "it" refers to the origins of life.

Dawkins goes on to say that he thinks God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc. and that anyone who has a belief in God or religion is irrational.

So Richard, if you nor anyone else supposedly in the know (that would be scientists, in case you were wondering) has any idea how "it" started, then why not Intelligent Design or, dare I say, God?

This is a fundamental question I've been asking for quite a long time but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. This is the same essential question Ben Stein is trying to have answered in this documentary movie.

Stein talks with scientists in academia who have lost their jobs not for teaching intelligent design but for the mere mention of it as an alternative to Darwinism in papers that they've submitted. Of course, these great academic institutions of higher learning deny this as the reason for the firings, otherwise they'd be facing lawsuits up the wazoo for discrimination. Wow. If Darwinism and evolution are undoubtedly true, what does the scientific institution have to worry about? If evolution is on such rock solid ground, why use strong armed guerrilla tactics to suppress alternate ideas?

This documentary is not, I repeat, NOT about the right to teach Intelligent Design over Darwinism in schools and Universities. Rather, it's about the suppression of ideas and freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. Restrictions on rights that shouldn't be infringed upon in a supposedly "free" country. This infringement is akin to censorship and reminds us of those wonderful regimes who brought such good things to world history. Regimes such as communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Regimes that officially banned religion as state policy.

Stein interviews scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism and the theory of evolution and some of those who are its most ardent supporters, including Dawkins himself.

Stein also delves into the question of how Darwinism leads to atheism, with Richard Dawkins as the star witness. This is not to say that all those who believe in evolution as fact are atheist or will become atheist, but that's the road that Darwinism inevitably leads down.

Stein, being of Jewish heritage, tours some of the WWII concentration camps in Europe. He takes some time for personal reflection about the horrors committed there thanks to Darwinistic thinking and "preservation of the superior race" as popularized by Chucky D from his little book and carried to the extreme by the Nazis. Truly the most somber section of the whole documentary.

One of the things I wondered about while watching is if you were entrenched in your position on the side of evolution and watched this documentary, would you be swayed to consider the alternatives or would you remain steadfast in your beliefs? Do you let your science take you where the evidence leads, no matter what or do you let your world view shape your science? I think I can guess the answers for most of you who will read this.

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" asks excellent questions and raises good points for discussion. It is well thought out and well written. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this documentary and I believe you will too.

***** out of *****

SCRIBE'S HOW SERIOUSLY CAN ONE TAKE A FORMER NIXON SPEECHWRITER & COMEDIAN WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE REVIEW:

As it turns out, Ben Stein, the conservative Nixon speechwriter turned comedian/actor has an ax to grind with academia. As shocking as this, it also turns out he is pissed at those who claim Evolutionary theory is more logically sound than Intelligent Design. And here's the real head turner...he decided to make a movie about it.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is Stein's attempt at getting to the bottom of the firings of certain teaching professionals around the nation who dared mention the mere possibility of Intelligent Design in regards to the origins of humanity. It is actually a noble aim on the surface because the true aim of academic research is supposed to be the ability to ask questions no matter where they may lead.

Stein takes his cameraman all over the globe in search of a reason behind why people are being silenced and losing their jobs. Is there a Darwinian Industrial Complex? I made that term up.

The evidence Stein uncovers would seem to indicate there is one, sadly. Science has become a realm of narrow thinking bureaucrats hell-bent on preserving whatever they hold to be true rather than allowing for alternatives in thought.

Ironically, Stein the so-called "comedian" is rarely funny or amusing in this documentary or anywhere else for that matter. He's about as dry as day-old toast and in no way compelling enough to carry us through his film, a stark contrast to the robust screen presence of Bill Maher in his superior film, Religulous. In fact, Expelled works best when other people are doing the talking... Of course, some would argue that all documentaries should work that way but Michael Moore might kick their asses.

When Stein is interviewing stuffy university department heads blustering on about why these people lost their jobs or talking to scientists who implied an Intelligent Design possibility that doesn't even necessitate the existence of God, that's when the film is at its most compelling. When it tries to tie in fascistic regimes and politics, it fails on all fronts.

Stein's visit to the Concentration Camps is a heavy-handed attempt to make a point he doesn't seem to realize he's making without this side trip. Maybe I should do a documentary some day on the evils of unfettered capitalism by visiting slavery plantations and the Bastille since I am mixed with both heritages. Stein loses momentum during this portion of the film to the point where his big "Roger & Me" moment with Richard Dawkins lacks much of the significant punch it could have packed had we not sat through the high school civics lesson.

By the way, Richard Dawkins is a piss poor spokesperson for not believing in God. Holy shit in a shoebox! Perhaps he is an intelligent man in his own regard, an idiot savant at the least, but he comes across as a yammering halfwit when confronted with the simple questions mentioned in Green's review. In fact, he basically admits the possibly of Intelligent Design by the end, implying an alien life form or intelligence could have been the originator... Bastard stole my belief system.

At the end, Expelled does what any successful documentary should do. It leaves the answers up the audience~

*** out of *****

CLASSIC REVIEW: To Live and Die in LA

SCRIBE'S DESCENT INTO MORAL AMBIGUITY BY WAY OF THE SEWER REVIEW:

It’s funny to see one of your favorite childhood movies again as an adult many, many years later. A certain measure of nostalgia naturally occurs, but very often you find yourself watching the film from an entirely different perspective. In some cases, unfortunately, the films don’t hold up to the test of time and become a symbol of regret followed by a pointless wish that you could forget you’d watch it as an adult and hold onto your memories instead.

To Live and Die in LA is one of those films.

Featuring for the first time in film history a group of modern-day bad-ass Treasury Agents, this film was the Eighties equivalent of The French Connection with William Petersen in the Popeye Doyle role. Except, this law enforcement official is really no better than the psychotic counterfeiter he’s chasing, played by an intensely evil Willem Dafoe. What makes him so bad, you ask? He’s a slave-owner.

No, seriously. He keeps a former prostitute as his own personal squeeze toy. The woman (Darlanne Fluegel, the official Eighties cop flick wife) basically exists to pleasure him when he needs it and serves as a sounding board when he needs to unload what little feelings he has. He’s also breaking in a new partner and seems bound and determined to turn him into a bitter, hateful bastard as well.

The film is sufficiently violent and gritty but what it’s sorely missing is a personal stake on the part of the viewer. One of my short stories was recently criticized because it didn’t have any likable characters in it and, while I strongly disagree that that’s a necessity, we should at least be interested in what’s happening. I’ve never really considered counterfeiting to be a heinous crime so Dafoe’s character seems a bit over the top. Besides, unless you’re a law and order type, there is no one to root for and nothing to care about.

To Live and Die in LA is an Eighties film featuring a Seventies style anti-hero but somebody forgot to make him even remotely relatable. What results is a series of well-crafted, pre-CGI stunt and action pieces punctuated with reprehensible human beings trying to kill each other for personal beefs that don’t translate well on screen. There is a shocking moment in the film that is still very effective where, without giving too much away, the dynamics change dramatically in an instant. But again there’s no emotional investment.

Still, if you’re looking for a morally bankrupt tale of avarice and human vice, look no further. Eighties Brit Pop group Wang Chung’s musical score serves the film well as it elevates some of the moments from cheesy to transcendental. It is, ironically, the only thing about this film that holds up, which is probably why it’s still one of my favorite soundtracks.

Sometimes memory lane is not the street we remember.

** out of *****

GREEN'S "YOU'RE WORKING FOR ME NOW" REVIEW:

This movie was recommended to me by a couple of my friends at work back in February. Naturally, having never seen it before, I was willing to take a chance.

The story begins when a secret service agent is killed investigating a counterfeit operation who gets too close to the bad guys in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Enter William Chance, played by William Petersen (of CSI fame), a fanatical, live by the seat of your pants secret service agent who seeks revenge for the murder of his partner. Eric Masters, played by Willem Dafoe, is the artist/counterfeiter/bad guy du jour. Chance's new partner is the straight laced John Vukovich, played by John Pankow. Chance vows to take Masters down any way possible, dragging Vukovich along for the ride.

The story has a gritty, live feel to it. Thanks to the benefit of twenty four years and an excellent "making of" featurette included on the DVD, we learn that much of the movie is improvisation and shooting on the fly by director William Friedkin. Many times Friedkin told his actors that they were doing a rehearsal but had the camera rolling and captured many scenes on the very first take.

This is not your typical buddy-buddy cop film or good guy-bad guy film. Both the good guys and bad guys are extremely flawed, driven by greed, hubris and a lust for money and power. There is a fine line separating the good guys from the bad guys which make the characters interesting because you never quite know which way a scene will turn until it's done. The car chase sequence is excellently shot and edited. You can feel the fear of Pankow's character sitting in the back seat of the car being jostled about during the chase.

Petersen is excellent in this role and Dafoe is one of the most fluent actors working today, being able to play both good guys and bad guys with equal ease and believability. The supporting cast is also excellent and features John Turturro, Dean Stockwell, Darlanne Fluegel and Robert Downey, Sr.

The plot twist Scribe mentions above certainly threw me off. I totally was not expecting to see what I saw. Nor was I expecting, but might have predicted had I thought about it, the scene at the end of the movie, from which I drew my title for this review.

Before I read that Wang Chung, that crazy 80's British one hit wonder band, did the soundtrack I hardly would have believed it. Yet they did an admirable job with it.

I found this film to be exciting and edgy and well worth the $10 I spent to buy the DVD.

**** out of *****

Star Trek

SCRIBE'S SPOCK'S A PIMP IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY REVIEW:

Ok, so I probably gave away the plot in the title of my review but so what? This is one of those films which, if you're any kind of Star Trek fan, you want to know the plot of before you plant your no doubt well-sculpted rump in the theater seat.

In a nustshell, JJ Abrams and his "Fringe" writers found a way to re-imagine Star Trek without affecting the originals' accepted history. For those who don't know the origins of Kirk and Spock, much of this won't come as a surprise but those who do the first few minutes will be shocking.

When a Starfleet vessel encounters a mysterious and incredibly advanced ship emerging from an apparent black hole, its commander demanding to speak with "Ambassador Spock" whom no one on the Starfleet ship had heard of, it's already obvious something is amiss. Basically, events in the future (Star Trek's future, not ours) have caused the creation of an alternate reality wherein our beloved characters are slightly altered due to the events of that fateful meeting.

Bear this in mind: This crew is the original crew in name only. Aside from a new cast of actors, the changes made to their timeline create a new starting point for most of them. This provides Abrams and company ample opportunity to do something new without pissing on previous Trek series and films.

The acting is top notch, the direction is as well. Only tight-asses incapable of accepting difference won't like it. I have already seen it twice and am planning to go back.

***** out of *****

GREEN'S "WHY WON'T YOU TELL ME YOUR FIRST NAME?" REVIEW:

I've never been a die-hard, fanatical Trekkie, as some people are. I can certainly appreciate the Star Trek genre and the impact the iconic show (even with the cheesy special effects) and spin offs have had on American culture in the last 40+ years. However, I must admit that when I learned of JJ Abrams plans to make a new Star Trek movie, I was a little more than a tad skeptical. I wondered if the movie would be any good or that a story could be found worth the telling in the Star Trek milieu, figuring with the television shows and all of the other movies in the series that we'd just about seen it all.

Now I'll bet you didn't realize that JJ Abrams was the producer of one of my favorite television shows "Alias" and also of "Lost" and that the script for Star Trek was written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who each wrote ten episodes of Alias.

This edition of Star Trek is a prequel to the original television series and original cast movies (which Scribe and I reviewed in this space last year - see the sidebar to check out those reviews) and tells the story of the origins of James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine), Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and reveals how Kirk meets Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Checkov (Anton Yelchin), Sulu (John Cho), Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), and Mr. Scott (Simon Pegg) as they work their way through the ranks of Starfleet and how they all come to be serving together on the USS Enterprise.

More than this about the plot I'm not going to say because I don't want to spoil it for you. I did have one major plot question regarding Spock's mother and the planet Vulcan which I hope will be addressed in the sequel prequel.

The story is excellently written, moves at a great pace and is full of action and super special effects. It's obvious that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman hold the Roddenberry's ample legacy in the highest regard. That's a good thing. I'm definitely going to buy this DVD when it comes out in a few months, with all of the special features and the making of documentary stuff that I like. However, this is a movie that must be - needs to be - experienced on the big screen of a movie theater.

As my brother said to me a few days ago - this may be the best of all the Star Trek films. That's a big leap to make... and I just might have to agree with him. In any case this film holds its own with those that have come before.

***** out of *****