True-- wouldn’t it have been nice if the Bible had been written in more than one draft? Better plot and character development, fewer inconsistencies…hell, we might even have had a happy ending!
…which would have given us a sequel. But maybe that’s not a good thing: The New Testament II: Return of Jesus
Donald Wollheim was a science fiction editor in the early '60s. He published a line of books called “Ace Doubles”, which were two shortish novels bound back to back. He was also notorious for renaming books and giving them BAD, cheesy titles.
Thus, Terry Carr (another SF editor) once said "Y’know…if Wollheim had turned the bible into an Ace Double, it would have been called “War God of Israel/The Thing with Three Souls”
The more I read about this turkey, the more amazed I get. I just read in another review that this movie esposes the following vile sentiments:
That Christian doctrine should be taught in public schools as fact.
That the Bible should be taught as “science” and that any science that is not derived from the Bible is from Satan. (hmmm…is film technology in the Bible?)
That no other religions (including Judaism) have merit, and that this should also be taught as fact in public schools.
That all secular entertainment is “satanic” (Does this include “The Love Boat?”)
And this is the filmmakers’ attempt to cross over to a mainstream audience? What do they say when the heathens aren’t listening?
Seriously, you’d think they’d try to tone down the bigotry just a LITTLE bit.
Are Barney Miller and Captain Stubing THIS hard up for money, or are they really on board with this garbage?
Heck, Paul Rodrigues would have more dignity if he were a game show host on Univision. And this movie is a sad coda to Hal Linden’s career-he’s much more famous in acting circles for his work in theater than his brief stint on “Barney Miller”. In fact, with the cast of washed-up stars this turkey has, Gavin McLeod really hasn’t left the Love Boat after all!
The vibe I got from the trailer was that the films message is “people are more religious in an 1890 bible school than downtown (wherever) in 2002.” Well duh.
And what is this business about belief in God being the only basis for morality? Not only are the filmmakers ignoring the fact that non-Abrahamic religions have their own codes of morality, but they also seem never to have heard of the philosophers of the Englightenment, like Voltaire and Diderot, who, as atheists, contrived systems of ethics based on natural law, not from religious dictates. In fact, they seem to not think that any schools of philosophy could exist outside their simple-minded Biblical literalism.
For example, while I suspect that the filmmakers would agree with Immanuel Kant that the moral law is a universal and unconditional imperative, I highly doubt that they would approve of Kant’s epistemological deconstruction of dogmatism in The Critique of Pure Reason. What would they make of David Hume’s derivation of social morality from an empirical perspective? From An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals:
And, of course, if anyone showed the filmmakers a few choice passages from Friedrich Nietzsche’s works, I suspect their overworked brain cells would explode.
It surprises me that people who declare themselves the followers of a millennia-old religion have absolutely no grasp of the past.
If anything, this movie only reinforces my belief that fundamentalist Christianity is the province of the unlettered and the unwashed.
But see, following God-less morality leads to CHAOS AND HORROR. The bearded guy’s book apparently IS about God-less morality and apparently it leads directly to daytime TV.
And after watching Rosie or Jerry or Montel or Sally-Jessie and thinking “Dear GOD! How can you allow this to happen?” I have to wonder if the filmmakers don’t have a point.