Gus Holwerda's THE UNBELIEVERS is a near waste of time. And I'm speaking as an agnostic.

What were they thinking, the Holwerda brothers, Gus (shown below) and Luke, not to mention their subjects, scientists/teachers Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, by gifting us with this nearly pointless docu-mentary titled, and badly, THE UNBELIEVERS? Dawkins and Krauss are hardly unbelievers. They believe in science and what it can teach us, even if they do not believe in religion or a deity of any kind. I agree with them one hundred per cent. And yet the silly and tiresome film that the Holwerdas have put together about this pair does no one any service, least of all the poor audience that must view it.

Beginning with a very good quote from Woody Allen and then continuing with more input from various celebrities, the film introduces its subjects as men who believe in and proselytize for disbelief, so far as religion is concerned. All snippets, and half of them not particularly edifying, the movie lasts only 75 minutes, with the final ten given over to end credits and a run-down of the credentials for the two men, followed by more talk from those several celebrities we saw at the start of the film.

While some of the things we hear the two men say (Dawkins is pictured above, Krauss below) are indeed smart and to the point, the movie, even at this short length, still manages to waste about a quarter of its time with unnecessary filler. The director, Gus, seems to favor showing people traveling to and fro, so we see airports and scenery and cars and people in motion, as though we cared a lick about this. Even sillier, in a documentary where intelligent talk should be most important, the filmmaker, in some sort of pointless nod to "style," offers a number of moments of mouths seen moving with no accompanying sound.

We attend "debates" but see and hear so little of them, particularly of the contrary view, that we wonder why the filmmakers bothered. We see bits and pieces of protests -- the best of which shows a group of all-male Muslim protesters and batch of further protesters against the Muslim, who chant "Where Are Your Women?" to these shamefully anti-women funda-mentalist idiots. But so what? There's a noticeable lack of organization here, which reduces the movie to a hack job for the already converted.

When we do hear Dawkins or Krauss speaking, some of what they say has merit and is intelligent. But they always seem to be cut short. I suspect it would have done more good to simply film one of their joint appearances in its entirety, including the Q&A that probably followed to give us a clearer sense of what is on offer here. (Or better yet, just pick up one of the books that either man has already written and peruse it at your leisure.)

I firmly believe that Atheism/Agnosticism deserves its chance to shine and convert new followers every bit as much as does any and all religion -- which is based on a faith that is simply unprovable. Most of us would never manage our money in this manner. Why, then, do we give over our lives, our rationality, to this crap? Perhaps, as Dawkins suggests, there are many more atheists and agnostics among us -- including our politicians -- than care to admit this in a world that appears to be heading toward fundamentalism instead of reason.

Yet by preaching, and poorly, to the choir as it were, The Unbelievers ends up an opportunity mostly wasted. The film opens today, Friday, November 29, in Los Angeles at Laemmle's Music Hall 3 in Beverly Hills and will hit New York City on Friday, December 13, at the Quad Cinema.

Note: The film's director, Gus Holwerda will appear 

tonight, 11/29/13 at the Music Hall 3 after 

the 7:50 show for a Q&A with the audience.

When the film hits the Quad Cinema in NYC, the

filmmaker will be present on the opening evening of Dec. 13

for a Q&A following the 7:40 show.

On MLK Day post, a word about THE HELP plus an additional one about THE LEDGE

Not being invited to see THE HELP prior to its theatrical release, I caught up with it recently on Blu-ray and thoroughly enjoyed it. As obvious a movie in some ways as it is, it is also full of wonderful performances filling out a raft of terrific characters, and of course its theme of overcoming racism is still strongly with us. I have heard criticism from both blacks and and whites about its typical use of whites in the role of the enablers who make it possible for change to come for southern blacks. Yes. Well, there it is: they/we helped. Forgive us, please. But the blacks did the real work. They took the action and paid for it, often, with their lives (as did whites like Goodman and Schwerner).

Seems to me that The Help honors all this in its thoughtful, entertaining way, and since it won several awards, including Best Picture, from the Black Film Critics Circle, it's clear that plenty of blacks out there think so, too. TrustMovies has not put together any Best List for last year because he has not seen nearly all the movies yet, particularly the mainstream variety. When and if he does, The Help will certainly be mentioned.

Meanwhile, let's talk about another important movie from last year that will barely be mentioned because it comes down foursquare against organized religion and faith-in-god as any kind of intelligent principles upon which to base one's actions. The film is titled THE LEDGE, written and directed by Matthew Chapman, and my original review of it appears here. But since it is MLK Day I want to take some extra time to call up a very brave black performance from an actor who is always good and often much more than that: Terence Howard.

For Mr. Howard (above, center) to appear in a movie that disses unintelligent, by-rote faith and to be the catalyst that ends the movie on a wise and thoughtful note of wait-just-a-damn-minute-before-you-automatically-pray -- and then to give that movie his all, as Howard is wont to do in every role -- must have taken some balls. I would think that the black community, with its far-too-encompassing reliance on religion (a religion, I might add, that usually ostracizes gay black men), was not particularly pleased. But this movie deserves to be seen. I wonder what Dr. King, himself a preacher and a "sinner," according to his religion, would have thought about it. I would like to imagine that he'd have been shaken, yes, but over-all pleased. (I think he would be pleased, too, by how far the GLBT community has come in the decades since his untimely death. In fact, these days he would probably not have given a second thought to keeping Bayard Rustin on-staff as one of his right-hand men.) Anyway, see this fine film, a riveting thriller in its own right, and decide for yourself. (You can purchase or rent it on Blu-ray and DVD.)

Religion and real estate: George Ratliff's smart mash-up SALVATION BOULEVARD

In yet another case of audiences for independent movies being smarter than the critics for same, SALVATION BOULEVARD, the new and enjoyably plot-heavy comedy from director/co-writer (with Doug Max Stone) George Ratliff, from the novel by Larry Beinhart, has opened to particularly negative review (only 10% "good" on Rotten Tomatoes, though nearly 70% of the audience approves of it). You will note, I hope, that I call this movie a comedy -- not a satire -- which is what, I believe, these critics decided that the film should be. And so they are now punishing it for not giving them the scathingly funny, shiv-sharp movie that they wanted. Well, compatriots: Go suck an egg.

Instead -- thanks to Ratliff (shown, left), Stone and (I only suspect, having not read) Beinhart's original novel -- the film is an oddly sweet, sad and often very funny look at what religion in today's society makes of and does to its followers. (Salvation Blvd. would complete a fine double bill with last week's atheist drama The Ledge.) This is about as event-filled a film as you could wish for, with all of those events -- from the religious debate that opens the movie to death-by-pistol, kidnapping and a forced vacation on a glorious estate in faux Mexico -- spot-on and fascinating, each new one adding a layer of meaning and humor.

Ratliff has assembled a starry cast of well very-chosen pros, and each one nails his or her character, sometimes quite surprisingly. Jennifer Connelly (above, flanked by cops), for instance, seen last year as Charles Darwin's long-suffering wife in Creation, here plays a rabidly fundamentalist spouse, who is as scary as she is believable. She's a little sad, too -- which is why the movie never slides into simple-minded satire. It keeps its cast and their characters human at all times. (That's a very good Marissa Tomei, above, left, as an ex-Grateful Dead-head, facing off against Connelly.)

Pierce Brosnan (above) plays the unctuous fundamentalist preacher, making him more than just a figure of hypocritical fun.  He seems to believe what he preaches, stupid as it is, and when he missteps, it's an accident, all right, but he denies, runs away, lies and then resorts to murder -- all while trying to keep his relationship to the "almighty" intact. Sounds rather "human," no? Brosnan plays it straight and smart, and the filmmakers see to it that he is given no cheap-and-standard hypocrisy (like bedding his female -- or for that matter, male -- parishioners).

In the lead role is an actor who may be the most under-sung of any America male in his age range: Greg Kinnear (above). TrustMovies wrote an appreciation of this fine actor a year or so back (you can find that here), and he remains in awe of both this man's skill and the little appreciation he gets from our critical establishment.  Not that our critics put him down. They simply ignore him, and at this point in his career, he ought to be a national treasure, rather than just another actor plying his trade. In Salvation Blvd., as a former drugged-out "Dead"-head who has found Jesus and is living to regret that discovery, Kinnear is wonderful once again as our hero Carl -- who's maybe a little dumb but is possessed of such genuine humanity that he manages to stay alive and land on his feet. There's a scene toward the finale with Brosnan, in which Carl can either tell the truth and hurt someone badly or lie and give the guy a little peace. The moment he takes to reflect shows this actor at his finest -- and the movie-makers at their most humane.

Ed Harris (above, left, with Brosnan) as an atheist professor, Ciarán Hinds as Connelly's dad, Isabelle Fuhrman (remember Orphan?!) as Kinnear's stepdaughter, Jim Gaffigan (below) as Brosnan's videographer and naughty right-hand man, and Yul Vazquez as a south-of-the-border entrepreneur with big ideas about construction, cheap labor and the Brosnan's character's Christian Community (this latter wrinkle is probably the movie's funniest and most pointed barb) all contribute to our enjoyment and amusement.

A movie about which I'd imagine Jesus would heartily approve (while whipping those money-changers out of the temple), Salvation Boulevard, from IFC Films, opened yesterday (apologies for the tardy review) in New York City at Clearview Cinemas' 1st and 62nd and Chelsea venues, and at the Village East Cinemas, and elsewhere soon, I hope. As with most IFC films, this one will able to be viewed via VOD, with its run beginning on Wednesday, July 27. Click here to determine how to get VOD from IFC....

Matthew Chapman's THE LEDGE explores our faith -- and where we elect to place it; a Q&A with the talented writer/director

An intelligent, anti-religion tract brought to thrilling, pulsating life, THE LEDGE may not be a great film but it is a very, very good one -- cleverly imagined, sharply written and beautifully acted by all concerned. Written and directed by Matthew Chapman (who is, not coincidentally, the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin), the movie's plot pits the mind and spirit of a Christian fundamen-talist against those of an atheist. At stake, is, well, everything. Is this movie provocative? Yes indeed.

That the Christian is acting against every tenant known to have come from Christ Jesus' teachings only makes the movie more realistic and believable so far as what has happened (and continues to happen) in these United States over the past decade or so. Those beautiful Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount -- landmarks of ethical behavior -- have long been left behind by the most zealous, proselytizing Christians in their hypocritical search to deprive homosexuals of their rights, find and kill doctors who practice abortion, and see that women return to their role as "helpmeet" to their man. Our Christian here is played by Patrick Wilson, above, in yet another performance so much better than it needs to be that perhaps they should create an award just for this particular skill. Mr. Wilson has moments of such specificity and honesty that, as dreadful as is the character he plays, the actor never loses us by descending to cliché.

The role of the atheist is essayed by Charlie Hunnam, above, and this is certainly the best job I have seen this young actor deliver so far. He brings a fine intelligence and quick, easy wit to the role, as well as an underlying seriousness and gravity that allow the film to take the course it eventually does.

Beginning with a scene that must be every father's quiet nightmare, in which Terence Howard (above) delivers yet another fine performance as a police inspector who suddenly discovers some unsettling news, the movie opens up into the workplace -- a rather standard, mid-level hotel, where Hunnam's character manages the chambermaid staff -- and the home, an apartment building in which both pro- and antagonist reside, the latter of which has a wife (Liv Tyler, below) who proves the catalyst for all that happens.

Ms Tyler is also giving a performance that as good as anything she's done so far. Playing a woman with a past who is stalled between gratitude and genuine love, she brings not only a tender neediness but surprising seriousness and heft to this role, and she is finally instrumental in allowing us to believe how very far these men would go to possess her.

There's a minimal subplot about Hunnam's gay roommate, which might seem unduly schematic were it not for the very charming, easy performance by Christopher Gorham (above). Homosexuality is the but first of the "sins" our good Christian hopes to eradicate in his neighbors. If only he had stopped there.

The Ledge -- from IFC Films, opens this Friday in theaters (in New York City at the IFC Center, and in Los Angeles area at Laemmle's Sunset 5), and is concurrently available via VOD -- incorporates several genres, but mostly stays in the will-he-or-won't-he (and why?) thriller mode. Chapman handles the flashbacks (necessary, when the tale begins on that ledge) with ease and smarts so that we know what we need to, when we need to, and learn the rest as we move along.  If you've seen as many man-on-a ledge films as have I over the past 70 years, you'll appreciate one as different and pungent as this. It proves its point efficiently and effectively, while entertaining us and making us think. Can you ask much more from a movie?

***************

TrustMovies couldn't, but he could and did ask the filmmaker a few questions -- via phone, but we spent about an hour just gabbing. Matthew Chapman (shown below) and I share a belief in atheism, if that is not a contradiction in terms, and he is such an interesting, open and enthusiastic verbal presence that conversation was easy and plentiful. Unfortunately, the fellow was so much fun, and so interesting at times that TM simply stopped typing and just kept talking and listening. Consequently, he failed to transcribe everything and then had to try to reconstruct it. Below are the highlights, with TM in boldface and Mr. Chapman in standard type.

Boy – how wonderful it is to see a movie about faith – but faith placed in something besides god. Your movie gives us faith in love, in another person, in a kind of “social contract,” in doing the right thing, in, well, anything but religion and that "un-provable" deity!

You got it. And I am so glad.

Yes, and I think most other critics and audiences are going to understand this -- and how important it is -- too.

Let’s hope.

What? You think that some -- even many -- critics will let their own need for religion stand in the way of their appreciation?

I would not be surprised.

I hope not. I read in our press material that you are the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin, so of course we would expect you to have some interest in challenging the fundamentalist religious viewpoint. But how did you get involved in making a movie about this?

I had already written two books about this sort of thing. As a young man, I wasn’t really interested in Darwin because, in Europe, there is simply nothing controversial about him or about evolution. I thought that maybe the sort of odd and quirky piece of luck of being a descendent of this man might provide me with some interesting battles to fight and places to go.

So I wrote the book Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir about the Scopes Trial, and I took a road trip down to Dayton, Tennessee, to see the town where the original trial took place and to learn if it had evolved since 1925.

Had it?

It certainly had not. It seemed pretty much the same, maybe even a little less tolerant. I did meet some great people down there, however. I met a lot of people who were fundamentalists, and some of them were really terrific in certain ways.

Then I wrote a second book called 40 Days and 40 Nights, about a contemporary evolution-versus-creationism trial in Harrisburg, PA: Kitzmiller v. Dover Schooboard. There, fundamentalist parents had gotten control of the school board and instituted the teaching of creationism/intelligent design, as well as evolution. It got very ugly, and eleven parents sued to have the intelligent design taken out of the curriculum.

What confuses me – and I come from a very religious background as a (now-lapsed) Christian Scientist – is how welcoming and kind Christ Jesus was in literally everything he said and did (except maybe whipping the money-lenders out of the temple, which is something we could use a lot more of just now). And yet the Christian fundamentalists, in their hatred and anger, seem completely unaware that they are going directly against Jesus’ wishes and directions.

I believe these people wear a Jesus costume -- but inside they are Moses.

Oh, boy -- that was well said. Is that original?!

Yes, and it just came to me now, talking to you

Did you cast the movie yourself? Fine choices! Charlie Hunnam was particularly good: he -- and you and your writing -- really capture the mind and heart of an intelligent atheist.

Yes, and you know, we only had a single day to rehearse.

One day? Boy, in legitimate theater you’d have a lot more than that!

I’m sure. I was indeed involved in the casting, and this was exactly the cast I wanted, and I think all of the actors are so good, so exceptional. I think that Liv Tyler and Charlie Hunnam are as good as they have ever been, and of course, Patrick Wilson and Terence Howard are always so good.

Wilson is so effortlessly good at being cold, and yet in other roles – like the current Insidious – he’s full of innate charm. Tyler, under-used and often given a bad rap, really proves herself here. And Hunnam is just about perfect as a non-believer who’s whip-smart and won’t put up with any bullshit. And it is his character most of all that nails your thesis, I think. The fact that genuine faith need not be at the service of god or religion.

You know, I went to show this film at a meeting of more than 1,000 atheists in Des Moines, Iowa, and around 120 of them were either military or ex-military. I met many of them, talked and hung out with them, even got drunk with them. Clearly, these were people who would have sacrificed their lives for their comrades in war. So it’s clear that people do sacrifice their lives out of and for simple human decency, without any promise of an afterlife.

You may not know the answer to this, but do you think that your actors’ interest in this film came somewhat because of its (and maybe their own) take on religion and fundamentalism?

 
I didn’t probe into that question with them, except a bit with Charlie, because of the particular role he had. There are parts of actors that which you honor better, if you let them keep a few things to themselves. You get more out of them that way.

That’s true, I think. I used to act. Way back.

Really?

Yeah, but I couldn’t mange it for long. It’s such a difficult struggle. You have to be so strong to take that near-constant rejection.

My daughter now wants to be an actress. And I worry about this.

I think if parents -- and I suspect you have already done this -- provide their kids with the tools to form their own good self-image while growing up, then whatever career the kids decide to tackle, they’ll have a better chance of success.

Well, one thing I did tell my daughter is, Just keep your sense of humor. That is so important. Really, that’s probably why England survived the Blitz and WWII. Hitler had no sense of humor, but Churchill certainly did. If you have as sense of humor, this can really help take the pressure off.

Can we talk about Heart of Midnight?

(Chapman laughs) 
{Editor’s note: This was one of Chapman’s earlier films.}

Sure. Actually, that’s why I stopped directing. We had a disagreement on what the movie should be. I wanted it to be an art movie, the producer wanted a horror movie. And so the finished film was constantly fighting against itself. After that, I thought, I don’t want to get rushed into another movie where I don’t care about the ideas or don’t understand them.

It's funny, but I remember thinking, when I saw it when it first came out, that this was a movie that didn't know what it wanted to be.  Then came Consenting Adults…

Another movie with problems.

The Color of Night, which for all its bad press, was still kind of fun in a campy way. And then What’s the Worst that Could Happen? What was that last film like to work on?

That was one of the best scripts I ever wrote. Donald Westlake, from whose novel I adapted the screenplay, wrote me, telling me that this was “the best adaptation of any of book of mine, ever” – which I am really proud of! But you do this work and think you’ve written a good script, and then…. the director comes aboard. So, after about 20 years of people misdirecting your work, you finally think, “Well, I‘d like to mis-direct my own work.”

Runaway Jury, though – now that was another good script --and a good movie!

Yes, but because The Insider has just come out and was about the prosecution of the tobacco industry, the producers wanted me to find another subject in place of tobacco, since they had bought the right to the Grisham book. So I turned the subject to the wrongdoing of a gun manufacturer. I did a lot or research into issue of guns their control and distribution. For instance, when you pull the magazine out of certain guns, often that gun is left with a bullet in its chamber.

What? Really?

Yes. So people pick up the gun and think that because there is no magazine in it, it’s empty. But, still, there’s a bullet in the gun. Gun companies could get around this by doing all kinds of things, but they just don’t bother. And that’s disgusting.

Yep. I’d like to think that Runaway Jury at least got viewers thinking about guns and gun control. Before I forget, are Hussy and Stranger’s Kiss (these are two of Chapman’s earliest films) available on DVD or streaming?

You know, I don’t really know. And also, the things you did way back then are from such a different time that it’s like a different person wrote them.

Yes: I used to write plays, and when I look back at them 30 years later, it’s like they belong to someone else.

While you might change some things and make it better, you can’t really capture the spirit that was you at that time. I would love to write for the theater. The famous theater director Peter Hall has a son Edward Hall, who runs The Hampstead Theater and he wants me to turn The Ledge into a theater piece. Which I hope to do.

I can see that happening fairly easily, for there is already so much good dialog there. If somebody had told me that The Ledge was already based on a play, I’d have said, “Of course.”

Speaking of Darwin, did you see the movie Creation, and what did you think? I thought it could have been better but even so, there were some marvelous things in it.

I was hoping they would ask me to write Creation. But they didn’t. But I thought the movie had some wonderful stuff in it, too. You know, Darwin was such a scientist – and interested in so many different things. He wrote this enormous book about orchids and earthworms; he really had a scientist’s mind.

Were you raised in England?

Yes, in Cambridge.

I notice during the end credits that you dedicated your movie to two names.

Yes -- to two men Dick Chapman (my uncle) and Ben Duncan, who was his partner and is now his husband. They were the first couple to marry in Cambridge, England, and are somewhat, you might say, gay icons. I love them. They were the only functional couple in my entire childhood. I love and revere them because they were such a good example to me. They were also a huge inspiration to the film -- because homophobia is one of the most awful and visible aspects of religion in general and of Christians, Muslims and Jews in particular. But I don’t think I know a single religion that isn’t homophobic. When I was growing up, these two men who lived next door to me. If they had been caught, simply as two practicing homosexuals, they would have faced up to 30 years in prison during the 1950s and 60s – that was the maximum sentence in Britain. From the age of eight or nine, I thought this law was outrageous and very peculiar.

Where does this hatred come from?

One does not have far to look. The Church of England was always very homophobic.

Still is, pretty much.  Now, your movie is opening simultaneously in New York and Los Angeles, right?

Yes, but whether it opens nationwide depends on how it does in the first couple of weeks. So whether it makes it into the smaller town or even mid-size towns in American – which is where it really needs to be seen -- depends on how well it does in those first couple of weeks.

Because it’s from IFC, it’ll still be available via VOD all over the country.

Yes, but to be really empowering and to provoke discussion, it needs to open in a local theater where the local critic will then cover it.

Right – although more and more often now, you see VOD debuts and straight to DVD covered by the media, especially the blogs. 

But we need to get the major critics to do this, too.

Yes -- so we will do what we can.  Thanks so much for your time, Matthew, and I wish you the very best for your really special and provocative film.

Thank you.