‘Paul’ Review

Published 3 years ago by , Updated October 5th, 2011 at 5:26 pm,

paul review Paul Review
Screen Rant’s Vic Holtreman reviews Paul

Pretty much every negative review for Paul that I’ve read is prefaced with the same thing I’ll say here: I’m a big fan of Shaun of the Dead and I loved Hot Fuzz (I gave it 5 stars). Those films starred the dynamic duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and were directed by Edgar Wright. The director here is Greg Mottola, who directed Superbad (which I also liked). I had hoped that the Pegg, Frost, and Mottola partnership would make for a new and great comedy movie combination aimed directly at fanboy geeks like myself.

Sadly… not so much.

Pegg and Frost play Graeme Wily and Clive Gollings, a couple of British nerd/fanboys who’ve finally realized their dream of visiting America. Not only America, but the pinnacle event of geek culture: The San Diego Comic-Con. Like any good, dedicated Sci-Fi/comic book fan, they roam the main floor gazing longingly at all the expensive toys for sale. Clive is a writer and Graeme an artist and they’ve been working on a graphic novel inspired by the work of their favorite author Adam Shadowchild (Jeffrey Tambor, sadly underutilized in the film). They meet him and gush, ignoring the fact that he’s quite a pompous ass.

After the Con they decide to drive cross country and hit the UFO sights including places like Roswell, New Mexico. They’re reveling in their adventure when they come across a car wreck as it happens – and this is where they meet Paul, the little green alien (voiced by Seth Rogen). They each react to the seemingly street-wise alien who swears like a sailor in different ways. Graeme accepts and takes to Paul quite quickly while Clive is suspicious and aloof despite the fact that he’s always dreamed of meeting an alien.

It’s made clear that Paul has been on Earth for a very long time and the fact that he’s suddenly out and about means that someone is looking for him. This is where we are introduced to Federal Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) – a no nonsense, by the book, order-taking man in black who is tasked with tracking down Paul no matter what the cost. He reluctantly partners up with a couple of newbie agents (Joe Lo Truglio and Bill Hader), who turn out to be the funniest additions to the whole movie.

paul review1 Paul Review

Paul (Seth Rogen) and Simon Pegg in a scene from 'Paul'

While on the lam our trio runs into Kristin Wigg as Ruth Buggs, a fundamentalist Christian living in a trailer park, and oppressed by her drinking, redneck father. She’s a creationist and “young-Earther,” painted as about as naive and ignorant a person as you’re likely to ever meet. Once she meets Paul, her worldview is completely shattered and she immediately loses her faith. The scene in which it happens is actually pretty funny – she decides that she can now drink, cuss and “fornicate” (that’s a quote). She starts using her newfound permission to spout foul language, but she doesn’t quite have the hang of how to combine the proper words, and it’s funny for the first couple of times she does it (until the joke becomes overused, as the gag is revisited a LOT throughout the film).

The rest of the movie is spent with Ruth, Graeme and Clive trying to get Paul to a rendezvous point where he can be picked up, in order to head back home.

I can tell you that by about 15 minutes into Paul, before Ruth had been introduced, all the film managed to elicit from me were a couple of mild chuckles. Throughout the entire movie I thought there were maybe a half dozen laughs, tops. Paul is kind of a love letter to the sort of folks who are the reason that comic book movies started getting made – the folks who are rabid sci-fi fans and love superheroes. There are a ton of references and nods to films that we know and love (and I mean a TON of references), but overall that’s just one of many things that got old.

Let’s hit the controversy, now, shall we? The inclusion of a heavy anti-religion message feels very out of place, and I think even folks who don’t have “Judeo-Christian beliefs” (quote from the film) will sense that. The supposed humor is wielded like a club – there’s no subtlety like in Monty Python’s Life of Brian or Kevin Smith’s Dogma (two films that poked fun at religion that I enjoyed). Now ruminate on that for a moment – I’m calling a Monty Python film subtle in comparison to this. Some people have stated that in this regard the film is not mean-spirited, and on that I call complete B.S. It could hardly be meaner – including a scene at the very end where there might have been a chance for at least a small bit of grace (yes, that’s an appropriate word for this), but instead it was another slap in the face. Oh, there’s also a cheap shot at the fact police use, like, GUNS here in the U.S.. I wouldn’t mind if it was actually funny – but again, club, over the head.

Additionally, I didn’t understand why those behind the film felt that it needed to be rated R. Paul could have easily been a PG-13 movie – the extreme amount of foul language feels totally superfluous and adds nothing to the film. After a while it gets very old and I started to wonder: is there NO one in this film who knows how to speak a sentence without dropping an f-bomb or other profanity? Again, before you call me out as a priss, see the films I’ve listed above that I enjoyed.

paul review2 Paul Review

Jason Bateman as agent Zoil

So what’s good? Well, being a Sci-Fi geek I did appreciate all the references to beloved films, even if it did get old after a while. Kristen Wigg does a good job with the role she’s given to work with, and I’m always a fan of Jason Bateman’s performance style. The CGI animation for the title character was excellent as well. But for me, the highlight was the two supporting characters played by Lo Truglio and Hader – the former plays it so earnestly goofy and the latter so completely straight that I couldn’t help but smile at the pair whenever they were on screen.

I suppose there’s a very narrow audience who may enjoy Paul, but in my opinion the filmmakers took an idea that could have been extremely funny and tainted it with a ton of foul language that was unnecessary and a heavy anti-religion message that kills most of the potential fun in the film.

Here’s a trailer for Paul:

-

[poll id="135"]

Our Rating:

2 out of 5
(Okay)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: 2 star movies, paul

308 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. Well, looks like this is a movie I’ll be skipping. Thanks for the review, Vic.

    Now about all this discussion about faith and aliens, for one, not all Christians believe that we are alone in the universe. We do believe there is a Creator (of the universe) but most do not believe it happened in 6 literal days (even though we believe the Father can do such a thing). And about evolution destroying creationism? No it hasn’t. Creationism is just the belief that there was an intelligence that created the universe. Isn’t it possible that this Creator designed life in a way that would evolve? I find it odd that being seen as someone who has faith in God is laughable but these same people will accept from some scientist who simply says he/she has proven something but has not examined said proof themselves. Did Ghengis Khan exist? How about the first Buddha? I’m sure there must be something more than words to prove that Henry the 8th existed? We all have faith in one form or another. I would not want someone to tell me I’m a moron because I believe in Christ just as I would not tell someone they are a moron for believing in Zeus.

    And yes, I believe this universe is billions, if not trillions, of years old; I also believe that there could be intelligent life not only in the universe but in this galaxy. And I also believe in evolution.

    • So you’re picking and choosing what you believe in from the bible? If the bible is the word of god, shouldn’t you follow it word for word? Shouldn’t you believe that slavery is okay? That gay marriage is an abomination? etc. etc. etc.

      I have no problem with god but this “pick and choose” thing throws me off. Everyone interprets the religion to suit their own personal needs, opinions and likes and dislikes. It’s all over the place.

      And please PLEASE don’t compare creationism to science. In science, you don’t have to believe because it’s TRUE. And if you actually take the time to read the theories and the evidence supporting these theories about the creation of Earth then your head will spin. It’s EXTREMELY complicated and there are still so much we don’t know.

      • The bible has some good things in it. But it has been reinterpreted, translated wrongly, had stuff taken out and stuff put in until no one knows what the heck it originally said.

        Now some would say that god would not let his book be misinterpreted. But with all the various versions of the bible it is pretty obvious that he didn’t prevent that.

        Add to that that the viewpoint is from that of primitive tribesmen seeing things they didn’t understand and trying their best to describe them by what they knew and as an accurate chronicle it becomes pretty worthless.

        However some of the overall lessons and ideas of the bible are still pretty good things to live by. Don’t hurt people, don’t sleep around, be humble, try to do what you think is right, treat people the way you’d want to be treated. In general don’t be a scumbag.

        • Well said Thandrale. Problem is that most religions hold their bible (or Koran or Torah, etc.) as the absolute truth.

          As for religion teaching good rules to live by. ABSOLUTELY. But, these morals, ethics, laws, etc. served well hundreds of years ago when we weren’t so civilized. Now, there are FAR BETTER sources of the right morals, ethics, laws, etc. The bible is not needed as much. And what worries me is when the bible is used to harm and kill people. It’s going backwards.

          • Yes, it’s funny – you talk about people taking the parts they want out of the Bible as is convenient for them (which does indeed happen), but you have no problem with a sliding scale of morality that shifts with whatever is convenient and is just a different variation of what you’re saying about religion.

            What’s a “better source”? People in the government? Because we know they’re incorruptible, infallible and beyond reproach, right?

            Vic

          • BTW, this has turned from annoying to fun. For me, anyway. 8)

            Vic

        • “But it has been reinterpreted, translated wrongly, had stuff taken out and stuff put in until no one knows what the heck it originally said.”

          That, sir, is a myth. Anyone who has done any in depth study on the subject will tell you that is not true.

          Vic

          • So all the various versions of the bible are absolutly correct? It’s also pretty established that some books of the bible were left out for various reasons.

            • I’m not Catholic (was raised as one, though), but there was no conspiracy involved with the Council of Nicaea when they determined which books of the Bible were “canon.” There were books/chapters written over a hundred years after the New Testament that contradicted those original books – the equivalent of someone just coming along out of nowhere and adding their version of what happened 150 years earlier, not having been there and witness to the events.

              So the council went through and kept the books that make up the New Testament, and excluded those that were written long after AND contradicted the teachings of the books written by the original apostles.

              Vic

              • Well there’s a problem. Recent studies of the Dead Sea scrolls seem to show that there was a gospel of Mary left out and the only reason they can figure why is that it shows Mary to be a close and favored disciple of Jesus. Well Mary is a woman. They couldn’t have her being that important.

                Some other things were left out because they were a bit shocking. Stuff like Angels consorting with human women and producing demon children.

                So some things were left out not because they were too far after Jesus’s death but because some crotchety old greybeard rabbis found them offensive.

                As for mistranslations. Hebrew does not translate perfectly into English. So there have to be some “educated guesses” as to what was meant in some words and phrases.

                • Just out of curiosity, how is it that you’re able to get into the heads and motivations of people who lived thousands of years ago? How is that any different from the kind of subjective re-writing you’re accusing the early Church of doing?

                • Thandrale,

                  I call total B.S. Show me research links to LEGITIMATE scholarly/archaeological sources that back that up.

                  Vic

      • “and there are still so much we don’t know.”

        Except of course, we KNOW there’s no God, right? Although how we know that when there’s “still so much we don’t know” is a bit beyond me. 8)

        (I just can’t help myself)

        Vic

        • Yes Vic, we know there’s no god. Provide a shred of actual evidence PLEASE! The burden of proof falls on you. Every time I ask that question to a religious person I get the “god works in mysterious ways”, “one cannot see god, one feels him”, blah blah blah

          Whereas science has made TREMENDOUS progress in showing actual evidence of how the earth was formed and numerous other events that directly contradict and discredit what you “believe” to be true.

          And if you think the bible is the same bible that was written thousands of years ago you are naive. The same type of people you speak of as untrustworthy were the ones that presented the bible in whatever way suits them. Man does not become evil and corrupt just because he’s in the government. Oh and btw, religion and bible WAS the “government” before there ever was one.

          • No ogb139… YOU know there is no God. Please don’t presume to speak for everyone else. How sad for you that the blinders you have put on don’t let you see the proof of GOD all around you. I wont waste time trying to explain to you what you DO NOT CHOOSE to understand. A pointless gesture.

            The burden of proof DOES NOT FALL on Vic or I or any other Christian just because YOU say so. What condescending arrogance! And how typical of a non believer.

            You ARE correct that science has mad tremendous progress. GOD must be very proud of the development of his invention.

            Done with you.

            • Barry

              Please, “waste” some of your time and provide PROOF that god exists.

          • Claiming to make a positive affirmation that something does not exist also requires evidence as much as the person who wishes to prove positively that something does exist.

            The burden of proof is on the person making the positive affirmation, whether that affirmation is for or against the existence of “x”.

            Fortunately faith by its very definition requires no proof. That’s why mixing concepts of scientific proof with matters of faith is futile, whether its science trying to prove God does not exist, or faith trying to use science to prove God does exist. The two concepts are aiming beyond one another.

      • In response to your first paragraph, there was a drastic transition in the world between the old and new testiments.

    • Evolution completely undermines Creationism. God could have created cells and guided them along evolution and all that, yeah, but that’s not creationism, that’s something completely different. Creationism is God made everything natural in 6 days, end of story.
      You really can’t compare science and history to religion at all. History and Science have a ton of things going for them (there is evidence you can’t really deny in both) and they’re not faith, they’re fact. I’m sorry but there is no actual, real evidence of God, unlike evolution and King George and the nervous system and all that good stuff.
      That being said, I have no problem with you or religion in general, and I am completely fine with you believing whatever you want.

      • Quick question. What is a day for god?

        He probably travels around at lightspeed or faster so time dilation comes into play. So what seemed like a day to him might be millions of years. So science might actually give us a clue to what that line actually entailed.

        For that matter god probably can time travel further confusing what he might mean by “a day”.

        Everythings relative.

        • Then that makes the choice of the word ‘day’ a pretty meaningless cypher.

          • also this

        • Have you seen Inherit the Wind? There’s a couple really great lines in it from that line of thinking. Check it out if you can find it.

      • And who’s to say God didn’t create the cells that way? And like Thandrale said, what is a day to God? Some Creationist’s do believe in the literal 6 days (as I said before) but many (like myself) do not. The bible has much allegory in, and before you say, “Then how do you know what is metaphor and what is real”, I will say that what we (Christians) believe first is that God exists, and then that God loves His creation. So if we read in the scriptures something that doesn’t seem right, we go to Him in prayer and ask for enlightenment. I can see you rolling your eyes. To a non-believer, this is nonsense, I get that. If you do not believe in the spiritual, how can I explain it to you? The nonbeliever always want proof of the existence of God; when I see a leaf, I see proof of my God; a child being born is proof of His majesty to me; seeing the clockwork mechanism of the universe is proof for me. I can no more prove to you that God exists than you can prove to me that Ghengis Khan existed (although I believe he did). There is a reason Buddhist’s don’t discuss God: They believe He is soo far beyond us, it would be like asking an ant to explain quantum physics. You say we just pick and choose what we want to believe; people do that all the time. Do you believe your father is your father? How do you prove it? Some letter says he is? Some person says his DNA proves it? You are believing what someone else has told you. I can no more prove to you God exists than you can prove He doesn’t. The only one who can prove it, is God Himself.

        • The problem with this really is that I could prove my father was my father if I had the know-how, and I could prove Genghis Khan if I had the know-how. No one, no matter how much they know, can prove God is real. As for the “relative days” thing, that’s not creationism. It’s a lot more sensible then creationism, which is six literal, 24 hour, days, in which God created HUMANS, not cells, which became more advanced until they became human. There is no evolution in creationism.
          Please don’t be offended by any of this, I’m fine with prayer and all that if it gives people comfort.

          • I went to dictionary.com and looked up creationism:

            cre·a·tion·ism
               /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
            –noun
            1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

            2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.

            3.the doctrine that god immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

            Number 1 is what you are talking about, and if that is all what creationism was, I would agree with you. But 2 and 3 is what I believe. Now if being a creationist means you must believe number 1, then I am not a creationist. I do believe the earth was created as Genesis said, and I do believe that God creates the soul. I also believe that the universe came into existence when an electron collided with a positron, thus starting the Big Bang. I also believe that we have finger nails because at one point we had claws. I also believe we have hair on our fingers because many years ago we had fur. So I will ask, am I a creationist?

            • No, that means you believe in evolution. God-guided evolution. 2 says that the exact words of the bible are true, which is what 1 says. I haven’t heard the soul thing before, so I guess I’ll give you that. You also can’t believe exactly (can’t stress the word exactly enough) what Genesis says without believing that God created everyone and everything in exactly six days.

  2. Yeah Kahless, I pretty much agree with the universal Creator theory.

    Some abduction accounts have documented that aliens also aknowledge the exsistance of a Creator.

    I would recommend people that are interested in death or aliens to read up on abduction cases, and also read up on near death experiences.

    Fasinating stuff, and you might connect a few dots.
    :)

  3. @Words,,,
    ^
    “I’m sorry but there is no actual, real evidence of God,”
    ^
    I beg to differ,,,
    Children are evidence of God/Creator.

    This planet and its position in space in relation to the sun and moon is evidence of God/Creator.
    ^
    The fact that we haven’t nuked ourselves into dust is proof there’s a God/Creator.

    Imo, you don’t need to fear him/it, or repent your sins to him/it, or kill for him/it.

    • It always seemed to me that if you have a universe that seems to operate by a set of laws. Well you have to have a lawmaker. Otherwise it would be chaos. Nothing would work the same way all the time.

    • If there’s a god, he’s unfeeling, inhuman, and completely uninterested in us. Sure, we haven’t nuked each other yet, (unless you count Hiroshima + Nagasaki) but we haven’t had nukes for a long time and in the mean time we’ve been committing atrocities like the holocaust, the rape of nanking, and so much more.
      Children and this planet and all of its beauty? Chance. That may sound insane, but not as insane as a God. You leave the Universe alone for an eternity, some beauty is going to pop up somewhere, you and me just got lucky enough to show up on the beautiful planet.

    • “This planet and its position in space in relation to the sun and moon is evidence of God/Creator.”

      That gets us right back to the movie, doesn’t it? Because if there is life on other worlds then there’s nothing special about ourselves or the planet we live on.

  4. @Thandrale, did you know that there was a gap between the time of Christ’s death/resurection that lasted years before he was accepted as an important figure?

    The secret group known as The Knights Templar are said to have the most acurate depiction of Christ’s life and the knowledge of creation.

    I guess my point, is that the Bible is and always has been written by man. Terms like aliens or astronauts didn’t exsist then. Whirlwinds and charriots are what they called them, and Angels with wings are extraterrestrials.
    Imo,,,

    (Yes I’ve been drinking but this is what I know/believe) :)

  5. @Thandrale, you think that God is a superhuman in a physcial body. Naw its something that our human conceptual limitation can’t quite grasp.

    And time is a human form of measurement limited to Earth. Once you return to spirit form there is no time. Can you concieve that reality? No because right now your soul is incased in a human body that is experiencing time on Earth. If you knew Time was an illusion, life wouldn’t be the same.

    We choose to forget when we agree to come here.
    ^
    How these review comments go down these roads, cracks me up. Only on Screenrant. What a group we are. Lol

    • Well the bible does give god two different descriptions. In one instance it says man is created in gods image. So god must look human right? But elsewhere it says to gaze on the true face of god would drive you insane. Why would a human face drive you mad?

      In other places it says that god is everywhere in everything. That sorta sounds like god is some sort of universal particle or something. So some day when science gets a powerful enough microscope to see the smallest particle that composes everything. They might just see god smiling back at them :)

    • We do get trippy sometimes:)

  6. @Thandrale…
    Well there’s always the possiblity that we are one part of ourselves. The other parts are living parrelel lives in a multiverse where everything has already happend.

    This is why in this multiverse I sometimes drink,,,

    • Reminds me of the movie “The One”. Not a great movie but an interesting idea that if you kill a version of yourself you become more powerful. Maybe that’s why some people just seem to be good at everything they do. Maybe a lot of the other versions of themselves died. Heh

    • Ah so you are balancing things out with the universe where you’ve never had a drink or maybe where drink was never even invented. Thus preventing an imbalance that might cause the destruction of both universes.Good job. Carry on.

  7. I find it ironic to see some here dismissing religion as “silly” when so often these discussions involve passionate pleas for film directors to respect comic book “canon.”

    Belief in greatness, whether it be in a man from Galilee or a man from Krypton, is at the heart of us all.

  8. Is there really a “whether there are aliens” discussion going on? I thought this was a movie review.

    Anywho, I’m sad to hear this was less than good. I thought the trailer was very silly and I thought the cast was great. I haven’t seen it yet so maybe I’ll still enjoy it. Who knows?

  9. I DO believe that aliens exist.

    • Yes but are they illegals and how do we fence them out? They gots space ships for cryin’ out loud. They better not turk ur jobs :)

      • Pay him no mind Thandrale, he also believes that HP is a real kid.

  10. See the perfection.
    Look at the spiral galaxy and note how your fingerprint looks like a spiral galaxy,,,

    To know the truth is something everyone here will instantly know when they die. Until then, we have a reboot of Superman to talk about. Lol

    • Haha. Amen!

    • I think that’s called the “Golden spiral” or “Golden ratio”. It shows up in about everything if you look hard enough. Mathmatically it is 1.6180339887 and artistically it’s the shape of a snailshell.

    • 790 that’s called mathematics. The universal language.

  11. I’ve gathered more knowledge on death and the afterlife from books on near death experiences then I have from the Bible.

    • 790

      What do you think happens when we die?

      • We go to Riverworld, duh. Haha

        • Nuh uh. We have to deflower 75 virgins. Wait. Is that heaven or hell? If I remember right deflowering a single virgin wasn’t that great. Lot’s of crying and blood and such. 75? Yeah. That would definitely be hell.

      • I thought I was dead, and this was my punishment. :-D

        • Kahless, me too!

          • You mean we’re not??!! And there’s something worse out there???!!! SERENITY NOW!! SERENITY NOW!! :-P

  12. @Foopher, this is getting along on ScreenRant.

    Just think in other countries/times we would all be considred heretics and stoned to death.
    Thankfully Vic’s not a stone thrower. :)

    • ’tis very true. I just don’t like all the arguing about religion. Nothing I’m going to say (ot anyone is going to say) is going to change anyone’s mind on what anyone believes, so it’s quite honestly pointless, and is just tearing groups of people apart.

  13. Also, (this is off topic and has nothing to do with “Paul”) I don’t think the theory of evolution makes any sense. At least not the theory I’ve heard. I mean if things were so bad that a species needed to change into a completely different species to survive, then I doubt they would’ve had millions of years to do so. And why are there still other animals if they needed to evolve to survive? And why does it take
    months (or even a year or more) for a human baby to walk, when a baby horse, deer, giraffe, lion, etc., can get up and walk the day they’re born? If anything we’re unevolving…

    • Not all animals can walk right away. Also carbon dating has proved that life has been around longer than the bible says life started. Its also called adaption when a species changes to adapt to its environment.

      • Ok, that might not have been the best example. But when I look at animals I don’t see evidence in their appearance that one came from the other. I mean a fish, to a lizard, to a bird, to a mammal? I just don’t find that very probable.

        Also, I don’t think the Bible says flat out how old the earth is. I’ve read Genesis, and it says the earth and everything on it was created in six days. Someone mentioned before “what is a ‘day’ to God?”. Compared to eternity, 2 trillion (or another high number) years is like a second.

        And yes, I do believe in, what I believe is called “micro-evolution”; where if you take a dog with alot of fur and put it in a hot climate it will start to grow shorter hair. Or a birds beak changing to adapt to it’s food source. That has been documented and proven. Ape to man, has not.

        I’m not claiming to have all the answers, because I sure as heck don’t. And I doubt anyone else does either. If someone is really looking for answers I think there are better places than movie reviews, Haha.

        • “I mean a fish, to a lizard, to a bird, to a mammal? I just don’t find that very probable.”

          The truth is that it isn’t very probable but it nevertheless did happen.

          Also, it did not happen in the discrete stages that you have suggested here. At no stage did a fish suddenly give birth to a lizard. Rather the changes were minute, progressive (based on functionality) and repeated across so many millions of generations that we literally cannot detail them all.

          …and the progress of Homo Sapiens from the common ancestor that we share with the apes is well documented in the construction of the genome…. which makes the genetic evidence for ‘Ape to Man’ actually incontrovertible.

          As I have said before, if you are of a mind to find out more then I would be happy to speak with you privately about evolution.

          I just don’t think that this review is the place for such a conversation.

          • Mammals didn’t evolve from birds. In fact, birds are still here. But they’ve found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and there are fish to this day (very rare) that have lungs and can breathe. All the links can be found in the fossil record.

    • foopher, I would be happy to speak with you privately about evolution if you are at all interested in making sense of the idea.

      If you respond to this message in the positive then we can arrange something.

  14. Rickster!,,, (imo) keep in mind I’m 6 beers into the night and should really shut up. :)
    But I’ll answer your question best I can,,, regret it later.
    ^
    I believe everyones death experience is unique. Therefore this really isn’t an answer but,,,,

    Basically, when you pass over the first sensation is that your still alive. Because your still going to have a physical body or percieve you do.

    Eventually depending on your faith/soul age, you either decide to stay earth bound as a ghost for whatever reason or go into the light.
    ^
    If you stick around as a ghost or spirit you maybe able to escape the reincarnation/heaven experience by inhabiting a new body on earth or on other planets if you can concieve of them. As thought is power in the spirit form. What you think becomes reality.
    ^
    Or you can go into the light. At this point (imo) you will go through a life review. A life review is you reliving your life through the eyes of those you have influenced, harmed or loved.

    Once you have gone through the life review, YOU will judge yourself.
    Based on how much guilt you decide to carry, depends on what happens next.
    You either forgive yourself and go onto the next spiritual level or your guilt takes you to a place of darkness where you dwell in your misery.

    Either way, your soul belongs to that world, not this one so as wierd as it sounds, life on Earth will seem wierd once were over there. Only those of us that choose to experience this reality will know what its like. We can at that point choose to reincarnate or stay and help souls deal with death.

    Either way, Harry Potter won’t be anything you’ll care about over there. Life on this planet is unique in that way. This is a physical playground you’ve decided to check out.

    Man, I never thought this film would be the post I talk anout this stuff. :)

    • 790, dude… didn’t you WATCH Poltergeist? Do NOT go into the light.

      :-P

      Vic

    • LOL 790

  15. @Thandrale,,,
    ^
    “It shows up in about everything if you look hard enough.”

    See the perfection,,, :)

    Love your Gravatar!

  16. Haha Thandrale, think of all the movie tickets and snacks you’ll have to buy your 75 vigins?

    The saying, “you can’t take it with you,” really sticks it in and breaks it off over there in Muslim land. Lol

    :)

  17. LOL I’m not going into the light until I haunt the hell out of this site.

    :)

    Anyone that rips T3 is dammed,,,!!!

  18. Rickster!, I reveal the secret of death and your reply is LOL???

    Your gonna experience that in your life review!!!

    8-)

  19. @Than,,,
    There’s a couple of really good documentaries on Christ and the Bible I can’t locate tonight in my dvds but man they totally cover the history of how his name/legend became the focus of the pwers of control.

    • The heck of it is Jesus hated the rabbis of the synagogues. Yet after his death they took control of the information about him. Not sure how that happened. It’s a wonder he wasn’t completely vilified.

  20. I agree Than, if the bible was a screenplay? (And it may be) it was written by everyone in hollywood/the past,,,

    :)

  21. Here is your answer Ricky, 790 and everyone else:

    One day a young man on acid discovered all matter is just energy condensed to a slow moving vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is just a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. Now here’s Tom with the weather. – Bill Hicks.

  22. How come alien sightings only happen in small backwoods redneck towns? Are they gonna enter the mother ship in the next tractor pull?

    • Prime directive. If you butt probe the president on the white house lawn that’s going to have too major an impact on our society. Although if they can remove his head from that orifice it might be a good thing.

  23. I’m a Catholic who understands the importance of scientific discovery and research. I am proud of my church’s activism in the scientific community, the Catholic Obsevatory is one of the most advanced research centers in the world, and the Pope recently stated that life on other planets would not disprove god. I believe that science is the key to our existence and that the universe is immensely old, as does the catholic church which acknowledges the big bang. I am not naive enough to think that religion has no faults either, because it has a great many, my religion has made some of the most atrocious violations of human rights in history. But to state that a religion can be summed up as has been stated here by a minority fringe is wrong. Muslims and jews have been the target of hate in entertainment for years and have suffered for it, right now in this country we have McCarthy-esque hearings of American Muslims who love and live in this country for the very reason that they are Muslim, I have never heard of such a thing being done to Christians in this country. Jews endured passion of the Christ, which saw afterward a direct upswing in anti-semitism afterward, so any Christian thinking that we get “picked on” should take a look at history and truth before making such assertions. This movie seems to poke fun of the radical evangelicals more so then the moderate Christian community, and when one believe such preposterous things as “creationism” and that the world is 6000 years old, they open themselves, deservingly, up to scrutiny;as we have irrefutable evidence that the earth is over 4 billion years old in the form of ancient igneous rocks that formed as the earth was cooling all those years ago. I think that Christians have become overly sensitive to perceived attacks on their faith and wish that instead of hide away in ones religion they may study fact and look for the answers that religion cannot answer. The same with those who don’t believe in god and maybe admit that their are things that science can’t answer.

    • Beerjuice,

      I guess you don’t spend much time online or watching TV shows or the news.

      Vic

  24. I didn’t absolutely love Paul, but I enjoyed it and thought it was much better than Vic did.

    It’s good for a few laughs and while 10 years from now you won’t be praising it as a great comedy the day after seeing it you may be repeating some of the funniest lines to your friends. To me it was a solid 3/5 and just a few minor tweaks could of easily been really good. It’s a fun watch.

  25. Also I don’t get the “it’s anti christian” complaint. I didn’t see it as anti christian at all just anti extreme bible thumper christian. The ones who take everything to far. It didn’t bash down to earth people just the crazy ones.

    • Well there you have it! Thank you for explaining that, really. Like I said before, I haven’t seen it yet so I don’t know what was said.

    • 2.0 I totally agree with you I didn’t get the anti Christian message at all and I didn’t notice the excessive swearing either (but I am a chef I swear constantly at work) I thought this was a fun movie I loved how they linked Paul to past events movies ect being a big pegg/frost fan since spaced their use of references is always a highlight for me ( spaced is packed full of these I highly recommend it to anyone who’s never watched it) I will say its not better than sotd or hot fuzz but its a solid movie

      • BigD

        I actually hated SOTD and Hot Fuzz especially Hot fuzz so I like Paul much more than both. I thought SOTD was incredibly boring and I didn’t laugh twice during entire film. I thought Hot Fuzz was just dumb humor. I think Pegg is a funny talented guy and I thought he was wasted in both especially Hot Fuzz he is more clever than that.

  26. All hail the Loc-Nar, creator of all!!

  27. We went to see it last night and enjoyed it. But then again we enjoy Simon in most of his efforts.
    I really didn’t see the anti-christian theme either, but I did see a lot of fun made at fundies. But everyone makes fun of fundies, its just way to easy not to.
    Paul was enjoyable and a bit better than all the other dry fare thats been pushed around lately at the cinema.

    As for evolution?
    It makes much more since than creationism. Creationism is equivalent to being told as a kid that babies are born under cabbage leaves. It works for a while till the kid gains some brain matter and wants the truth.

    • Ha. Cabbage leaves. Everyone knows crosseyed bears bring us from babyland. It’s simple logic. You have to have a strong protector who can see in multiple directions for attacks. A baby under a cabbage leaf wouldn’t last five minutes.

      • Yeah, OK. As far as I’m concerned it takes as much faith to believe that life sprang from a pool of mud/liquid/chemicals whatever all by itself as it does to believe in a creator. To me that smacks of the “million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years will eventually produce Romeo and Juliet.” You can’t prove that any more than you can prove God, but people don’t seem to have an issue with that – they just say “look at the odds – given enough time ANYTHING can happen.”

        There’s still no valid scientific explanation for how life suddenly arose out of inert material. But, oh yeah, I get it – we just haven’t figured it out YET.

        Vic

        • You should check out the book Quantum Evolution. God is a scientist, no doubt.

        • Although I’ve been reading the responses to this thread with some considerable enjoyment, I’ve largely resisted joining in.

          However I want to respond to you here Vic because I think you’ve let your usually robust and quite impressive reasoning slip there to make a strike. “Given up your sure footing for a killing blow,” as it were. ;-)

          Firstly, few chemicals are truly inert. Most have some level of react-ability and will engage in chemical reactions at least slowly.

          In saying that, the chemicals that we’re talking about, which combined to form simple proteins and started the long and building process of life, are called amino acids. These are actually quite reactive…but because of their size and shape their chemistry is quite subtle.

          Some meteorites have been shown to contain organic compounds, even some as complex as amino acids… so these compounds could as easily come from the cold depths of space as be constructed by the many and varied interactions which were occurring on the early Earth.

          Specifically, it can be shown that basic amino acids can react to form proteins when under the influence of cycles of wetting/drying (simulation of the tides) and periods of exposure to ultraviolet light radiation (the atmosphere on the early earth having a reduced level of protection from these rays).

          So the ‘faith’ needed to ‘believe’ that life ‘sprang from a pool’ at least is credible and repeatable, making it sound in scientific theory.

          This is not at all the same as the Million Monkeys example which was only rolled out as a thought experiment to illustrate how far the concept of Deep Time was from anything we’d ever previously considered.

          So while the million monkeys example is deliberately absurd, the idea that chemicals in pools can spontaneously combine (under the conditions found in shallow seas on the early Earth) to form more complex molecules is a perfectly valid scientific theory supported by extremely strong evidence.

          Now: please note that I have said nothing about God or His availability to human mind. This has not been a theistic post or even one which claims to debate the existence of God. I merely wished to clear up some misconceptions about the science of evolution and I hope I have done this small thing.

          I should however admit that I am a Humanist, or at least I realised I was (and had been since about the age of eight) because I believe that whether or not there is a God he will be beyond our ability to fathom and certainly not someone we should presume will do as we ask in bringing us our desires.

          Instead I believe we must rely on the tools which we have and, trusting one another, maintain the most rigorous standards of reasoning and gather as much evidence as possible to support our judgements and inform our decisions.

          So I became a scientist in school and, later, a philosopher at university….and it is my understanding that:

          Even if God does indeed exist then the FACT of Evolution will be not least amongst the wonderful things in this universe.

          • Then why haven’t they been able to recreate it in a lab? God knows they’ve tried. (Pun intended. :) ) Also, the outer space seeds idea still doesn’t explain the origin of life. Just a stab in the dark of the origin of life on this planet, and it’s not even that plausible, because amino acids aren’t self-replicating.

            • @Tt, wtf? They did indeed recreate it in a lab. That’s exactly what I was saying… that Amino acids have been shown to combine to form potentially self-replicating proteins in experimental conditions which mimic conditions on the early earth.

              They HAVE.

              Please read through my post again if you missed that. Its true. I’m not making it up. Experiments have shown it.

              I don’t want to turn this into a scientific soapbox. I’m already irritated that I’ve allowed myself to be drawn into this on a MOVIE SITE. If you are unsure or doubt me then go do some research but the evidence is there. If you have the money you can even do the experiments yourself, to be sure.

              Like I said, the results are repeatable, making them essentially impossible to debunk.

              Evolution is as strong a scientific FACT as anything you take for granted today… like television signals, global mobile phone networks, the world wide web or the effects of paracetamol.

              • Oh believe me, I have. Your argument on it’s face is severely flawed and so is your data. Experiments that have created self replicating proteins, RNA, etc, weren’t conducted under prebiotic conditions, so it proves nothing. And when they try to mimic molecular evolution, it keeps getting simpler and smaller and never increases in complexity. Sounds like a FAIL, to me. Darwin was a hack. Anyway, you’re right, let’s not fight.

        • DNA can be made in a laboratory and made to replicate. It’s just like the movie Species but its real. No gods required.

    • Can you really look at every plant and animal and see nothing but accidents? All these things created by chance? I don’t know about you, but I think there are way too many “coincidences” in this world to be just coincidence.

  28. Thanks for the grain of salt on this film, Vic. With this is mind, I do believe I’ll skip this one. Maybe I’ll give Rango a shot next Thursday instead…

  29. 790

    I will forgive myself dont worry ;)