Paul
for language including sexual references, and some drug use.
Reviewed by: Daniel Thompson
CONTRIBUTOR
| Moral Rating: | Extremely Offensive |
| Moviemaking Quality: |
|
| Primary Audience: | Adults |
| Genre: | Sci-Fi Comedy |
| Length: | 1 hr. 44 min. |
| Year of Release: | 2011 |
| USA Release: |
March 18, 2011 (wide—2,700+ theaters) DVD: August 9, 2011 |
How can we know there’s a God? Answer
What if the cosmos is all that there is? Answer
If God made everything, who made God? Answer
What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets? Answer
Are we alone in the universe? Answer
Does Scripture refer to life in space? Answer
questions and answers about the origin of life
Why is there a disconnect between Hollywood and the rest of America? Answer
What is being done to change the values of Hollywood? Answer
| Featuring |
Simon Pegg … Graeme Willy Seth Rogen … Paul (voice) Jane Lynch … Pat Stevens Jason Bateman … Agent Zoil Sigourney Weaver … The Big Guy Bill Hader … Haggard Kristen Wiig … Ruth Buggs See all » |
| Director |
Greg Mottola |
| Producer |
Tim Bevan … producer Liza Chasin … executive producer See all » |
| Distributor |
“Who’s up for a close encounter?”
Actors and best friends Nick Frost and Simon Pegg write and star in movies that lampoon people and movies of all genres. In their first two films, “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz,” zombie and action movies received the satirical treatment, and the result was two very funny pieces of entertainment. In their third film together, Frost and Pegg have decided to take on science fiction in “Paul,” the story of two friends who discover an alien. While the trademark British humor is still intact, “Paul” does not measure up to the previous work of Frost and Pegg, and goes out of its way to ridicule Christians.
Graeme and Clive are best friends from England who are finally taking the vacation of their dreams. They have traveled to America to attend Comic-Con, a convention known worldwide as a Mecca for science fiction fans. After Comic-Con, they decide to rent an RV and see all the sites where UFO’s have been spotted. Things go awry, however, when Graeme and Clive meet Paul.
Paul is a foul mouthed, joint smoking extraterrestrial. Paul asks the two friends for help, as he is trying to escape the planet. After initially being scared witless, Graeme and Clive befriend Paul and begin a road trip, with federal agents in hot pursuit.
The plot to “Paul” is equivalent to a humorous version of “E.T.”, with more car chases. Plenty of humor is wrung from this plot, including references to just about every classic alien movie ever made, including “Star Wars”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, and “Alien”. Fans of science fiction films will enjoy the sly references to even more obscure movies. Pegg and Frost, the stars and writers of “Paul”, have clearly done their homework and pay homage to some cinematic classics.
“Paul” does suffer from some problems that were not apparent in the earlier works of Pegg and Frost. Most of these problems stem from director Greg Mottola. Mottola, who directed “Superbad”, does not really know how to handle this material, and “Paul” comes off uneven.
The other problem with “Paul” is its objectionable content. Just as in their earlier films, Paul does contain a great deal of foul language that includes just about every profanity imaginable. There is plenty of drug use, which the film seems to applaud, and the movie also contains its fair share of blood and violence. While there are no nude or sex scenes, there are several with crude sexual dialogue that are played for laughs.
One specific aspect of the objectionable content had me puzzled. “Paul” goes out of its way to ridicule the Christian faith. They do this in several ways, but mainly through the character of Ruth Buggs (played by Kristen Wiig). Graeme and Clive meet Ruth at a Christian RV park, and she joins them on their journey. The character of Ruth is portrayed as stupid, ignorant, and gullible for believing in intelligent design and Creation. The existence of Paul helps the two prove to Ruth how irrational her faith is, and, from that point forward, she disregards her belief system. While the makers of “Paul” were clearly having a go at all religions that believe in a creator, they chose to single out Christianity.
It’s unreasonable to think that a Hollywood production would portray Christians correctly, and it also comes as no surprise that the portrayal of Christians in this film is negative. What is surprising is that the underlying themes of “Paul” deal with faith, fate, love, and sacrifice. It’s as if the makers of “Paul” went out of their way to criticize what they think Christianity is all about, while at the same time they were emphasizing what Christianity is actually all about. As Christians, that’s where we come in. We can show the world, through the way we live our lives, that portrayals like this could not be further from the truth.
It is a difficult task to blend heart and satire, but Simon Pegg and Nick Frost do it successfully. While not as funny as their earlier works, there is still quite a bit of humor to be found in “Paul”. Unfortunately, there’s also a great deal of objectionable content which means most Christians would be far better suited finding their humor some place else.
- Foul Language: Extreme
- Sex/Nudity: Extreme
- Violence: Heavy
Every time you buy a movie ticket or rent a video you are in effect casting a vote telling Hollywood, “I’ll pay for that. That’s what I want.” What enables Hollywood Liberals to continually attack the Bible in movies and present immoral and even abhorent programming? Money. Christian, are YOU part of the problem? Read our article
A Question of Origins—Watch itEvolutionism or Creation? Did the universe and our solar system evolve out of the Big Bang? Can chemical compounds spontaneously evolve into life? Does evolutionism truly explain the great variety of life on Earth? Which belief is more scientific?
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
As an added bonus, a lot of familiar faces from mainstream comedies these days either star in “Paul” or make cameos. George Bluth (like Jason Bateman) from the phenomenal “Arrested Development” is one such person. I will note, however, the biggest drawback is the ending; it’s entirely fabricated outta straw wrappers and disposable cup lids. Meaning it blows chunks. Feels like a total loss of momentum from all the fun leading up to it, but oh well. It’s a comedy, so I don’t expect a stellar ending, but it’s certainly a plus (“Old School” comes to mind).
Comedies are engineered to make you laugh. The good ones do that and generate a few memorable lines. The great ones do all of that and create iconic characters, the stuff legends are made out of, like Doc Emmett Brown from the “Back to the Future” movies. “Paul” is neither great nor even really good, but for what it’s worth, adventure and comedy await.
If your delicate Christian sensibilities are too weak sauce for any other film to date that’s wiped us all over the floor, then multiply that bashing tenfold. This film and its agenda are totally out to slam us. But, in the spirit of comedy, free speech is king, and no one group of people should ever be safe when it comes to cracking a joke, imo. You dig?
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
My problem is not so much with the movie, as it is the viewers. I always look for what are called “Red Band Trailers”. Which show you a R rated preview, this way you get a better idea of what to expect. And the actors alone in this should warn people it’s not a Christian movie.
If anything, I recommend it for the fact it lets you see what the world thinks, from aliens to Christians. It makes for a good debate. While we should shelter ourselves from such movies, we should also remember we need to not over do it with our avoidance of these things. How can we tell people about Christ,, when we have no idea what is going through their head? I see R rated movies because there’s always something for me to use in it to debate with people about and maybe get them to see what’s wrong with these movies, in the end.
So, overall, while the movie was offensive. I still say go see it, so you can talk to people about what’s wrong with it and how Christians really act. Better yet ask your youth group if any of them have seen it and how they felt about it. Then tell them what they should have noticed was offensive in it, and ask them why did they see it then. The only way the younger generation of Christians will learn is if we try to understand what it is that compels them to see such movies.
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
At about the 50 minute mark, the movie took on a blasphemous tone. The main characters are traveling across the country in an RV with Paul, while being chased by a mysterious government agent. One of their stops leads them to a trailer park in the middle of nowhere, where they encounter a woman with an over-bearing father. The woman and her father are the typical Hollywood portrayal of “Christians”. The father is a domineering, crazed zealot, and the daughter is ignorant and sheltered. She enters their RV the next morning wearing a shirt depicting Jesus shooting Darwin with a pistol and the phrase, “Evolution This,” emblazoned across it. This leads to a dialogue between the woman and the main characters about Evolution vs. Creation. The woman declares that the Earth is 4,000 years old and was created by a Creator (God) and that the eye is evidence of that Creator.See all »
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: ½
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
The crude humor was bad enough, and the language was terrible too. The leading woman character after being “enlightened” by the alien, asks “Is it ok to fornicate?” “YES,” he replies, “Is it ok to cuss”—“SURE”—“What about drinking?” “Yup”—and then we get to watch this woman who they make out to be a mindless follower, to someone who is constantly shouting obscenities. The line to beat all lines was she stated that she had been “freed”.
Don’t waste your money—I regret the dollars I put in.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: ½
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Moral rating: Very Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
This is no accident. I was reading today in Matthew 24 and found Jesus” words to his disciples, “… and you will be hated in all nations because of me.” It is apparent that the world hates Christians because they hate our Christ and his message. I agree with many posts here… this is purposeful, and only prayer will change the unbelieving hearts in Hollywood.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: ½
Kristen Wiig is one of my favorite new comedy actresses, and I cannot find fault with her performance in “Paul,” in fact I would say she lights up the screen with her energy but it is in the service of the wrong message. I am as liberal as the next guy, and I have seen movies with atheist characters, but “Paul” tries to state it as FACT that isn’t up for debate.See all »
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
I, personally, do not think that there is any copyright in this film in a number of international jurisdictions, because of the old laws against blasphemous, obscene and indecent works. It is an interesting legal question as to whether otherwise piratical acts in respect of this film are legal. The loss of copyright does not go to condign punishment and does not stop the free exchange of ideas—so I do not espy a First Amendment issue. See all »
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2
HOWEVER, there is no disclaimer stating the film would be an blatant attack on Christianity. And that is something to walk out of. I would not have had a problem if the movie would have had some fun contrasting Evolution and creationism and can even accept a few zingers hit at believers, if all is in good fun, and perhaps could even open a debate on the way home. I’m not thin skinned. This, however, was a one sided attack.
As far as the viewer who wished the film would attack Islam, I disagree. No faith should be open to ridicule. If the film had portrayed at least one believer in a positive light it could have been different. Skip it.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 2½
Her comment on the eye being proof that Evolution is a fraud was not even fully discussed or displayed. All that Paul stated was that the eye was formed over billions of years, but he never answer the question on how it could have happened, since each part of the eye would have had to form one at a time as if Evolution knew what the end result would be. Why would a being suddenly have eye sockets or a retina, or a lens even though there is no use for it whatsoever? None of the parts would suddenly show up with no use until the very end.
Yeah right; we sure see that type of Evolution taking shape today don’t we? With all the hundreds of animals having body parts that have no function whatsoever. The simple fact is as Christians, the light of Christ shines through us. And as it says in the book of John, the darkness does not understand the light.
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3½
In the movie, they try to prove that God doesn’t exist… They failed miserably. Just when all else seemed lost… There was one likable character who was a Christian. But then they had to ruin it by the scene where Paul was in the other room where she couldn’t see him, and they were fighting over the existence of God when he so called “proves” it by showing her that there isn’t a God. Once she finds out that everything she believed in turned out to be “fake,” she then immediately grabs the guys private part. The whole “message” of that part is that God doesn’t exist, so you should go out and do whatever you want. See all »
Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: ½
As soon as Ruth turned away from the Lord, I tried watching it for the next few minutes, only to realize I no longer could. It's like my soul was drained from me. This is the first film in years that I rented that I never finished and had it shipped back. I’m fed up at how films like these mock all Christians. Would they like it if we made a film about athiests looking dumb? Pretty sure not.
As for my review, it was very funny, and it was technically incredible (as an animator myself, I was geeking out at how cool Paul looked) but I cannot say I “liked it”, because it did take a lot of shots at Christians. I knew this going in, so I was not surprised… If you go see the film, take everything the film says about Christianity with a grain of salt. Believe it or not, this is actually how the world views us. Above all, USE COMMON SENSE and don’t take your 4 year old to an R-rated film because it features an animated character…
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 5