"Sleazy"
- The New York Times

"Bizarre and hysterical."
- The Village Voice

"Startlingly one-sided"
- USA Today

"An affront to viewers"
- TV Guide

"A hard-core, fundamentalist bit of right-wing propaganda"
- The Seattle Times

"[Ben Stein] seems to think [both you and I] are slobbering idiots."
- Newsday

"A cynical attempt to sucker Christian conservatives..."
- The Orlando Sentinel [So Ben Stein doesn't believe his own movie?]

Would you see a movie with those reviews? Normally, I wouldn't. But one of the more interesting movies I've seen in a while is getting precisely those ratings -- one star or so -- perhaps with that intention. (After all, we just saw a group of anti-war movies which bombed at the box office receive nothing but stunningly good reviews -- near 100% on Rotten Tomatoes -- so it's not a stretch to imagine that reviews today are more about ideological agreement than actual entertainment value.)

"These tactics are not only misleading, they're insulting and manipulative."
- The Boston Globe

I have to agree. Only the last reviewer is talking about movie, and I'm talking about the reviews themselves.

Last night, I watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Having done so, I have to wonder if some of the reviewers actually did too. The Boston Globe, for example, writes: "'Expelled' purports to impartially investigate the slugfest between proponents of Darwinism and creationism" -- though the film itself makes it clear, repeatedly, that it is focused on the debate between Darwinism and Intelligent Design, which it goes to pains to distinguish from bible-based creationism. The reviewer may personally reject this distinction, but instead he writes as though he's never heard it, prominent though it was in the film.

"In a sense, "Expelled" demonstrates some of the struggle between proponents of evolution and religion. The film gives ample screen time to scientists of faith who have tried to inject intelligent design theories into the classroom or their research and claim to have been expelled from academia."

Were these "scientists of faith"? For most, we never heard what their religious beliefs were. A few of those interviewed protested that they weren't even religious. Again, I have to wonder if the reviewer even watched the same film I just saw.

John Lennon's song "Imagine" is used to evoke a godless wasteland. Darwinism is equated with Nazism.

How wrong of Ben Stein to imply that "Imagine" says we'd be better off without religion. Quoting the lyrics? What a low blow; what a sneaky tactic. And how dare they show the only historical images we have of societies without any trace of religion. Unfair to show what Lennon's dream led to. (And Bill Maher ranting about the need to criminalize religion. How to win an argument: throw all those people who don't agree with you in jail.)

Like many of the reviews I've read, the Globe falsely insists that Expelled "equates" Darwinism with Nazism (or leads inexorably to it). But again, the film goes to considerable pains to clarify otherwise.

Through it all, anxiety-inducing background music imposes a false sense of drama.

Only during the sobering scenes. (And it's only "false sense of drama" if the viewer doesn't buy the premise in those scenes, such as the tragedy of the Nazi eugenic program.) To the contrary, the score included quite a lot of up-tempo pop music. (I've before never seen a film criticized for using tense background music; this has got to be a first.)

These tactics are not only misleading, they're insulting and manipulative.

Yes, actually, I'd have to agree. The Globe is certainly welcomed to think the film sucked, but it's wrong to deceive readers about the content.

That source of higher culture, E!, gave Expelled an "F".

Despite insisting "intelligent design" isn't pro-God propaganda, Stein argues we're waging a religious war (cut to cannon fire) with Darwinists smiting the faithful with—gasp!—atheistic ideas.

Nobody in the film said that Dawkins shouldn't be free to promote his ideas. Indeed, they (quite deliciously) gave him plenty of time and film in which to do so. The point is that many of those quoted didn't seem to think others should have the same freedoms.

MSNBC: "I haven't seen 'Expelled' yet, so it's hard for me to judge how wacky the movie really is" (note: not having seen it, he's sure it's "wacky" -- only the degree remains in question) "but plenty of other folks are already weighing in..." He then only provides links to the sites run by the very people being criticized in the film.

I wonder: When he reviewed a Michael Moore film, did he avoid seeing it, but then provide readers with links to pages written by Haliburton, the NRA, General Motors (Roger Smith), and the Bush family as a way of assessing it's reliability? Wouldn't that be sort of biased and stupid? Yes it would, but suddenly, it's sensible.

Even more amusing is USA Today's review:

Co-writer and host Ben Stein is startlingly one-sided in his unnatural selection of experts. The proponents of intelligent design are well-spoken and rational, and almost uniformly American. Those who believe in evolution often have foreign accents, are stuffed shirts or seem ready to foam at the mouth. This is propaganda, a political rant disguised as a serious commentary on stifled freedom of inquiry.

First (as usual), this is simply false: There are several segments where sympathetic figures are interviewed in foreign locations, including a Pole who says they have more academic freedom, and an American scholar who is able to freely espouse controversial views in France.

Second, the complaint itself is hilarious: Usually I hear that ID proponents can't hold a candle to such intellectual luminaries as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers. Now we hear that it's unfair to interview top neo-Darwinists and let them openly espouse their views and prejudices. Poor Dawkins, he's so easily intellectually exploited. All you have to do is let him talk.

(And Americans always think of scientists with British ("foreign", to this reviewer) accents as especially dim-witted, you know. Not.)

Many of the reviewers complained the movie was hyperbolic. So if hyperbole is bad, what are we to make of the The New York Times alleging it is "One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time"? If I recall correctly, Mssr. Moore regularly fabricates headlines, and makes up false quotes, draws tenuous connections, and generally deceives his audience at every turn. For example, "Roger and Me" was based on the premise that Roger Smith of GM refused to meet with him. In fact, Smith had done so, and Moore simply hid the footage and lied about it. In "Sicko" we learn that Cuba is a veritable healthcare utopia.

Apparently, none of that was sleazy to the Times, though.

So what was "sleazy" here? Did Ben Stein lie? Did he make it appear that people believed the opposite of what they really believed? Did he put false quotes in people's mouths?

Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

Wow! Can't be "linking evolution theory to fascism". That would be wrong. No, wait, "sleazy." (Never mind that it's a historical fact.) And as far as omitting vital information, the Times doesn't mention that the Nazis not only believed in social Darwinism, they were also quite enthusiastic about "scientific" Darwinism as well. When Dawkins and others testify that scientific Darwinism shaped their social and religious outlook, does the film need to be buying into and repeating the Times' "blithe" mantra that "scientific" Darwinism can never have social impacts?

The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

Oh, was it wrong to omit information, again? What of Sternberg's testimony that he was kicked out of his own office with almost no warning? That he was given reporting requirements which none of his peers received? That he was suddenly transferred to a hostile supervisor? That he was denied access to research materials and the museum? That his supervisors intentionally created a hostile work environment? That presents an entirely different picture than the Times' statement that his term merely expired. (In fact, the film says nothing about the specifics of Sternberg's employment, so it's hard to say they were misleading.) Only certain kinds of deception are bad, I guess.

Notice, not one substantial complaint leveled. But it's "sleazy" anyway.

Here's an even more deceptive review, from The Seattle Times:

Pop quiz: What is the real source of evil in the modern world? Greed? Intolerance?

Well, according to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," it's Darwinism, described as a philosophy that posits the pointlessness of life and encourages the "de-privileging of human beings" — and as such is responsible for everything from atheism to abortion, euthanasia to the Holocaust.

Hey, I just watched the thing, and it says no such thing. It depicts Darwinism as one of the factors (necessary, but not sufficient) involved in the Holocaust, and instead depicts atheism as a philosophy that posits the pointlessness of life. (Well, actually, an atheist they interviewed did that for them.)

And I'm not quite sure what's wrong with linking Darwinism and eugenics when Darwin himself proposed the idea. Inconvenient truths galore here, apparently.

Critics depict the film as alarmist, but when I read a review like this one (from a guy who sounds like an average Joe), I realize our culture is indeed not facing reality.

The film goes so off the deep end though. They start talking about the moral undertones of science and religion. Come on. Scientists who want to usurp religion are not the majority either. Nazi parallels… well, Darwin didn't say to kill people genocidally. Stein even acknowledges that, but still suggests that it could be the slippery slope. He found a quote, but use some common sense. An abstract statement does not represent the entire science of evolutionary study.

The film continues to reach so that it's not even a science debate anymore. They say Planned Parenthood began as an attempt to encourage survival of the fittest, and prevent the birth of inferiors. Obviously, that's not their agenda now. So what, the film is pro-life too?

Ultimately, as the film unraveled, I found myself wondering what the point of figuring out where we came from even is. Who cares who it started? Let's work on fixing what's wrong!

It's "off the deep end" to talk about the moral undertones present in the scientific community? Certain elite scientists should talk, and we should be quiet. (Kind of the premise of the movie, actually.)

Yet the point wasn't that many scientists "want to usurp religion" -- undoubtedly, most don't. But when you hear Richard Dawkins, a leading voice, talk about the need to categorize religious parents as child abusers, can you really think that people who take him seriously will be strong advocates for freedom? Or that merely pointing to such trends is inherently "off the deep end"?

Sadly, like so many college-educated people today, the reviewer appears to know nothing about the history and origins of eugenics. It is a "reach" to imply that Margaret Sanger was trying to eliminate the "unfit" elements of society? Just read her own words. (The film never alleges that Planned Parenthood is still doing this today -- though some do. The point is only that Darwinism was essential to the eugenics movement, which itself was a very popular part of the American Left.)

"Who cares who started it?" Such a question makes all the difference in the world. If people are just machines, then it makes sense to forcibly remove the malfunctioning units. If people have intrinsic value, then such an idea is monstrous. "Fixing what's wrong" is impossible if you can't determine what's wrong, and where human beings fit in the grander scheme of things. If you can't look at Communism, or Nazism, and say: "This is an indicator of where we go wrong; let's learn why that happened" then you can't possibly hope to prevent similar atrocities in the future.

I can't say this is the best documentary I've ever seen, or that it didn't have some weak aspects. (I'll give a fuller review later.) But these "reviews" come off more as ranting and hysteria -- while pretending to decry ranting and hysteria. Insisting the movie is deceptive, they seem to need to deceive the readers even about it's mere content, much less its quality.

It would seem Ben Stein has indeed touched on something here, and it seems the media is making his case quite nicely for him: anyone who pokes at this particular sacred cow is going to have the media and scientific establishment come down on him or her like a ton of bricks, using the very tactics they insist they deplore.