Creation, the Charles Darwin biopic starring Paul Bettany, will open the 34th annual Toronto International Film Festival on September 10. (Jennifer Connelly, Bettany's real-life wife, plays his on-screen wife Emma). The movie, directed by Jon Amiel, is based on the book Annie's Box by Randal Keynes, Darwin's great-great grandson.
As TIFF CEO and director Piers Handling explained the decision:

The tension between faith and reason is prominent in contemporary culture and this intimate look at Darwin puts a human face on a man whose theory remains controversial to this day. We are pleased to open the festival with such an impassioned look at Charles Darwin, especially on the year marking the 200th anniversary of his birth.

A week from tomorrow, NBC will premiere a new show called The Philanthropist. The eight-part drama centers around "vigilante philanthropist" Teddy Rist and was filmed in places like South Africa, Mozambique, and Prague.
Here's how the network describes it:

Teddy Rist loves women, money and power. After the tragic death of his only child, Teddy has an awakening and becomes the world's first vigilante philanthropist—a renegade billionaire who uses his wealth and connections to help people in need. Instead of spending $25,000 a plate at a fundraiser, he's dodging bullets in third world countries to hand deliver vaccines. It's an inspiring global adventure that will take you to the ends of the earth.
Rist's actions are not just about helping others—he is purging his soul to help exorcise the inner demons that have been festering ever since his young son died and he lost everything he truly loved. The danger and risk to his life is the only way he can feel genuinely alive and he'll do anything in order to achieve his goals.

Take a sneak peak at the trailer for Creation, the Charlies Darwin biopic starring Paul Bettany and based on the book Annie's Box by Randal Keynes (Darwin's great-great grandson). The visuals are lovely.
The film doesn't have a U.S. distributor yet, but will hit theaters in the United Kingdom in September.

Check out the new Angels & Demons section of the Counterbalance Web site, which explores the science and religion behind the movie. The articles and videos (on subjects like antimatter, the "God particle," and the Galileo affair) might help you separate the facts from the film's fiction. "If you ignore the technical and historical inaccuracies, it's a pretty good story," says Adrian Wyard, Counterbalance's executive director, "but there are some real clangers in there." —Heather Wax

Check out the original soundtrack to Angels & Demons, released today. Hans Zimmer, who composed the score, says he used a combination of orchestra and chorus to represent religion and electronics to represent science.
Zimmer has scored more than 100 films, including The Dark Knight, Frost / Nixon, Driving Miss Daisy, the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, and The Da Vinci Code. Angels & Demons hits theaters on Friday.

Dan Brown's new book, a follow-up to The Da Vinci Code, will finally be released on September 15. Will the new book also deal with science and religion themes? Here's what we know: According to Brown's editor, Jason Kaufman, vice president and executive editor at Doubleday, "the book's narrative takes place in a twelve-hour period, and from the first page, Dan's readers will feel the thrill of discovery as they follow Robert Langdon through a masterful and unexpected new landscape."
The movie version of Angels & Demons (the prequel to The Da Vinci Code) will hit theaters on May 15. —Heather Wax

Take a sneak peek at a new clip from the upcoming Angels & Demons movie (based on the novel of the same name). One of the film's main themes, of course, is the relationship between science and religion, with a focus on how scientists have been studying the origin of the universe and trying to understand the moment of creation (some scenes were even shot at the real-life CERN).
The film opens in theaters on May 15.

FROM TED PETERS, PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AT THE PACIFIC LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND THE GRADUATE THEOLOGICAL UNION: I recall having seen the original 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still ,with Michael Rennie as Klaatu, at Clara Bryant Junior High School in Dearborn, Michigan, when I was a seventh-grader. Each day at lunch hour, we'd watch 20 minutes of this film, beginning on Monday and concluding on Friday with Klaatu's memorable exhortation to us Earthlings. The impression this film made on me was deep and profound. It has lasted a lifetime. The impression of the 2008 remake (starring Keanu Reeves as Klaatu; Jennifer Connelly as Helen Benson, an astrobiologist at Princeton University; and Jaden Smith as her stepson Jacob) will be as shallow as the water in a finger bowl. It will last until I can find a hand towel to wipe it off.

The Nuclear Arms Race and the UFO Phenomenon
Let's return for a moment to the cultural context in which the original version of The Day the Earth Stood Still appeared on silver screens. World War II had ended in 1945 with the dropping of atomic bombs on two cities in Japan. The age of nuclear terror had begun. Efforts to establish a global authority to maintain a peace secure from nuclear weapons had failed. The Cold War was heating up.
In addition, what we now know as the UFO phenomenon had begun in earnest with Kenneth Arnold's sighting of what he dubbed "flying saucers" near Mount Ranier in June 1947. This was the same month as the alleged crash landing of an alien spaceship in Roswell, New Mexico. And in 1950, we saw the first of a new genre of books—flying saucer books—with the publication of Behind the Flying Saucers by Donald Keyhoe. In this book, we see not only a report on UFO sightings, but also the fear of conspiracy, the fear that the U.S. government is engaged in a cover-up of important interplanetary information. Like two hot wires coming together, the Cold War and the UFO phenomenon were coming together, and the cultural sparks were flying. These sparks lit a fire in the secular mind, the fire of hope that we on Earth could be saved from our self-induced threat of nuclear annihilation. We could be saved by a science and a technology superior to ours, by an extraterrestrial science and technology. Aliens could save us from self-destruction!

From Evolution to Progress to Salvation
If one pays close attention to the words of Klaatu in the 2008 film, one will hear the word "evolution" frequently. In this context, "evolution" means progress, moral progress. Unfortunately, according to the movie, we humans on Earth are underevolved and therefore deserve destruction so that our planet—not us members of the human race, only the other life forms on our planet—can be saved from ecological disaster. What is worth pointing out here is that a close relationship exists between the UFO phenomenon and the theory of evolution. Whether a flying saucer report is a simple sighting of a daylight flying disc or a close encounter with an alleged alien being from an extraterrestrial world, the witness tries to explain the experience in terms of a terrestrial worldview that makes sense, and, curiously, the resulting explanation incorporates the theory of evolution combined with subtle religious symbolism.
UFO explanations go like this: Life has developed on a distant Earthlike planet and followed a path of evolution similar to our own here on Earth. However, this alien life began earlier, allegedly, and it has had more time to evolve. Inherent in such evolution is progress. This means that the alien civilization in question has progressed further than we have. It is more advanced than ours. This is demonstrated by the fact that aliens have developed the technology for space communication or even space travel that we have not yet developed. In a sense, the space visitors are our own future coming back to visit us. And if the space visitors bring their more advanced technology and perhaps even their more advanced spirituality, they can help us on Earth heal our maladies. Extraterrestrials piloting flying saucers become celestial saviors.
What we find here is a subtle amalgam of religious symbolism and modern science mixed with belief in the doctrine of evolutionary progress. Even though our word "evolution" refers technically to speciation in biology, it becomes applied to progress in both technological and moral development. UFO experiencers routinely speculate: If aliens have developed space travel technology, perhaps they have developed a higher form of morality and politics. Evolutionary advance has become moral advance.
Like a hot electrical wire, this speculation creates sparks when coming in contact with the post-World War II nuclear arms race. This was the theme of the 1951 movie. The theme of the 2008 movies adds terrestrial eco-catastrophe. The logic of the 1951 movie goes like this: If our visiting aliens themselves went through a period of developing nuclear power and successfully avoided self-destruction, perhaps they can teach us on Earth how to establish peace and avoid the threat of nuclear self-annihilation. What the space voyagers can bring to us is peace on Earth, a victory to be won through the advances of extraterrestrial science. Science, in its extraterrestrial and futuristic form, will become our savior. (For more on this point, see my book UFOs—God's Chariots? Flying Saucers in Politics, Science, and Religion.)
The logic of the 2008 version of the movie goes like this: Because we Earthlings have failed to evolve to a higher level of morality so that we take responsibility for the ecological health of our planet, we deserve judgment and condemnation from our alien observers. Because of our failure to evolve quickly enough, the 2008 extraterrestrials have decided to let humanity go extinct, actually to hasten our distinction through destruction. The aliens will become eco-Earth's saviors, not ours. The salvation of our planet will require the elimination of one mis-evolved species, humankind.

The Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life Myth and the UFO Myth
This combination of flying saucer sightings and the hope of Earth's salvation—both explained in terms of extraterrestrial evolution—I refer to as the "UFO myth." The UFO myth is incorporated into a more comprehensive myth, the "ETI myth," which is believed by many scientists, especially astrobiologists. The key doctrine is that extraterrestrial evolution is progressive, and some aliens are more highly evolved than we on Earth are. This is widely believed despite the lack of any empirical evidence.
As I have suggested, this myth arose within a specific historical context, namely, the immediate period following World War II when the world was trembling in fear over the nuclear arms race. This Cold War anxiety included fear that political leaders were too inept to deal with the magnitude of the problem. Blinded by nationalism and jingoism, people in nearly every nation feared that one or another leader would hastily drop a bomb that would result in an uncontrollable retaliatory exchange. The result would be global self-destruction.

Can Science Save Us?
In the decades of the Cold War, scientists were viewed as the only ones who could save the planet. We were proud of the genius of the scientists who invented the atomic bomb, who put an end to World War II. "Since the bomb exploded over Hiroshima, the prestige of science in the United States has mushroomed like an atomic cloud," wrote Martin Gardner in his 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Science represented power.
Science could also claim another virtue. The scientific community crossed national boundaries. Scientists communicated with one another regardless of national loyalties. Could a confederacy of scientists representing different nations do what political leaders could not by themselves do, namely, provide an institution for arms control? Could these broad-minded geniuses overcome their narrow-minded political leaders and provide a single planetary policy that would maintain world peace?
So, our culture posed the existential question: Could terrestrial scientists save us? No. Why? Although the world's scientists represented many nations, they still vacillated too much between nationalism and internationalism. Even if a select group of high-minded scientists could dedicate themselves to world peace, there would always be that minority of Frankensteinian mad scientists who would sell their souls to the interests of their well-paying governments. On the one hand, the scientific community seemed to hold the power to save. On the other hand, scientists were feared because they, like other mortals, could be swayed and bribed by national interests to perpetuate the spiraling competition for nuclear superiority.
This love-fear tension in the relationship between science and culture is aptly reflected in the career of atomic bomb maker, J. Robert Oppenheimer. "The physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose," Oppenheimer wrote in 1948 in Technology Review and Time magazine (cited by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin in their book American Prometheus.) Once Pandora's box had been opened and nuclear weapons knowledge began spreading, Oppenheimer sought to slam the lid down again through internationalizing atomic oversight. According to Bird and Sherwin, he proposed in The New York Times Magazine "that in the field of atomic energy there be set up a world government. That in this field there be a renunciation of sovereignty ... to protect the world against the use of atomic weapons and provide it with the benefits of atomic energy." He pressed his case in the White House and the United Nations. His efforts failed. Then President Harry Truman led America into the dizzying arms race of the Cold War. Science, despite its knowledge and power, could not save us.
In American Prometheus, Bird and Sherwin comment, "After Einstein, Oppenheimer was undoubtedly the most renowned scientist in the country—and this at a time when scientists were suddenly regarded as paragons of wisdom. His advice was eagerly sought in and out of government." Oppenehimer's advice was sought, but not taken. Citing Freeman Dyson, Bird and Sherwin aver that Oppenheimer tried to become "the savior of humanity." However, this attempt at terrestrial salvation through science failed. Could an extraterrestrial science accomplish it? Enter: the UFO myth.

The Day the Earth Stood Still in 1951
Enter the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still. In this first of a new genre of movies, a flying saucer lands on the grassy mall near the White House in Washington, D.C. Its pilot is an extraterrestrial, Klaatu. He has come to earth to negotiate with the heads of state of every nation. This issue is serious and urgent. Unless Earth ceases and desists its development of rocket propelled atomic weapons, Klaatu's confederacy will have to eliminate us before we can become a threat to them.
Klaatu fails to convince our political leaders. In fact, myopic political leaders will not even give him a hearing. Only scientists take the celestial diplomat seriously. Klaatu explains to an aging physicist, Professor Barnhart, that the aliens fear further development on Earth of what is now only a "rudimentary" form of atomic weaponry. Up until this point, the interplanetary confederation had not concerned itself with wars on Earth because Earth's inhabitants had not yet evolved to the point of being able to affect the extraterrestrials. Killing one another on Earth with primitive guns and tanks would elicit no extraterrestrial notice. But now that atomic weapons could be tied to rockets and shot into outer space, human violence could spill into the extraterrestrial domain. Klaatu's mission is to warn Earthlings of the dire consequences. And only Earth's scientists, not its politicians, could understand this warning and take the appropriate preventative action.
The final exhortation is the climax of this film. In the concluding scene, on the site of the flying saucer, the space visitor, Klaatu, makes a speech. "The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves and hired policemen to enforce them. We of the other planets have long accepted this principle We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets and for the complete elimination of aggression. The result is we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war, free to pursue more profitable enterprises." Note how this extraterrestrial confederacy has evolved beyond where we have. They have progressed to a stage in evolution where war is no more. Peace prevails. The extraterrestrials bring peace as an option for planet Earth; we terrestrials can choose either peace or obliteration. What the extraterrestrials bring is scientific advance combined with moral advance. This is the foundation of the UFO myth.
I am not alone among scholars who try to piece together cultural anxiety over science and technology with the development of the ETI myth and its partner, the UFO myth. In her essay "From Rumor to Postmodern Myth" in the Encyclopedic Sourcebook of UFO Religions, Diana Tumminia describes the UFO myth as a postmodern phenomenon: "Postmodern myths, such as flying saucers, extraterrestrial deities, and alien abductions, express pluralistic collage-like symbolism of relatively recent origin. With the dawning of the rational technological age, social scientists expected secularization and science to wipe out superstition and magical religions. This has not happened. Instead, a magical enchanted worldview subverted the scientific paradigm into an animistic account of space being that was readily available for our mass consumption. That condition now pervades in our popular culture." Note that in her description, Tumminia suggests that the UFO myth subverts the scientific paradigm by reintroducing magic. This is debatable; yet, I do not want to debate this issue here. Rather, I would like to point out that when we look at the ETI myth as believed by SETI scientists, we see no obvious magic. We see only science in a very speculative form. It is not the return of magic that defines the ETI myth or even its UFO variant; rather, it is the belief that salvation comes to Earth from the heavens, from outer space.
What is reflected in the 1951 version of the film is the UFO myth. The UFO myth begins with the assumption that science is savior. But because earthly science has "known sin" by letting loose the nuclear arms race and putting the entire planet at risk, only a terrestrial science augmented by an extraterrestrial science can accomplish salvation. Salvation will come in the form of world peace. Extraterrestrials are able to do for us what we almost—but not quite—can do for ourselves, namely, establish security through a system of global arms control. Perhaps the more highly evolved UFOnauts can save us from destroying ourselves.

The Day the Earth Stood Still in 2008
Much of the punch of the original film is lost in the 2008 variant. The pitting of politics against science—where politics emphasizes nationalism and science emphasizes internationalism—is so muted, it passes by without the viewer's notice. No longer is the threat of nuclear war the source of our anxiety; it is now eco-catastrophe. The health of our planet is a noble cause, to be sure, but the new film disregards with abandon the concern for peace so prominent in the earlier one. The 2008 version exploits guns firing and bombs exploding and military macho, as if the message of the first version had not been heard. The 2008 version looks like an IMAX video game without viewer controls.
Even with these changes, the 2008 film could have been rescued had it maintained the logic of the first version. In both cases, we find humanity locked into near hopeless patterns of self-destruction—what theologians would call "original sin"—and both versions leave the human race with one more Pelagian chance to make the right decisions and to choose a healing future. Yet, the 2008 version leaves us without the equivalent of a church—that is, without a prophetic fraternity of scientists within terrestrial society to carry on the mission of advocating ecological health, let alone global peace. In 1951, the worldwide fraternity of scientists was ordained with this mission. In 2008, no one was so commissioned. In sum, we have less hope in 2008 than we did before. Poor Earth!
Klaatu berata nicto.

FROM V.V. RAMAN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND HUMANITIES AT THE ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: If you wish to see a caricature of the Abrahamic religions, its extreme versions, and the absurdities that some of their more ardent followers utter, their parochial persistence and historical vacuity exposed in scathing interviews and sarcastic snippets, and at the same time chuckle and cry at the human condition, then you should not miss Religulous.
Though there is nothing new in the movie that atheists and skeptics don’t already know and that people don’t casually discuss at parties now and again, by bringing together so many pathetic expressions of religiosity from the major Abrahamic faiths and by giving special exposure to the more extreme wings of Christianity and the mindless mobs in the Islamic world screaming, “Kill the infidel,” the movie paints it all as one horrible heap of anachronistic nonsense with hardly an iota of grace or goodness.
The most simple-minded spokespersons for various denominations were enticed to participate in the production of the movie, and they unwittingly serve its goal: to reveal religions as roaringly ridiculous.
This film fits well in our age of open warfare between religion and unreligion, faith and unbelief, tradition and modernity, theism and atheism, and many such opposites. We also live in an age in which stand-up comics can comment on theology, the simple-minded can be tricked into public exposure by clever journalists, and everyone can express every view in public forums and on Internet landscapes, a sort of globalization of Hyde-park oratory.
The presentation of the litany of awkward niches of Abrahamic religions is authentic though disdainful. The intent, I understand, is to make the institutions look ridiculous, but perhaps one can be humorous without being insulting—however, this would require a different approach. Then again, Bill Maher cannot refrain from sexual innuendos and once-considered vulgar language in his commentaries because that is part of today’s public joke repertoire.
The snapshots of religion we see on the screen are truthful but lopsided. They are truthful because they come from the mouths of the horses, if one may modify a metaphorical phrase. Maher cleverly makes them self-incriminate. We simply laugh in pity. They are lopsided because religions have many dimensions: First, there are the illogical beliefs and narrow bigotry to which the naively religious are fettered. Then, there are the records of and the capacity for hate and horror in the name of God, which have not abated in our own times. It is on these alone that Maher’s lens focuses.
But then religions have also inspired love and compassion, charity and hope. Maher takes us to small town churches, where he embarrasses simple-minded preachers, and to the outside of St. Peter’s Basilica, but he has no interest in showing us the cathedral in Chartres, the Raf’ai mosque in Cairo, or any of the hundreds of other magnificent places of worship where people gather in awe and humility, with reverence and peace. He does take us into the Al Aqsa in Jerusalem (formerly the Temple of Solomon), where a religious head says with a straight face that the prophet who arrived there from Mecca on a flying horse was bodily carried away to heaven from that very spot.
Maher’s documentary can surely jolt many non-book-reading people into rethinking their religious framework. It is not likely that many adults whose worldviews have been molded by years of upbringing will abandon their traditional adherence to basic beliefs, but the movie may goad them to separate the spiritually meaningful from the blatantly untenable elements within their belief systems.
My dissatisfaction with the movie is that Maher makes no reference to the great art, glorious music, or grand poetry that have been created by deep religious attitudes. Nor is there any mention of the solace and peace that religions have brought to countless millions in moments of despair and sorrow. But then, one may argue that this movie is intended to show the inanity of religious beliefs, not the genuineness of religious feelings, let alone the now-past capacity of religions to create some of the most beautiful aesthetic expressions of human culture.
It would have been a better movie for me if, after exposing the ridiculousness of some of the archaic beliefs and making every religious person look foolish, Maher recognized that if we all appreciate the positive contributions of religions, honor our ancestors for the cultural richness they have left behind, continue to enjoy and share the great art and music of various religions, and adhere to the core message of love and service implicit in all religions, we could hold hands together as members of the same human family to resolve the myriad problems we are facing as a planetary species.

The main idea of Religulous seems to be pretty well encapsulated in the title's portmanteau: Religion is ridiculous. But a film that seems like it might just be a lighthearted—if slightly mean—romp through a cascade of religious idiosyncrasies takes a left turn down a dark path in its final five minutes.
In a lot of ways, this isn’t so much a documentary about religion as it is about Bill Maher, or, rather, about Bill Maher’s views of religion. And, to Maher’s credit, he does not zero in exclusively on one religion. The film has him talking to (to name just a few) Christian truckers, Jewish scientists, a Muslim singer, and ex-Mormons. He takes shots at Scientology, the Creation Museum, and at the religion of Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda—a man with followers in about 35 countries who calls himself both the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and the Antichrist.
Of course, this scattershot approach means Maher really can’t go any more than ankle deep in any of these discussions. But that’s really his point: You don’t need to go beyond ankle deep. To Maher, religion is just that shallow.
This helps explain why he doesn’t spend more than a minute or so with genome researcher (and Christian) Francis Collins: It’s not as easy to make him look ridiculous (though Maher and director Larry Charles—who also directed Borat—do their best). Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory and another proponent of the compatibility of science and religion, comes off significantly better; Maher’s purpose with Coyne is simply to undercut the creationist Ken Ham.
In the end, two things really bothered me about Religulous. The first was pretty predictable: The interviews were somewhat akin to bullying, just intellectual rather than physical. While Maher was certainly able to mine some comedic moments, my response as an audience member was caught in that uncomfortable place between wanting to laugh and wanting to shout “Hey! Pick on someone your own size!”
The other troublesome aspect was the film’s jarring and somewhat unexpected final moment. Bill Maher delivers a rousing monologue—intercut with images of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks—that essentially boils down to this: Religion has been used to violent ends in the past, and it will be again, only now we have nuclear weapons. He calls upon his allies—atheists, agnostics, even the religiously uncommitted—to come out of hiding, to break the polite code that we don’t talk about religion, and to challenge religious people’s beliefs.
Certainly, certainly, certainly, Maher means well. His intentions, by all means, seem completely pacifistic and idealistic. The problem is this: We’ve seen calls to convert the unconverted in this way before, and—even when they’re delivered by the most well-intentioned, non-violent messengers imaginable—they frequently do devolve into hatred, resentment, and violence against those not in the group with the “truth.” He’s not really speaking to religious believers in this film (as the R rating will ensure); he’s rallying his base.
In the end, one of the most prescient lines in the film comes from the unlikely source of Tal Bachman (the musician famous for his 1999 hit “She’s So High,” but interviewed by Maher because of his credentials as an ex-Mormon). Bachman, answering a question from Maher about why more people don’t leave Mormonism, explains that once you call into question the teachings of founder Joseph Smith, you’ve severed a tie with your family and friends.
Unfortunately, the moment passes with no follow-up comment. Which makes sense: There’s no reason for Maher to explore the idea of religion as a social adhesive. His goal in this film was to splash around in the puddles of religion, not to plunge into the ocean. —Dan Messier

The first pictures of Paul Bettany playing Charles Darwin in the upcoming movie Creation have been released. (Bettany's real-life wife Jennifer Connelly will play his on-screen wife Emma.) The movie is based on the book Annie's Box by Randal Keynes (Darwin's great-great grandson), and the script, producer Jeremy Thomas told the Hollywood Reporter, "tells the remarkable story behind Darwin's revolutionary theory and the foundation of a book that changed the world. We think of Darwin as an old man with a gray beard. The reality of our story is very different."

Spore, an upcoming computer game from famed SimCity creator Will Wright, has come under fire for its focus on the origin of species, but the loudest complaints have come from an unexpected source—what Wright calls "militant atheists." The game tasks players with guiding the evolution of their own designed creature, from a single-celled organism to a sentient civilization, complete with buildings, armies, and its own religion, that then sets out to conquer the galaxy (think "panspermia," the idea that the "seeds" of life are everywhere and that microbes—or, some think, spores— from space are responsible for originating life on Earth and maybe other planets). While the game clearly accepts evolution as its underlying concept—which you'd think would draw harsh criticisms from religious groups—it's militant atheists, claims Wright, who have really been protesting. They feel, he says, that the game presents a case for intelligent design and are insulted that the game includes religion as an integral part of civilizations. Ironically, Wright himself claims to be an atheist, though he says he has attempted to leave his personal religious views out of the game. Spore is schedules to hit stores early next month. —Stephen Mapes

FROM ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER KIMBERLY ROOTS:
Leading man Luke Wilson’s good looks are so Hollywood-friendly, his face so amicably open, that he’s made a career as the aw-shucks straight man in films like Legally Blonde, Charlie’s Angels, and Old School. But Wilson chucks his usual shtick in Henry Poole Is Here, creating a character that saves a sweet movie from delving into the saccharine.
Wilson’s Henry is a sallow, puffy, wrinkled bedsheet of a man who moves back to his childhood suburb in the wake of some terrible news. He fills his fridge with hard liquor and junk food and tries to disconnect from life—a task made difficult by a water stain that appears in the stucco on the rear wall of his home. His very Catholic new neighbor, Esperanza, becomes obsessed with the stain, which begins to look like the face of Christ. Soon, the standoffish Henry has people on his property day and night, beseeching the apparition for healing and guidance.
Henry’s insistence that the stain is just a stain doesn’t do much to deter the faithful. And when the spot seems to help the young daughter of his single, attractive next-door neighbor, Henry begins to doubt his own doubt. Call it a crisis of lack-of-faith; he can’t wholeheartedly believe what everyone else does, but he can’t help but hope that maybe he’s wrong.
Director Mark Pellington’s movie has a blessedly light touch with regard to Catholic phenomena, which helps keep its religious characters—including a perfectly understated George Lopez as Father Salazar—from turning into caricatures. Instead, the faith discussed in Henry Poole Is Here is more about allowing oneself to hope for the best in life, in others, and in what lies ahead without needing an explanation for the way things shake out.
Without Wilson’s steadfast footing in Henry’s gruff shoes, Henry Poole Is Here could’ve easily ended up as the Lifetime channel movie of the week. But his character’s grappling with the desire to believe makes him easy to relate to, a modern man unable to cede one inch of skepticism even if it means true happiness. Eventually, Henry gets what’s coming to him in an ending worth both seeing and believing.

Henry Poole is Here, a film which garnered attention earlier this year at the Sundance Film Festival for its focus on science and the power of prayer, is hitting theaters this weekend in limited release. The movie is directed by Mark Pellington and stars Luke Wilson as Henry, a man disillusioned with society whose attempts to isolate himself from the world and faith are thwarted when a stain on the side of his home—some see in it the image of Jesus—draws crowds of religious believers to his backyard. In this story of miracles and redemption, Henry begins to discover the true nature of faith and hope.
Critical response has been mixed, with many chastising the picture for an overly sappy and preachy script. Robert Kohler of Variety particularly lamented the film's "tendency to lecture on the power of faith and religion and on the demerits of science." Other critics, however, see the movie as redeeming despite its shortcomings, taking on a subject that many moviemakers tend to avoid and offering a very personal glimpse of the director's own beliefs. Stay tuned for our own review of the film from entertainment reporter Kimberly Roots (who recently reviewed The X-Files movie) on Monday. —Stephen Mapes

FROM ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER KIMBERLY ROOTS:
During its nine-season run on television, The X-Files was one of the best places to watch matters of science and religion tangle on camera. Skeptical scientist Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) constantly challenged FBI partner Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) on his belief in what the show lovingly referred to as “extreme possibilities”—aliens, the paranormal, and such. At its best, the Fox drama dabbled in areas as diverse as multiverse theory and faith healing with a isn’t-this-cool? sense of wonder.
Unfortunately, that joyful exploration of the inexplicable is absent from The X-Files: I Want To Believe, director Chris Carter’s second celluloid outing based on the show. The first film, The X-Files: Fight The Future, hit theaters during the series’ run and dealt with a government conspiracy to cover up alien presence on Earth. As such, Mulder and Scully were up to their security badges in the us-against-them fight that continued until the series finale in 2002. Her Catholic faith, paired with her training as a medical doctor, made her the perfect foil for his cocky, outlandish genius. They may have been the “FBI’s most unwanted,” as Mulder liked to joke, but their joint search for truth provided the momentum that kept their professional (and ultimately romantic) story moving forward. Even when we last left the paranoid pair, they were on the lam from an FBI gunning to shut down Mulder’s quest for good.
I Want To Believe picks up six years after the finale, during a bleak West Virginia winter that serves as a gruesome serial killer’s canvas. When a defrocked priest (Billy Connolly) suddenly begins having visions of the murderer’s victims, the FBI contacts Scully—now a doctor at a Catholic hospital straight out of the 1960s—in the hopes of luring Mulder and his atypical insight back to the fold. Though our heroes have sworn off fighting crime, they’re sucked in with relatively little resistance. Too bad the fight’s gone right out of both of them, leaving behind weary protagonists who love each other but would rather be done with the larger mysteries of the universe and human nature.
Amanda Peet and rapper Alvin “Xzibit” Joiner play secondary roles as FBI agents searching for one of their own but serve little purpose; each part’s lines could have been divvied up among no-name actors with audiences none the wiser. On the other hand, series regular Mitch Pileggi both forwards the plot and plays right into an homage to the first movie during his brief scenes as Deputy Director Walter Skinner. Ultimately, though, whether or not the good guys will figure out the killer’s plan—and how it may or may not overlap with Scully’s recent interest in stem cell research—becomes secondary to whether Mulder and Scully can ever truly be happy. For those who always wanted to see those kooky kids settle down, I Want To Believe is a sweet resting point. But fans who enjoyed watching the pair spar over everything from little green (or is it gray?) men to past-life regression may want to hold out hope: The truth, and another sequel, may still be out there.

Turned away by the Vatican, the cast and crew of the upcoming movie Angels & Demons (based on Dan Brown's book of the same name) will turn to technology to re-create what the religious body has denied them. The movie, a science-and-religion thriller and prequel to The Da Vinci Code, has been barred by the diocese of Rome from filming in any of its churches. Sony Pictures had applied for a license to film in Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria, but was denied because the Vatican did not want to help "create a work that might well be beautiful but that does not conform to our views," spokesman Monsignor Marco Fibbi told The Associated Press. The scenes will now be filmed on a Hollywood sound stage.
In 2006, Catholics were urged by the Vatican and some other Christian leaders to boycott The Da Vinci Code, which suggests that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that the Catholic Church attempted to cover this up. Lippi acknowledges that storyline was a factor in keeping out Angels & Demons (which is less hostile to the church): "Normally we read the script but this time it was not necessary," he said. "The name Dan Brown was enough." —Dan Messier

Check out Ken Miller talking about his new book Only a Theory on The Colbert Report last night. Miller compares "intelligent design" advocates to "welfare queens waiting for the government to give them a handout" and says that if you bring the Bible into the classroom as a scientific document or a theory, "you're making a scientific and a religious mistake."
Thoughts?

The Happening—the first R-rated film from M. Night Shyamalan, director of The Sixth Sense and Signs—opens today, Friday the 13th. The film, which Shyamalan describes as "the best B-movie you've ever seen," stars Mark Wahlberg as a science teacher searching for explanations for an environmental catastrophe. On NPR's "Science Friday" last week, Shyamalan told host Ira Flatow that the movie deals with what people do when science doesn't provide answers, and says he was inspired by Einstein's views on God and the relationship between science and faith.
There's more science and religion on today's "Science Friday." Biology professor and textbook author Ken Miller speaks with guest host Joe Palca about his new book, Only a Theory, and the fight to keep creationism out of public school science classrooms. —Dan Messier

Hot from the set of Angels & Demons come the first photos of Tom Hanks reprising his role as Robert Langdon, hero of The Da Vinci Code (Angels & Demons is the prequel). The movie, based on the book of the same name, won't hit theaters until May of next year, but fans can expect a film that deals explicitly with science and religion themes—an antimatter bomb is set to destroy the Vatican, a Catholic scientist believes science can link humans with God, a Vatican official is worried about science's encroachment into religious territory. "In many ways," says author Dan Brown on his Web site, "I see science and religion as the same thing. Both are manifestations of man's quest to understand the divine." —Dan Messier

A Dangerous Personality, a play by author Sallie Bingham about the life of controversial Russian philosopher Helena Blavatsky, is scheduled to open next week in New York City. Blavatasky, who traveled extensively throughout her life, created Theosophy, the "science of religion" as she called it, which sees every religion as an attempt for humanity to evolve toward greater perfection. Her outspoken nature attracted the attention of many famous figures of her time, including inventor Thomas Edison and missionary Hiram Bingham, and her ideas stirred up scandal. The play focuses on Blavatsky's early middle age in the beginning of the 20th century and asks, says Bingham, whether in this day and age "a woman who believed in universal brotherhood and preached the root connection of all the world's religions would also be reviled."
A Dangerous Personality runs from June 10 to June 20 at the Julia Miles Theatre. —Stephen Mapes