User Score
3.6

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 201 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 74 out of 201
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 5, 2010
    1
    Despite your religious or social beliefs this is a horrible documentary. The first half of the movie is a failure because intelligent design theories SIMPLY CANNOT BE EQUATED TO SCIENTIFIC ONES; They're not science. The second half is an academic embarrassment because it's blatant rhetoric without substance. I gave it a 1 because I enjoyed hating it.
  2. Dec 13, 2011
    0
    'Vile propaganda' summarizes this perfectly. No scientific value. No entertainment value. Instead of traveling the globe over several years, the creator of this movie would have been better off attending middle-school again.
  3. Jul 1, 2011
    0
    Oh boy, I can't stand watching this piece of religious fundamentalist propaganda tripe for even a minute. Let me use of of those ID proponents' tactics. Ben Stein is an ignorant, dishonest cretin who has a slurred voice, sounds like he has some neurological disorder.
  4. TomB.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Vile propaganda.
  5. SueM.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Wow, can't believe these folks actually subtitled their film "No intelligence allowed." That's as unintentionally apropos as Michael Jackson calling his album "Bad." If you're going to whine about people losing their jobs (in academia, where your job is based on your ability to reason), then at least make the case! Don't tell me why Darwinism is bad. There's 150 Wow, can't believe these folks actually subtitled their film "No intelligence allowed." That's as unintentionally apropos as Michael Jackson calling his album "Bad." If you're going to whine about people losing their jobs (in academia, where your job is based on your ability to reason), then at least make the case! Don't tell me why Darwinism is bad. There's 150 years worth of evidence supporting it - you're not going to get very far with that argument. Tell me why intelligent design is better. Show me the data! Expand
  6. MarkN.
    Dec 14, 2009
    0
    Absolutely ghastly movie. The people giving it high scores must be high on crack. This movie doesn't stimulate discussion - it lies to the audience!! Sternberg was not fired - He was an unpaid research associate whose three year term as editor was up and he ahd already handed in his papers when he published the article. For Ben Stein not to mention this in the movie is dishonest and Absolutely ghastly movie. The people giving it high scores must be high on crack. This movie doesn't stimulate discussion - it lies to the audience!! Sternberg was not fired - He was an unpaid research associate whose three year term as editor was up and he ahd already handed in his papers when he published the article. For Ben Stein not to mention this in the movie is dishonest and unethical. Expand
  7. May 18, 2014
    0
    Not only is it insultingly stupid, it's not even HONEST. Check elsewhere for documentation of the sleazy tactics employed by the producers, misleading the interviewees about the nature of the movie, relentlessly quote mining their interviews to make it look like they said things they didn't mean, et al. If there weren't an army of fundamentalist idiots in the U.S. who distrust all ofNot only is it insultingly stupid, it's not even HONEST. Check elsewhere for documentation of the sleazy tactics employed by the producers, misleading the interviewees about the nature of the movie, relentlessly quote mining their interviews to make it look like they said things they didn't mean, et al. If there weren't an army of fundamentalist idiots in the U.S. who distrust all of science for the sole reason that some of it doesn't sit well with their religious beliefs, NO ONE would even have wasted their money to go see this movie. Expand
  8. ToddF
    Dec 6, 2008
    3
    People like Jim P and others of the religious right will obviously give a "documentary" like this a 10, but as regular people who do not have a religious agenda will see, this movie is such hilarious propaganda that I encourage all people to see it as I would encourage people to see Battlefield Earth. It is definitely good for a laugh. this is the only reason I give it a 3. Watch it with friends!
  9. Aug 22, 2010
    0
    When I saw the movie, every single bit of respect I had ever had for Ben Stein went right down the drain. Not only was I slightly offended over the course of the movie, but I literally wanted to get up, find Mr. Stein, and punch him in the mouth for almost completely misinforming any young open minds that happen to stumble across this piece of garbage. To top it off, I've heard that itWhen I saw the movie, every single bit of respect I had ever had for Ben Stein went right down the drain. Not only was I slightly offended over the course of the movie, but I literally wanted to get up, find Mr. Stein, and punch him in the mouth for almost completely misinforming any young open minds that happen to stumble across this piece of garbage. To top it off, I've heard that it portrays an open-minded view, yet it does the exact opposite and criminalizes anyone that believes anything different than (non)intelligent design. Expand
  10. MarkkuY.
    Apr 20, 2008
    1
    Utterly amateurish and dishonest. Undoubtedly those who desperately wish to believe Charles Darwin had horns on his head will give it high marks. Creationist propaganda of the very worst kind, it fails purely on cinematic terms as well. Louts like Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore at least have the decency to entertain while cramming their messages down our unwilling throats. If you must, Utterly amateurish and dishonest. Undoubtedly those who desperately wish to believe Charles Darwin had horns on his head will give it high marks. Creationist propaganda of the very worst kind, it fails purely on cinematic terms as well. Louts like Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore at least have the decency to entertain while cramming their messages down our unwilling throats. If you must, give money to churches and charities instead of wasting them on this film. Expand
  11. Christian
    May 24, 2008
    0
    I am an activist for ID and I thought this movie was a bit distasteful and if people really take this movie and think that it represents all people who want to debate about ID then I fear we have been set back. It was such obvious propaganda. *Sigh*
  12. MartinK.h
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    What a worthless piece of dreck. Putting aside the message, it is a bad movie, sloppily made and unappealing to watch. Beyond that, it is terrible propaganda - attempting to conflate science and the Holocaust. Somehow not teaching alternatives to science is wrong. So let's have both astronomy AND astrology taught in schools. Teach chemistry AND alchemy. In history, should we give What a worthless piece of dreck. Putting aside the message, it is a bad movie, sloppily made and unappealing to watch. Beyond that, it is terrible propaganda - attempting to conflate science and the Holocaust. Somehow not teaching alternatives to science is wrong. So let's have both astronomy AND astrology taught in schools. Teach chemistry AND alchemy. In history, should we give Holocaust deniers equal time? It would have been nice if the movie attempted to give a short, accurate explanation of ecolution. And intelligent design for that matter. ID is neither intelligent nor science. Why should it be taught in science class? A short snippet of Ben Stein may be amusing. 90 minutes of him is grating. Expand
  13. Ken
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    A total embarrassment. Debunkings are going on all over the web. It turns out that almost no elements of this film are accurate. A propaganda piece of the worst sort. I mean, come on, evolutionary theory led to Hitler? Please. Check out expelled exposed dot com to learn the real facts that this film misrepresents.
  14. StaceyB
    Apr 19, 2008
    2
    I was invited to this movie, and I'm happy the ticket price didn't come out of my pocket. I gave it a 2 because I think Ben Stein deserves at least a couple points for the guts it took to make and release the film, but that's all. They obviously went into making this film with a heavy bias and made no effort to appear fair or even-handed with the opposing side of the I was invited to this movie, and I'm happy the ticket price didn't come out of my pocket. I gave it a 2 because I think Ben Stein deserves at least a couple points for the guts it took to make and release the film, but that's all. They obviously went into making this film with a heavy bias and made no effort to appear fair or even-handed with the opposing side of the debate. I was reminded often of Michael Moore's "documentaries" and his style of interviewing. This film was insulting to the audience's intelligence, evolutionists and creationists alike. Expand
  15. DonL.
    Apr 19, 2008
    2
    Went to see the movie with a couple of friends. We brought flyers advertising the web page expelled exposed dot com so that viewers of the film could see the other side of the argument, if they were interested. The movie theater management tried to "expell" us. The film was as expected, an illogical attempt to equate Darwinism to atheism to Naziism to Holocost. The sympathetic scientists Went to see the movie with a couple of friends. We brought flyers advertising the web page expelled exposed dot com so that viewers of the film could see the other side of the argument, if they were interested. The movie theater management tried to "expell" us. The film was as expected, an illogical attempt to equate Darwinism to atheism to Naziism to Holocost. The sympathetic scientists that were "expelled" were interviewed and given their say. Darwin was quoted from his book "Descent of Man" but not fairly. A paragraph was taken out of context which would seem to indicate the man was bent on culling genetically inferior humans out of the gene pool, like Hitler. The next paragraph in the book where he decries any semblence of that was not mentioned leaving the viewer with the wrong impression of Darwin. The partisan crowd seemed to laugh at all the right spots but I found little humor in the movie. The most glaring logical flaw in the presentation was the lack of compelling evidence that supported completely discarding Darwin's theory. There were no examples of where the theory falls short just a lot of puffing and crowing from a few well spoken philosophers. Science is about our best effort to explan our observations in nature. The computer graphics of the working of the cell was impressive and did a fairly good job showing a complicated mechanism. It as the cell is the designer would have to be infinitley more complicated...who or what designed it? From what I saw of Ben Stein in Expelled I've come to the conclusion that he's not an intelligent man...but he plays one on TV Expand
  16. HollyG.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Offensive - sat through just to appease some creationist friends - now ex-friends.
  17. FrankH.
    Apr 20, 2008
    1
    Fails as both a film and as an argument. As a film: Is there an editor in the house? Some shots are held much too long, and the film drags as a whole. Where is the development, climax, denouement? They just beat on the same point over and over. Lighting, contrast, tone? Too eclectic here. Finally, the heavy-handed music is just over the top. We grew out of that after our first couple of Fails as both a film and as an argument. As a film: Is there an editor in the house? Some shots are held much too long, and the film drags as a whole. Where is the development, climax, denouement? They just beat on the same point over and over. Lighting, contrast, tone? Too eclectic here. Finally, the heavy-handed music is just over the top. We grew out of that after our first couple of assignments in film school. And the Holocaust parallels, while offensive, are simply too commonly used now in such political propaganda to have any shock value. As an argument: Let's see, if I'm an astronomer (even pre-1969, before we visited), and I claimed the moon might be made of cheese, should I have been let go from my academic position? Hmmm... maybe that would actually be a good idea... The filmmakers ought to realize that science requires data. Their argument provides no supporting data. Criticizing Darwinism doesn't translate to support for ID - the onus is on them to come up with a better argument to replace it - i.e. one that more of the data support, something they clearly fail to do. And where are the holes in Darwinism? Note to Ben Stein: simply repeating an argument without specifics doesn't make it so. Seems the biggest potential argument against Darwinism is "irreducible complexity," which has now been fundamentally discredited (see recent Nova special on the Dover trial). Another note to Ben Stein: Social Darwinism and scientific Darwinism are not the same thing, and actually have little to do with one another (one is a flawed philosophy, the other a well-supported biological framework). In the end, despite the protestations of the filmmakers, free speech is obviously not being squelched, or this movie wouldn't have been released. They simply don't understand what science is, and why ID is not science. If a "scientist" promotes an idea and fails to find/provide supporting data that's fine (happens all the time). But if that person then fails to change their argument in the absence of solid experimental evidence, they aren't really a scientist after all, and they ought to be fired or let go from their academic position. Expand
  18. EmilyO.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Utter drivel.
  19. TonyD.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    I don't think Marc N, understands the slightest thing about science. This film regurgitates every creationist/ID canard in the book. You can't scream "SUPPRESION!" if you don't generate any actual research to suppress.
  20. ZirradW.
    Apr 21, 2008
    1
    A dishonest propaganda piece intended to aid the efforts to get creationism (rebranded as intelligent design) into our school systems. It's full of lies and mis-representations.
  21. GregJ.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Bill W., you are no scientist. If you are one then why did you misspell there? If you're a scientist then you would know that you should have used their when referring to their anger. Also, Tom R. if you actually think that Dawkins thinks aliens could have created life on earth then you have been hoodwinked. Read his column in the LA Times. You'll learn a little bit more about Bill W., you are no scientist. If you are one then why did you misspell there? If you're a scientist then you would know that you should have used their when referring to their anger. Also, Tom R. if you actually think that Dawkins thinks aliens could have created life on earth then you have been hoodwinked. Read his column in the LA Times. You'll learn a little bit more about what he really thinks about aliens creating life on earth. Expand
  22. BobL.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Lame propaganda insulting to the intelligence of anyone who passed and half way understood high school biology.
  23. JohnG.
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    This film is a propaganda piece as big in scale, ambition, and lies as anything produced in WWII Germany. If I had come into it with no knowledge of the issue, I might have left convinced that Darwin was the grandmaster of the Holocaust, and that Sternberg was a hero. The film gives us an old story of conspiracy, rebellion, and heroism and it's all very appealing and very untrue. This film is a propaganda piece as big in scale, ambition, and lies as anything produced in WWII Germany. If I had come into it with no knowledge of the issue, I might have left convinced that Darwin was the grandmaster of the Holocaust, and that Sternberg was a hero. The film gives us an old story of conspiracy, rebellion, and heroism and it's all very appealing and very untrue. Sadly, people will be duped by their own sense of objectivity. Expand
  24. JoeS.
    May 10, 2008
    0
    Did they really have to sink so low as to abuse the holocaust to try and force people into following their way of thinking? This movie is insulting to anyone that watches it.
  25. GeorgeN.
    May 12, 2008
    0
    Once again the religious right can't make a foothold in a secular society in which scientific theory is accepted for it's logic and reason.
  26. JimJ.
    May 4, 2008
    0
    They lied to everyone in pre-production and they are lying to everyone now. Stein should be ashamed of himself for his part in furthering the Intelligent Design (ID) agenda. This movie made dishonest references to the holocaust, misrepresented the scientific community,made false claims of persecution and did nothing but showed ID proponents to be hypocritical and academically challenged.
  27. CharlieB
    Feb 8, 2009
    0
    This movie attempts to blame the Holocaust and WWII on the theory of evolution. Honestly, this is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard in my life, yet it remains as the movie's main theme from the very start to the very end. Even if it were true that the theory of evolution caused WWII (which it obviously did not) that doesn't necessarily mean the theory is This movie attempts to blame the Holocaust and WWII on the theory of evolution. Honestly, this is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard in my life, yet it remains as the movie's main theme from the very start to the very end. Even if it were true that the theory of evolution caused WWII (which it obviously did not) that doesn't necessarily mean the theory is incorrect. This is the most hardcore piece of republican propaganda I have ever seen. If you have a proper high school diploma, this movie is sure to insult your intelligence. Expand
  28. PatS
    Nov 9, 2008
    1
    Funny movie, it gets the point for stein's audacity going against his own belief to make a buck. Movies are made to make money and this movie will thanks to religious apologists who thought the Earth was flat, Burned ugly women at the stake, and sent us to war in Ira. Hitler arguement is not valid Hitler himself says hes doing God's work at the end of chapter 2 in in his Funny movie, it gets the point for stein's audacity going against his own belief to make a buck. Movies are made to make money and this movie will thanks to religious apologists who thought the Earth was flat, Burned ugly women at the stake, and sent us to war in Ira. Hitler arguement is not valid Hitler himself says hes doing God's work at the end of chapter 2 in in his sickining autobiography. I hope that someday a belief in GOd whatever form she may be is not a prerequisite for knowledge. Science is indeed in it's infancy, but relgion is old decreped and will die off when human beings refuse to be scared of death. Expand
  29. StevenC.
    Oct 21, 2008
    1
    Ben's been a Nixon speech writer, eye drop pitchman, charactor actor and now a Creationists! How very amusing... the film , itself, lacks intelligent design.
  30. JakeD.
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    Check out the Scientific American articles on this movie (and yes I mean "movie" in the pejorative sense). Oh, and listen to the hour and a half long interview with the associate producer. Does intellectual honesty have no place in the religio-political etherworld that 30% of the nation seems to be trying to blanket the entire country with? Really, what is going through these Check out the Scientific American articles on this movie (and yes I mean "movie" in the pejorative sense). Oh, and listen to the hour and a half long interview with the associate producer. Does intellectual honesty have no place in the religio-political etherworld that 30% of the nation seems to be trying to blanket the entire country with? Really, what is going through these people's minds? To paraphrase a headline from a British newspaper, "how can 300 million people be so dumb?" Expand
  31. RobS.
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    Contemptible and transparently mendacious trash. Ben Stein is a shameless fool.
  32. JexT.
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    Ben Stein is the funniest former Nixon lawyer and speech writer EVAH! (That's right, Tricky Dick 'I Am Not A Crook' Nixon) With a background in economics, law, and crooked politics, I can see why he feels qualified to present "Intelligent Design" (=Christian Creation myth) as Real Science. But hey! This religious propaganda packaged as comedy? Oh, what a hoot! What a Ben Stein is the funniest former Nixon lawyer and speech writer EVAH! (That's right, Tricky Dick 'I Am Not A Crook' Nixon) With a background in economics, law, and crooked politics, I can see why he feels qualified to present "Intelligent Design" (=Christian Creation myth) as Real Science. But hey! This religious propaganda packaged as comedy? Oh, what a hoot! What a knee-slapper!! High-jinks galore!!!1! (What a tool...) Expand
  33. NickJ.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    The only thing this movie accomplishes is reinforcing the concept that those who advocate intelligent design or creationism do it out of a perverted sense of religious indignity rather than genuine scientific pursuit. Ben Stein was the absolute wrong choice for narrator, not because of his nasally voice and annoying patterns of speech, but due to his well known bias for intelligent The only thing this movie accomplishes is reinforcing the concept that those who advocate intelligent design or creationism do it out of a perverted sense of religious indignity rather than genuine scientific pursuit. Ben Stein was the absolute wrong choice for narrator, not because of his nasally voice and annoying patterns of speech, but due to his well known bias for intelligent design. It offers no scientific argument that can hold it's own and instead seeks to demonize Darwinists to gain some cheap ground. Not to mention blatantly stealing the cell animation without proper attribution, banning PZ Meyers from the prescreening, and insinuating that Richard Dawkins believes in aliens. This movie fails as cinematography and should be seen by everyone who is still on the fence about evolution, if only to give them an idea of what ID theorists advocate. Expand
  34. KevinH.
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    Stein's not a good enough actor to be playing this dumb. Sadly, that leaves the obvious conclusion: he has abdicated reason and made the classic ought-is mistake. Don't let him take you with him.
  35. SkepC.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    Marc N. says "watch it you will understand why NeoDarwinists are pulling out all the stops to keep you from seeing it." I say watch it and you will understand how intellectually bankrupt this film in particular and the creationist arguments in general are.
  36. WarrenP.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Offensive to me both as a scientist and a Jew.
  37. RobE.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    A complete waste of time.
  38. JS.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    This film assumes that science is done from some kind of philosophical standpoint, and works purely from that premise. It refuses to acknowledge the thousands of researchers that have no problem reconciling a belief in the supernatural with the study of testable natural phenomena, as this would completely undermine its position. This films shows itself to be propaganda and nothing else, This film assumes that science is done from some kind of philosophical standpoint, and works purely from that premise. It refuses to acknowledge the thousands of researchers that have no problem reconciling a belief in the supernatural with the study of testable natural phenomena, as this would completely undermine its position. This films shows itself to be propaganda and nothing else, an attempt to create an artificial division for cynical purposes. Expand
  39. JaneM.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Extraordinarily evil movie - equating evolution with the Holocaust.
  40. RobertoM.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Real scientists interviewed for this movie were deceived by the producers, they were told the interviewed was for "crossroads" a documentary of science and religion, and also the interviews you will see are edited to benefit the Intelligent Design movement. Not scientific, no evidences, just a bunch of religious nuts !
  41. MattB.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Stein should have retired from movies after Bueller.
  42. JimD.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Intelligent Design IS rooted in creationism. Google "cdesign propotentists."
  43. Fry
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Between dry exposition that all of established science is a grand conspiracy, quote mining, and explaining how those who follow the evidence and reject superstitious dogma are equal to Nazis; we have the highly suspect tales of victims of this shadow conspiracy. instead of addressing science you have appeals to emotion and reducto ad-hitlerum star men. Overall a horrible piece of propaganda.
  44. DQS.
    Apr 22, 2008
    1
    The editing's not bad. Other than that... This is not so much a film as it is a con job on the financial backers for it. Somewhere Bialystock & Bloom are counting their money on a beach. Springtime for Creationism!
  45. TimD.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Wow -- exploiting the Holocaust to make a right-wing political point? That's breathtaking! This film is a new low for the Christian Right.
  46. AaronS
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    A worthless piece of garbage. Appalling right wing propaganda masquerading as an insightful documentary. The only insight this lame stunt provides is just how twisted the minds of the Christian Right can be. Oh the irony of the film's very title. Pathetic and the absolute worst film of 2008.
  47. BJK
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    Pure rubbish, insulting garbage. When asked about those scientists (such as myself) who both study evolution and have strong faith, the makers of this movie said that including those people would "muddle the issue." All this movie does is create unnecessary tension between religion and science. There is no contradiction there.
  48. RegisP.
    Apr 25, 2008
    0
    The easily lead are easily mislead. Quite simply, the movie is filled with lies. Sternberg never worked for the Smithsonian, he was an unpaid Research Associate. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for 3 more years in 2006 (and this is expelled?). He resigned from his unpaid editor position at the PBSW 6 months before the Meyer article was published. The story is The easily lead are easily mislead. Quite simply, the movie is filled with lies. Sternberg never worked for the Smithsonian, he was an unpaid Research Associate. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for 3 more years in 2006 (and this is expelled?). He resigned from his unpaid editor position at the PBSW 6 months before the Meyer article was published. The story is similar for all those who were supposedly "expelled" This movie is a perfect example of lying for Christianity. Please don't accept lies just to justify a religious worldview. Expand
  49. CharlesV.
    Apr 28, 2008
    0
    Pure propaganda. They link the Holocaust to evolution, and actually try to use that as a legitimate argument. That should tell you something.
  50. JayS.
    Apr 28, 2008
    0
    "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." A little reading on the Intelligent Design movement makes it painfully clear that facts have no bearing on ID. It is a political movement to "introduce Jesus," into scientific culture. A movie based on this agenda is destined to fail horribly when watched by anyone with a critical "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." A little reading on the Intelligent Design movement makes it painfully clear that facts have no bearing on ID. It is a political movement to "introduce Jesus," into scientific culture. A movie based on this agenda is destined to fail horribly when watched by anyone with a critical mind. All quotes from the founder of Intelligent Design, Phillip E Johnson. Expand
  51. DavidS.
    Apr 29, 2008
    0
    The idea that these "scientists" were "expelled" for pursuing research in intelligent design is not just inaccurate, it is a fabrication. The degree of dishonesty that religious fundamentalists will go through in order to brainwash people into believing what they want them to believe is nothing short of astonishing. If we allow these zealots to infiltrate our scientific institutions, then The idea that these "scientists" were "expelled" for pursuing research in intelligent design is not just inaccurate, it is a fabrication. The degree of dishonesty that religious fundamentalists will go through in order to brainwash people into believing what they want them to believe is nothing short of astonishing. If we allow these zealots to infiltrate our scientific institutions, then we have all but relegated the United States back into the dark ages while the rest of the developed nations become the new leaders in scientific study. It makes me ashamed to be an American. Expand
  52. SalS.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    According to Ben Stein, evolution is exactly like the holocaust, and he uses some nice shots of the Dachau cramatoria to drive that point home. Classy.
  53. ZorgonM.
    May 15, 2008
    1
    The religious right in the US is trying to co-opt the vocabulary of liberalism and science to promote their agenda. This is not a film, as many reviewers have posted, that is about freedom. It
  54. RN.
    May 2, 2008
    0
    Let's see...who to believe? On one hand we have: A Nixon speech writer and apologist (no dishonesty there), game show host, flailing economist, unfunny comedian, turncoat Jew misappropriating the Holocaust along with his systematically dishonest producers who are marketing trumped up and deceitful charges of "expulsion" and conspiracy to an utterly ignorant audience of Let's see...who to believe? On one hand we have: A Nixon speech writer and apologist (no dishonesty there), game show host, flailing economist, unfunny comedian, turncoat Jew misappropriating the Holocaust along with his systematically dishonest producers who are marketing trumped up and deceitful charges of "expulsion" and conspiracy to an utterly ignorant audience of fundamentalist sheep. On the other hand: 99.99% of the world's scientists (agnostic, atheistic and piously religious) who have spent the majority of their lives pursuing the truth and beauty around them and sharing that knowledge with each other and the world. If there existed a word whose meaning was viler than vile, it would most definitely apply to this so-called "documentary" and no other. What an obscene, insulting waste of my time and $7. Expand
  55. LoriG.
    May 23, 2008
    1
    So I take it Yesman that you'd give high marks to Leni Riefenstahl's films even though they were blatant Nazi propaganda (though well edited, shot, written, etc.)? For me the message is part of the overall package. If it doesn't entertain or inform, but rather obfuscates, it's a bad film. So 9s and 10s, this is about free speech (not evolution)? What gave you the idea So I take it Yesman that you'd give high marks to Leni Riefenstahl's films even though they were blatant Nazi propaganda (though well edited, shot, written, etc.)? For me the message is part of the overall package. If it doesn't entertain or inform, but rather obfuscates, it's a bad film. So 9s and 10s, this is about free speech (not evolution)? What gave you the idea we have free speech in this country? There are words you can't say on TV. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't say libelous things. Speech is free in its appropriate context, and rightfully so. Who's preventing the filmmakers from releasing this film? Or you from commenting about it? I don't imagine it will be used in a biology class, though, except to point out the inanity of the non-scientific opinion. (But I can certainly anticipate that many right-wing churches will buy hundreds of copies of the DVD to indoctrinate their children). A scientist who continues to espouse an unsupported view SHOULD be fired, let go, denied tenure, or in the case of some of the "injured" interviewees in this film, simply not have their volunteer status renewed. Just as someone teaching a comparative religion class who continued to insist that there was no creation story in Christian religions, despite any historical or literary evidence, should be let go. That's not stifling free speech, that simply framing the view correctly in its context. And to those who argue that ID is not creationism (another point this film adds confusion to), you're right. They're not exactly the same thing. They're simply very nearly the same thing. ID is just a straightforward extension of creationism (and the term was substituted for "creationism" in the IDers own literature, so even they thought of them as remarkably similar). So, it could be space aliens in addition to "God"? Then where is your evidence for space aliens, or flying spaghetti monsters, etc.? ID is fundamentally similar to creationism in that it is a religious point of view (i.e. relies on belief, not hard data). It is therefore not science, and doesn't belong in the context of a science class. Period. This movie sheds no new light (data) on that view and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on. Therefore a "1" from my perspective (yeah, at least they tried - probably not the cameraman's fault this is a fundamentally flawed piece of tripe). Expand
  56. MarkG
    May 6, 2008
    3
    Stupid film. Biased and one-sided. This is a response to the pop-science broadsides aimed at Religion in recent times, and to be honest they're just as bad. Neither side has any will to understand the other and open their eyes to the SCREAMINGLY obvious fact that Science and Religion serve completely different roles in society and the psyche. It's a never ending point scoring Stupid film. Biased and one-sided. This is a response to the pop-science broadsides aimed at Religion in recent times, and to be honest they're just as bad. Neither side has any will to understand the other and open their eyes to the SCREAMINGLY obvious fact that Science and Religion serve completely different roles in society and the psyche. It's a never ending point scoring exercise and it's never been more exasperating than it is now, at least to people who have grown up. Expand
  57. AlexT.
    Jun 27, 2008
    0
    I love the use of the term "liberal" to refer to anyone who takes umbrage with the anti-academic crusade of the Christian fundamentalists who made this schlock. If academic discourse, critical thought, and intellectual nuance are left wing, then you can start making my uniform for Team Liberal today.
  58. ScottL
    Oct 19, 2009
    1
    Stein completely lost the plot here within the first 30 minutes. Once he went from a rather interpreting and well-thought out discussion of I.D. versus Darwinian evolution to attacking the scientific community the "documentary" lost all credibility. Intelligent design is not science, it cannot be tested even if there was a hypothesis in there to test. I sure wouldn't want my tuition Stein completely lost the plot here within the first 30 minutes. Once he went from a rather interpreting and well-thought out discussion of I.D. versus Darwinian evolution to attacking the scientific community the "documentary" lost all credibility. Intelligent design is not science, it cannot be tested even if there was a hypothesis in there to test. I sure wouldn't want my tuition and taxes going to grants to pay for these academics' experiments. Stein raised some good points then dropped them before really getting to the point where there's enough meat for people digest. Skip this if you're looking for a balanced discussion of the ID/Darwin debate. Expand
  59. carlj
    Feb 10, 2009
    0
    Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design. Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B). Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A). Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute. Expand
  60. JeffC
    Aug 7, 2009
    0
    I just love these comments from religious zealots thinking that the media has some kind of conspiracy against intelligent design. Let me take a moment and describe what you're arguing here. Intelligent design is simply not science. It is not testable. You can't do an experiment to test for the presence of God, or some designer of the universe. The idea is laughable. Also, this I just love these comments from religious zealots thinking that the media has some kind of conspiracy against intelligent design. Let me take a moment and describe what you're arguing here. Intelligent design is simply not science. It is not testable. You can't do an experiment to test for the presence of God, or some designer of the universe. The idea is laughable. Also, this is not some squelching of free speech. Science doesn't care about opinions, it cares about what is TRUE. This argument is the same as saying "I think that grasshoppers make rainbows happen. You should teach this theory too, it's only fair." And now you wonder why a scientist would get fired for such a thing. It's not a conspiracy, it's a weak theory that ruins the scientific credibility of anyone that supports it. All of intelligent design is an attempt to include religion in the science classroom. Don't believe me? Name me one supporter of intelligent design that isn't a Christian. Anyone that supports this crackpot theory is biased by faith and has absolutely no interest in what is actually true or not. Expand
  61. AlexM.
    Dec 26, 2008
    1
    Funny how people suggest that Darwinism is a religion. It's not a religion...it's a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it, and although it may be incorrect, it is generally viewed as one of the most likely explanations of our existence. You can believe in Darwin's theory and still believe in God...they are not mutually exclusive. But attackers of Darwinism Funny how people suggest that Darwinism is a religion. It's not a religion...it's a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it, and although it may be incorrect, it is generally viewed as one of the most likely explanations of our existence. You can believe in Darwin's theory and still believe in God...they are not mutually exclusive. But attackers of Darwinism say that it's followers are as close-minded as religious zealots. Well, maybe so, but if that's the case, is gravity a religion? Newton's Laws are still only theories...I guess everyone who refuses to jump off a cliff for fear of falling is a Gravity Fundamentalist. Expand
  62. Mr.Pink
    Dec 28, 2008
    0
    Rick W. claims he has a degree in Organic Evolution from the University of Wisconsin. Went to their website and--surprise, surprise--no such degree exists. I'm surprised Ben Stein didn't invite you to tell a fake story in his film as well. I'm not a creationist. I'm not an evolutionist. I'm not a liberal or conservative. I'm just a guy who knows BS when he Rick W. claims he has a degree in Organic Evolution from the University of Wisconsin. Went to their website and--surprise, surprise--no such degree exists. I'm surprised Ben Stein didn't invite you to tell a fake story in his film as well. I'm not a creationist. I'm not an evolutionist. I'm not a liberal or conservative. I'm just a guy who knows BS when he sees it. This is not the first anti-science pro-religion documentary made and as long as the gullible and ignorant masses have money, it won't be the last. Hitler an evolutionist? Not only did Hitler dedicate his deeds to God (ie: the "intelligent designer"), but he rejected the theory of evolution and the idea that humans are animals (if he can't accept that Jews and non-Jews are biologically related, why would he believe humans and chimps are?) Furthermore, he fought against secular education and mandated prayer in schools. Need I say more? If Hitler was alive today, which side do you think he would be on? Regardless of the topic, any film that in all seriousness uses a gross and false non-sequitur such as "Hitler was an evolutionist, therefore God is a science" gets a zero from me - no exceptions. Expand
  63. Belarius
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    In a word: tawdry. Ignoring for a moment the factual errors that riddle the movie (which are literally everywhere), the basic problem with the film is the basic problem with Intelligent Design as a theory in general: simply saying something is true does not constitute a valid argument. In its presentation of its 'evidence,' Expelled misstates the essential facts of the debate at In a word: tawdry. Ignoring for a moment the factual errors that riddle the movie (which are literally everywhere), the basic problem with the film is the basic problem with Intelligent Design as a theory in general: simply saying something is true does not constitute a valid argument. In its presentation of its 'evidence,' Expelled misstates the essential facts of the debate at every turn. Both in its willful refusal to work through the reasoning behind the science it attacks and its willful refusal to investigate the 'victims' it profiles, the movie is pure propaganda. Lacking the strength to change any minds, it will probably be used as a rallying point for the choir to whom it preaches. Additionally, the flagrant, unapologetic, and historically bizarre attempt to attribute the Holocaust to evolutionary theory goes beyond being insulting, vaporizing the movie's last shred of integrity. Expand
  64. GilbertF.
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    Most intellectually dishonest movie I've ever seen. Implying that the Holocost was the result of Darwinism is particularly revolting and absurd to anyone who has studied history
  65. BernieL.
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    A cheesy, confused, and stumbling movie that fails completely on many levels - as a documentary (blatantly one-sided and propagandist), as a comedy (much too drab and self-absorbed), and most importantly in its understanding of the reasoning and science behind evolutionary ideas. This movie seems blindly intent on misinterpreting and obfuscating. For instance, few biologists would claim A cheesy, confused, and stumbling movie that fails completely on many levels - as a documentary (blatantly one-sided and propagandist), as a comedy (much too drab and self-absorbed), and most importantly in its understanding of the reasoning and science behind evolutionary ideas. This movie seems blindly intent on misinterpreting and obfuscating. For instance, few biologists would claim that evolution is a random process - adaptations to a particular habitat certainly aren't random. Ben Stein and his flimmakers seem utterly clueless about the scientific method and how it works. The movie does excel at one thing, however: taking the comments of interviewees out of context. Expand
  66. RobertR.
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    Jesus, Marc you're a twit.
  67. [Anonymous]
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    ....soooooo biased
  68. EricS
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    It made me really anxious and tense trying to fight back my frustration, not with the premise necessarily, but with the poor execution and the obvious leaps being made. Documentary films are supposed to educate and maybe attempt to convince their audience, but this movie tried to make me feel stupid for wanting some substance.
  69. WilliamR.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Poorly done fantasy agitprop.
  70. ToddJ
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    Stein's accusation that the minuscule section of the scientific community are being "Expelled" is ridiculous. If it was a debate between two ideas, which itself is debatable, then where is the evidence to support this side...as best I could tell, this movie did not contain any. Don't convince me evolution is wrong, convince me that ID is right. Evolution: Theory+ years of Stein's accusation that the minuscule section of the scientific community are being "Expelled" is ridiculous. If it was a debate between two ideas, which itself is debatable, then where is the evidence to support this side...as best I could tell, this movie did not contain any. Don't convince me evolution is wrong, convince me that ID is right. Evolution: Theory+ years of supporting research = accepted idea both scientifically and socially. ID: Theory + people really really wanting it to be true = at its best (which this film is most certainty not)....science fiction. Expand
  71. NateJ
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    Oh man did this make me want to gouge my eyes out and squish my brains.
  72. DavidG.
    Apr 25, 2008
    0
    Another friendly reminder that "intelligent design" is a victory of faith-based marketing selling faux-science to a science-ignorant audience. Kinda like this movie.
  73. JonK
    May 19, 2008
    0
    If I argued against child molestation and someone critiqued it as "one sided" would that be true? Should all sides always be debated? Or is it just dumb to debate some sides? One thing is for sure - it helps to argue against something when you can just make stuff up and depend on your target audience to know less about the subject than you do. No amount of production values, jokes or If I argued against child molestation and someone critiqued it as "one sided" would that be true? Should all sides always be debated? Or is it just dumb to debate some sides? One thing is for sure - it helps to argue against something when you can just make stuff up and depend on your target audience to know less about the subject than you do. No amount of production values, jokes or editing can make up for a movie that, in principle, is a lie. Expand
  74. MarcoA
    Jun 18, 2008
    0
    There are some good arguments in favor of ID. This film doesn't make them. There are tactful ways to argue in favor of God's role in moral thought. This film is incredibly crass when doing so (Darwin = Auschwitz? Come on!). I suppose we got the movie we'd expect from an average to mediocre game show host with delusions of grandeur.
  75. TimmyM
    Jan 28, 2009
    0
    First off, Mr Pink, I hate to give you a history lesson, but your comments about Hitler are completely off. While he did mandate and promote religion in some aspects, he did so in a deal with the papacy which dissolved their present Catholic political party in Germany - he was only consolidating power. Hitler hated the church thoroughly. As for the film itself, anyone who has taken First off, Mr Pink, I hate to give you a history lesson, but your comments about Hitler are completely off. While he did mandate and promote religion in some aspects, he did so in a deal with the papacy which dissolved their present Catholic political party in Germany - he was only consolidating power. Hitler hated the church thoroughly. As for the film itself, anyone who has taken undergraduate philosophy and/or has a rudimentary grasp of scientific logic should not be convinced of the viability of Intelligent Design. Though stifling dialogue is never a productive means of debate, Stein's film is to the genre of documentary what fox news is to "fair and balanced" reporting. Expand
  76. PeteH
    Jul 27, 2009
    0
    A toe curling farce made by and for Americans preying on the already existing delusions of this religiously sick country. While the rest of the world sits face-palmed as it watches grown men and women tackle a debate which hasn't seen any new argument presented by the Bible literalists since close to 150 years, professional ignoramus Ben Stein fills his pockets while he tries not to A toe curling farce made by and for Americans preying on the already existing delusions of this religiously sick country. While the rest of the world sits face-palmed as it watches grown men and women tackle a debate which hasn't seen any new argument presented by the Bible literalists since close to 150 years, professional ignoramus Ben Stein fills his pockets while he tries not to chuckle. ID is an idea which is simply not supported by any scientific data (nor could it be in the manner in which it is approached by the likes of the Discovery Institute!)and therefore doesn't qualify to even begin to rank with any scientific theory. Stein knows this all too well. 'Cause if this was not the case, ID would have been a scientific theory and ID would probably be a subset of the theory of evolution or the other way around. Unless of course you'd be willing to accept a mass global conspiracy probably set up by the Christian God himself placing fossils all over the globe, having a field day with manipulating DNA and removing His signature from everything we can examine from His creation while he twirls his moustache. Well, if you're really that gullible, please enrich yourself with this Bensteinian mockery. Spread the good word in reviews about how well this documentary was made, how eye-opening it is and how so terribly thought provoking it turned out to be. If you can't even tell this shoddy documentary apart from well made ones in which there was no need for quote mines, lies, misdirection, stolen CGI, shoddy editing and general bad taste, then how could anyone expect you to see beyond the hopelessly outdated ideas about reality that religion has succeeded to hardwire into your brain. The movie 'Lose Change' about the conspiracy concerning 9-11 at least managed to build a nice house of cards before it let it crash into its own ground zero. proponents of ID have yet to come up with a single verifiable fact that is actually in favour of the idea (and not presenting a case for it by kicking against some other concept). This is why you won't find said arguments in this 'Documentary' by Stein. And this fact alone makes this 'movie' fail beyond words or comprehension because it is the major part of its premise. I recommend this film to no one, not even to see Stein further the caricature of the ignorant and uneducated Jesus-fed American and see him make an absolute fool out of the part of the American public who actually support some intelligent notion of ID in stead of the urge to let in any random idea we could have about whatever (a flat earth, a green cheese moon) into the scientific arena without having to show anything for it besides some well polished lies, some quote mines and well funded yet nonexistent research. Perhaps I could recommend it to those who want to see a modern propaganda piece to understand how not to make it. Stein should not have visited Europe to make this film, he should have paid a visit to North Korea in stead. Expand
  77. BarryD
    Dec 16, 2008
    0
    Many of the comments giving 9s & 10s don't even focus on the movie, but instead attack evolutionary biology (and other commenters). And that is just what 'Expelled' does: attack evolution while completely avoiding explaining how an alternate theory would work. They only give us the tired old cop-out, "It's so complex, it _must_ have had a designer" a.k.a. "God did it". Many of the comments giving 9s & 10s don't even focus on the movie, but instead attack evolutionary biology (and other commenters). And that is just what 'Expelled' does: attack evolution while completely avoiding explaining how an alternate theory would work. They only give us the tired old cop-out, "It's so complex, it _must_ have had a designer" a.k.a. "God did it". This movie was marketed as being supportive of Intelligent Design (as an alternate to biological evolution), yet it did not at _any_ point in the film offer evidence for the "alternate theory" known as ID. Several people who were apparently "expelled" for their acceptance of ID are interviewed; however, a little bit of research on them reveals that the movie was not telling us the whole story for each individual. Feel free to research them for yourself. Also, throughout the film, an ridiculous parallel is drawn where they actually imply that an acceptance of evolution will lead to Nazism and genocide. This attempt was so absurd, I considered leaving the theater (but did stay and tough it out). It's really sad that an anti-scientific movie like this was funded so heavily. Overall, 'Expelled' was absolutely abysmal. Expand
  78. Oct 14, 2014
    0
    'science leads to killing people' actual line from mr stein, need i say more about this DISHONEST lying "documentary" that dribbles on on, with very easily noticed editing tricks during so called interviews, Stein is a joke
Metascore
20

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 13
  2. Negative: 11 out of 13
  1. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    50
    While roving interviewer Ben Stein extracts some choice soundbites from scientists on both sides of the creation-vs.-evolution debate, the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals.
  2. Reviewed by: Vadim Rizov
    30
    Bizarre and hysterical.
  3. Reviewed by: Adam Markovitz
    25
    Regardless of your personal views, Expelled's heavy-handed bias (a visit to Darwin's home gets the same eerie music as a tour of Dachau) is exasperating.