Certainly there isn’t even a pretense at a coherent narrative or interesting, complex, plausible characters in Land of the Lost. Given that those are among the things critics tend to praise, it’s hardly a surprise that the film has gotten awful reviews.

Nonetheless, Land of the Lost is quite enjoyable. Despite the claims of some critics who seem disposed to hate everything about it, the movie is quite funny, with many instances of Ferrell’s usual blustering and amusing comeuppances as well as numerous funny comments by Danny McBride as Ferrell’s reluctant and cowardly sidekick. Jorma Taccone’s performance as Chaka is also very risible at times.

Moreover, there is actually a very good, important, and timely thought in Land of the Lost. In a very amusing way, the film satirizes the current-day perversion of science in which claims of consensus are used as a blunt instrument to shout down opposing ideas.

Ferrell plays Dr. Rick Marshall, one of his typical blustering, ambitious, well-meaning characters. Marshall has written about his theory that a certain kind of elemental physical particle can be harnessed and enable people and things to move from the known universe into a parallel realm in which things from all times exist simultaneously.

Marshall’s theory has brought him nearly universal derision among scientists and the media, which the film amusingly conveys through bookend scenes in which Marshall appears on NBC’s Today Show to talk about books he has written, and is abused by host Matt Lauer as a charlatan and a fool.

Lauer’s reaction perfectly represents the media’s reaction toward, say, those who claim that the scientific evidence shows that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring and the current temperature trends of the earth show the very opposite of a crisis. Instead of actually engaging the scientific evidence, the media whores simply claim that all reputable scientists agree that there’s a crisis requiring the absolute destruction of Americans’ civil and economic liberties, and that anyone who disagrees with that premise is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

Lauer vividly recreates that approach in his scenes with Ferrell. The great irony is that Marshall turns out to be correct, and Lauer remains both abusive and now openly wrong, physically attacking Marshall in the second interview at the end of the film.

My guess is that this aspect of the film was not intended as direct satire but instead simply reflects something the filmmakers picked up in the contemporary zeitgeist. However, its presence in the central story of the film and the bookend scenes–which are in very important places in the film, the beginning and end–gives it great prominence and suggests that skepticism toward such claims of consensus has entered the culture as a real phenomenon.

The claim of consensus and refusal to address scientific evidence, of course, is the direct opposite of the scientific method, which is based on continual attempts to disprove accepted theories and hypotheses. The scientific method treats all claims as hypotheses, not facts, and requires humility on the part of the scientist.

Today, by contrast, on subjects as varied as earth’s temperature record, the process(es) of species origination, and even whether the speed of light is a constant, many people knowingly misuse science for political purposes, arguing that “the science is settled” on a variety of issues when it most certainly is not. (People have done this throughout history, of course.) They do this in order to convey a sense of necessity and inevitability to their political preferences instead of actually having to show that their proposed policies are provably better than the possible alternatives.

Regarding global warming, for example, alarmists continually claim that scientists are agreed that anthropogenic global warming is happening and is a crisis. In fact, neither of those statements has achieved anything like a consensus among scientific experts in the appropriate fields. For example, the widely cited report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was written not by scientists but by politicians who ignored the multitude of comments made officially by scientists questioning the panel’s alarmist claims.

Actually, many more scientists are on record as opposing the idea of an anthropogenic global warming crisis.

The same is true in a wide variety of other issues in which claims of scientific consensus are used to shout down political opposition.

In undermining the prevailing habit of using false claims of scientific consensus as a political bludgeon, Land of the Lost does something very good indeed beyond the laughter.

–S. T. Karnick, editor of The American Culture

This past Friday, my wife and I picked up the kids from their Catholic grade school in Alexandria, Virginia.  As the two girls were being dropped at a friend’s house for the day, we decided (on the spur of the moment) to surprise the boy with a trip to the movies.  We figured “Land of the Lost” would be harmless enough for an eleven-year-old boy and might provide a few laughs for the adults.

All you need to know is that I was compelled to ask, “What the heck is this rated?” within the first five minutes of the movie.  Kids, this was not your father’s “Land of the Lost.”  I might have only been about my son’s age when the Sid & Marty Krofft TV show was a Saturday morning staple 30 years ago, but I am 100% sure that I would have remembered it if one of the characters had dropped the F-Bomb. 

For 45 minutes, we sat and squirmed and waited for the laughs to come.  Instead, we were treated to the little ape man Chaka repeatedly fondling the heroine’s breasts, the dirty sidekick getting hot over two Slestaks of unknown gender preparing to, in his words, “tap that ass,” an extended homoerotic drug scene involving the two male leads and Chaka, and our hero Will Ferrell letting loose with the aforementioned F-Bomb as in “F#!k you, Chaka.”  By the way, the movie is rated PG-13.  My wife and I were shocked that for the sheer abundance of sexual references, filthy language and breast fondling, it didn’t merit a solid R from the MPAA.

As the parents, we were faced with a dilemma — how best to handle this delicate situation.  The theater was packed with teenagers.  Our son must have already felt a little embarrassed to arrive with Mom and Dad.  To get up and leave might have been worse than grinding it out.  I know some of you more perfect parents are thinking, “What dilemma? I’d have stormed out at the first dirty word!”  But I’ll hazard a guess that you also would not have been thinking that at 11 years old, your kids are hearing and seeing worse on the school bus.  And since we’ve established that our kids (like their parents before them) hear it on the bus or in the cafeteria or in the dugout, then you must accept the possibility that your kids have uttered a few of these choice words themselves. It’s what they think about it all that counts.  That’s where the parenting comes in.

At any rate, I kept a close eye on my boy.  He’s a smart kid.  We talk about these things at home.  We talk about language and why gentlemen don’t use dirty language in mixed company or in front of children.  I tell him that on occasion, I’ve let loose with a few choice words, but that I strive to use it sparingly.  He’s even asked about sex and I’ve been honest about it.  Unsurprisingly, he’s never dissolved into a pile of dust.  He just feels more comfortable talking to us about whatever is on his mind.

So, at about the 45 minute mark in the movie, he turned to me and said, “We don’t have to stay for any more of this.”

I replied, “Are you sure?”

“Yes, this is awful,” he said.

So we got up and walked out.  My wife told me to go and ask for a refund.  I told her that it was my fault for not checking the reviews, not the theater’s for not posting a warning.

I learned two valuable lessons that were well worth the $28.00.  First, always read the reviews no matter how innocent a movie may seem from the ads, previews or ratings.  Second, my son is a very smart boy.

As we were walking out he turned to us and said, “That was dirty, awful and disrespectful to women. It was disrespectful to Mom.”

Good kid, my son. Smarter than his father.

As soon as I got home, I fished out the newspaper and found the reviews.  For once, the reviews were as bad as the movie.  I also found out that because my son had the maturity to walk out, we missed being treated to the sight of Will Ferrell being eaten by a T-Rex and subsequently excreted by said dinosaur.  I owe the boy big time.

Note to Hollywood, most parents will not be as forgiving as I am.  I only hope that most eleven-year olds would have the guts to get up and walk out on the crap that Hollywood has grown accustomed to shoveling at them.

Mark Corallo is a partner in Corallo Comstock, Inc, a public relations firm based in Alexandria, Virginia.

Last week was a look at 5 summer films worthy of both ten-bucks and clock watching, next go-round will be those we’re unsure about, but today there’s no doubt a beating’s in store for anyone foolish enough to drop the jing. We will though, because during summer a cool poster promising explosions is all we ask.

May 1st:  X-Men Origins: Wolverine – X-Men represents the most forgettable superhero franchise ever.  To be fair, the only reason I remember those “Fantastic Four” flicks more is because of how hard they sucked, but over three films and 6-plus hours the only “X-Men” scene that made any kind of impression was Magneto’s escape in the first or second one. The Wolverine trailer promises more of the same: obvious special effects but no “moment,” and Hugh Jackman remains a phenomenon all too common these days: a television-level talent working on the big screen.

–

May 1st: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past – I’ve never looked forward to anything Matthew McConaughey’s done and don’t intend to change now. The high-concept romantic comedy is the worst genre going today but no matter how bad they are, they make money. “Four Christmases” and “What Happens in Vegas” proved that. The photo above makes me want to start reading books again.

–

May 8th: Melrose Trek – Yeah, I’ve been all over this, but thus far three scenes have been released and they are truly, truly bad. Kirk hitting on Uhura as she cracks jokes about sex with farm animals… Some things are just wrong. Regardless, the filmmakers want to put their best foot forward and these flat scenes proving there’s no chemistry between the players is the best they could do. There’s something odd about the look of the film, as well — I mean other than the overwhelming metrosexuality of it all.

–

May 15th: Angels and Demons – Do you have to be Roman Catholic to comprehend just how awful the first one was? Granted, it made a ton of money, but what a snorer. I was too bored to be offended, and the research was terrible. When we punish ourselves the whip goes in the left hand, not the right. And I don’t get these comparisons of Tom Hanks and Jimmy Stewart. They’re nothing alike, not even close. That’s not an insult, I like Hanks, but if he reminds me of anyone from the Golden Era it’s Joseph Cotten – and that’s just as big of a compliment.

–

June 5th: Land of the Lost - Other than his early Bush impersonation and “Step Brothers” (which I loved), Will Ferrell generally wears out his welcome in about 15 minutes. His refusal (or inability) to convey depth and sincerity might serve him well in this flip, post-modern age of Jon Stewart and raunchy, stupid comedies, but I hope to live long enough to see “Uncle Buck,” “Animal House,”  “Vacation,” “American Pie” and “Caddyshack” outlive his tedious schtick.

–

August 7th: GI Joe – Our “Real American Hero” is now stationed in Brussels or something, and in this age of terrorism goes after a gun dealer … or something.  Director Stephen Sommers hasn’t made anything approaching watchable since “The Mummy” in 1999 and this looks like his usual bombastic, numbing nonsense with some lame political correctness to boot. GI Joe … a real Brussels based hero … GI Joe!

Let me close by saying that my mind can be easily changed if the movie’s good. If “Che” could win me over, “Trek 90210″ has a shot.

Next up … “The Maybe” — those that could go either way.