The Unbelievers (2013) User Reviews

A well meaning effort lacking direction

[ruby-27-444971 · 6/10 · 14 June 2014]

I recently saw this film at Filmbar in Phoenix, and I was left dissatisfied. I feel like the film wasn't sure what it wanted to be, ultimately causing it to fail on two fronts. IF the point of the film was to just show you the working life of Dawkins and Krauss, that's fine, but it seems to do a lot more than that and if a biased way. The directors are clearly fans and the film is edited with that influence.

I am an Atheist with no argument to make for religion, and I was left feeling that we can do better.

If the film IS trying to make an argument for Atheism and against religion, it's a pretty poor one. The film seems to imply that no one who is religious values sciences, the multiverse, physics - things any fair person should know is not true. It ignores that there are many scientists now and in history that had faith. The film behaves as if fundamentalism and Bible literalism are the bulk of religious opinion. I don't believe that is so. Also, there are some statements about history as it pertains to religion that are false, and easy to dispel.

In short, I think Atheism is a positive embracing of secular ideals, but I don't think the way to inspire it in people is to parade celebrity endorsements, imply superiority, and belittle people who believe differently than you. When this is your method, it seems like the cult of non-belief instead of rational thought. We can do better than this.

ill-informed reviewers

[thenekassyni · 7/10 · 11 May 2014]

The two "bad" reviews here simply do not understand why this was made. They clearly do not follow or understand the cause and work of these two men, Dawkings and Krauss. To simply judge them by this movie is ignorant and does a disservice to public and to their credibility. I say this because if one bothers to research for 15mins they would have found that these two men have been outspoken about the evolutionary and mysteries of the universe via science over the course of MANY, MANY years. So long that one is already retired! Having said that, this movie is just one project to help bring attention to the public where they can find some relation with the subjects. Since the majority of the general will never look up to or recognize a scientist the hope was that maybe a celebrity would. That is not to say they will stray from science and facts but will help support the cause by illuminating the subject further.

Debates have been done many, many times and are available for viewing on youtube. Lectures are also available. Presentations are available. Teaching and learning for kids to adults have been done. If you wanted any of these they are available for your digestion, and hopefully afterward, your would have learned and gather more FACTS to help you decide one way or another. They do not tell you to change but to accept what is 99.99999999% true vs absolutely NO FACTS argument such as religion.

With the internet being so widely available for research I fail to even begin to understand why people would continually provide reviews without any prior knowledge of the subject or person(s) in reference.

A review about The Unbelievers, and why other reviewers are wrong.

[n_van_gils · 6/10 · 2 January 2015]

This film is a documentary that captures a road trip of two prominent spokesmen of atheism around the world. It does not try to convince non-atheists to become atheists or try to argue anything (or even make a point), it merely shows the road trip these guys made and the growing interest in atheism.

That said, I see a lot of reviews here which are just blatant attempts from religious people to rate this movie as low as possible, and take cheap shots at atheists in the process. I've seen people argue that atheism is a mental disease, supposedly actually written down in the DSM. Don't take these clowns seriously. They probably mean that sometimes atheism is seen as a symptom. People with autism, for example, are more convinced by things they can see and touch than invisible beings like God. Therefore, a lot of them don't believe in God.

The film itself is pretty entertaining. If you're a fan of Dawkins and/or Krauss, this is a fun to watch experience that shows them basically on a road trip. If you're not, this might not interest you that much.

More Love For the Atheists

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 15 September 2014]

Renowned scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss cross the globe as they speak publicly about the importance of science and reason in the modern world.

The film starts off with some unusual interviews, such as Woody Allen and Cameron Diaz. Ricky Gervais is a bit more well-known for his views. Then we go to Lawrence Krauss on tour, and it is odd to see empty lecture halls (maybe this is normal and it would just be odd for places like Madison).

What this film shows is that atheism needs a new face, as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens are such divisive figures. Lawrence Krauss is an improvement, as he is not nearly as polarizing. This is evident when they share a stage and Krauss is more compromising. The approach, if it is to be successful, ought to be pro-evolution, pro-science and not anti-religion. Religion is not the enemy.

Dawkins makes an interesting parallel between the idea of a middle-aged person turning old and a species becoming another: when does one end and another begin? This is, of course, the big question. If a pre-human did not give birth to a modern man, what was the process? To top off the film, the "Rally for Reason" is an incredible sight and must have been one heck of an event, with all the usual faces (like Penn Gillette) plus some special guests like Eddie Izzard, Adam Savage and James Randi. Where else can college professors be treated like rock stars?

A quite interesting movie

[deadwitchflying · 4 July 2015]

This movie has been criticized for its lack of entertainment value and also because it's not convincing. I disagree with the entertainment part, because it entertained me. The only thing I found annoying was the sound-mixing.

It's a short period of the lives of Dawkins and Krauss, and was not meant to make people stop believing in god. It is more about what these two guys are trying to do, how they do it and why they do it. It's basically promotion for their movement, and I see no problem with that. I was a bit disappointed though, for various personal reasons and expectations, but the overall thing is kinda good at what it does. If you don't know about Dawkins and Krauss, this is the movie for you, because it is what the movie's about. Don't expect religious vs atheist debates in this documentary, like I did, because these are not included. They are all over the internet by the plenty though, so if you want you can check them out.

It's an interesting documentary to understand what atheism is about, what it is willing to do and who are the big names of the movement. Not necessary, but you can still watch it and learn something out of it. I know I did and I'm a atheist.

...a tour highlights reel.

[steveo122 · 7/10 · 2 July 2014]

The Unbelievers (2013) 7/10 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2636522/ This presentation of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on tour is packaged as a tour highlights reel. They go into a venue, we are given a few lines of speech, discussion or debate and then it's off to another venue and a few more lines. We see a lot of the people who attend these lectures/events. I believe the purpose of the movie is, this time, not conversion to reason but to show that it is becoming more and more accepted and acceptable to 'come out' as an atheist. There is a cynical, to my mind, application of marketing acumen in that the film is bookended with clips of comments from 'celebrities', thus giving us reassurance that this all must be important and true! Well, first ya gotta get the rubes in the tent! My cynical beast will go lie down in the corner and let the grownups make the world safer for honesty.

The most liberating thought I have ever had: I am a temporary biological event existing in an indifferent universe.

For the pursuit of reason

[bmurphy68 · 9/10 · 30 April 2013]

Like the previous reviewer, I was lucky enough to be one of the 3000 in attendance for the test-screening of this movie on March 29th. I could have rushed to write a review, but thought that giving myself awhile to digest it all and really think on it would be the best thing.

I left the screening with a buzz, almost a high, and perhaps it was partially due to being in a room with so many like-minded individuals. Upon waking the next morning, that buzz had subsided a bit, and was replaced by questions. GOOD questions. I wanted to know more, to research, to research, to learn and understand and seek out new things.

This film touches on so many subjects - from getting something from nothing, to evolution and our inability to comprehend long time, to arguments for reason in a world with very little of it, to the importance of making decisions based on reality, to the dangers of religion in society, to snippets of historical science trivia – that it would be literally impossible to fully explain any one of those issues without turning the movie in to a 24-hour-long miniseries. Maybe that was the point. Spark the interest, pique the curiosity, and let the viewer take it from there. The snippets of celebrity interviews were just enough to season the movie and give some different angles without taking away from the focus on the film, and as always, Ricky Gervais didn't fail to disappoint.

The directors described this movie as a rock-and-roll-tour-film about scientists. While that definitely came across, especially through the beautiful shots of packed audiences in several different locations and multiple countries, what I got more out of this movie was the human aspect of these two men. Anyone in this community knows the names of Professors Dawkins and Krauss. We've all got our favorite quotes, our favorite arguments, our favorite books (and passages therein), but we know them only in that regard. What I think we fail to understand much of the time is that these two are people (and hard-working people, at that!). They travel and sight-see and take pictures and eat ice cream and work on their laptops and get tired. They really are human, and it seems they really are friends, and I feel like I'm more familiar with them now than I ever could have been reading all of their books or watching all of their lectures. While I won't claim to feel like I was on the road with them, the beautifully captured scenes of auditoriums, backstage areas, crowds, cityscapes, and close-ups of various objects of interest, makes me feel much more connected and like a part of these two lives.

One thing worth mentioning is that this film treads somewhat lightly. It's not as in-your-face as I would have expected, and looking back, I think that's probably for the best, and was more than likely a choice made by the directors, as (if I heard correctly) they had some 250 hours of footage to sift through. Knowing RD, LK, and their cohorts, it definitely could have turned into something brash and abrasive that would immediately turn off any even slightly believing or sensitive viewers. As it stands, it's really more of a conversation starter, and with all of the topics I mentioned above, can start the conversation about any number of subjects, depending on the viewer and their interests.

And lest I forget, this movie is FUNNY! To anyone in fear that a 90-minute documentary about an evolutionary biologist and theoretical physicist may be drab, I assure you that couldn't be further from the case. There were several parts of the movie I couldn't hear because there was so much laughter in the auditorium.

That leads me to my one major complaint: the sound quality. While I understand that with a documentary, you're simply there on the scene and can only get the sound that was originally produced, there were many times that voices were muffled, lines were indiscernible, or that the music was simply too much for the dialogue. As the previous reviewer stated, this was a test screening only and much may change before the first official release. If the sound quality is the only thing that changes, I think this will be a near-perfect film and one that I would be proud to recommend to friends of all faiths, beliefs, and convictions.

interesting subject, poor execution

[kingeider-189-365078 · 6/10 · 31 January 2017]

The subject matter is quite interesting and there are some very good statements from people in the documentary. Learned something about the issues in an entertaining way. Some really dynamite quotes. Learned that Cameron Diaz is a freethinker, so I actually have more respect for her as an individual, although I still think she's not much of an actor.

Now the bad stuff. It's a very "jerky" production with lots of jump cuts, fast forwards and a lot of filler of cityscapes, etc. But the worst part of it for me was the sound quality. For some reason, almost throughout the film there was a music accompaniment that was very intrusive. For instance a recording of REM's "Orange Crush" playing for quite a while, with the volume going up and down. This was when one of the subjects was speaking, and when his volume went up, so did REM's. I think they used some type of "normalization" software that adjusted the music volume to the general volume of the speaker. Very distracting, and really poor soundperson work.

BTW, there are some (thankfully brief) Woody Allen interviews (along with many others) at the end and the beginning. But you really shouldn't be listing him as one of the actors or featured persons in your description, any more than you should list Cameron Diaz, Penn Gillette or Stephen Hawking. They all have some statements in here, but Woodys is no more a featured item than the others.

Engrossing and inspiring.

[nospam78 · 9/10 · 29 March 2013]

I saw a test screening of this movie at Arizona State University, and it's possible there may be slight changes before the official release. However there is little or nothing I would want to see changed. It's a very well put together movie, fast paced and engrossing. When it was over, I was very surprised that 90 minutes had elapsed - it seemed like less than an hour.

From a brief description, it might sound very boring - Dawkins and Krauss criss-crossing the world, giving speeches at atheist conferences, debating religious apologists and so on. But the film is very well edited and has a very fast-paced feel, as well as capturing human moments like Richard Dawkins nodding off to sleep on a train, or sitting in a hotel room holding a phone to his ear, frustratedly trying to get a word in edgewise as an unseen person on the other end lectures him on morality.

Most of all, this film captures the passion and intensity of two men at the top of their respective scientific fields, who are awed by the beauty and complexity of nature and have an almost messianic zeal to share that beauty and awe - so much more satisfying and inspiring in my opinion than the petty just-so stories of religion - with the general public.

You also get the sense that atheism is a movement whose time has finally come. Even in religion-saturated America, more and more people are coming out of the closet and connecting with each other, turning up at atheism conferences in large numbers though so far ignored by the media.

But this is not as much of a religion-bashing film as you might expect. It's basically an intimate portrait of two friends with a shared passion for knowledge, who are driven to share that knowledge with the world. As such, any viewer can enjoy this movie.

Great topic, very mediocre film

[looskuh · 5/10 · 25 June 2014]

How ever much I may agree with Dawkins and Krauss, it was hard to watch their story because of the film maker. The two are edited to represent atheist rock stars without the actual footage to back it up. Loud music and some inserts don't convince anyone these days.

Just show, don't tell by overdoing your edits. Besides, the locations visited weren't put to use to tell an overarching story. It was basically just following them. The only scene I actually appreciated as a documentary-like scene was the one where Krauss is constantly harassed for a picture or a question. That is fun, and brings the character to life. Putting them in one room and hoping something unique will happen isn't enough to make an interesting movie.

Luckily, Krauss and Dawkins are full of witty remarks and interesting insights, and that's what pulled me through it.

Watch, learn and know

[natalierosen · 10/10 · 6 January 2016]

I have a very academically oriented cousin. He knows my points of view and how the intellectually curious mind is so highly prized by me. Because of that he recommends films he finds mostly on Netflix which he thinks I will enjoy.

He surely knows me well as he suggested a documentary film gem entitled "The Unbelievers" which threw a strike right over my cerebral plate. It is a wonderful documentary which I would like to distribute on street corners telling electoral ignorance the ever important difference between truth and fiction.

The film involves snippets of a variety of world-wide talks and discussions between Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of "The God Delusion" and his colleague Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist author of a "Universe from Nothing." I offer the following quotes from the documentary to whet your appetite for it:

"If we live in a world where certain things are not subject to question we live in a world where thinking has stopped"

"One might think that the religious beliefs of political candidates should remain off limits in public discourse. I don't think so, at least not when candidates wear their religion on their sleeves; then it becomes fair game."

"Before Darwin life was a miracle so one could not ask "Where did the diversity of life come from?" What Darwin showed were very simple laws of biological beginnings with NO miracle. Did he prove it? No, but it was plausible. Now there has been 150 years of proof that natural selection and genetic mutation essentially could produce all the complexity of life from very simple beginnings to the most complex over billions of years"

"How can how the universe works upset people? Instead of being threatened or having our faith threatened by the discoveries of science we should force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality instead of the other way around. People shouldn't be threatened by science." I cannot recommend "The Unbelievers" strongly enough. Watch it, learn and know!

Even as an atheist I disliked this

[HrutkaPal · 4/10 · 14 February 2015]

Being an atheist in the public is really an interesting subject. Especially in the US it's a sensitive area, so I was told that this movie would be about this.

Well, it's not really, but the bigger problem is, that instead we get a 70 minute self-hooray, which was even for me as an atheist just too annoying after a while.

I would've loved to see in the movie deep thoughts, which I could show to a religious person and make him think. Instead we get a lot of pointless montages with bad cuts, where someone says something and the crowd goes nuts.

What exactly was this movie made for? Atheists watching this won't get really more connected to the subject, religious persons won't even have the interest to keep watching after latest 10 minutes.

The movie had the potential to make something good, it had 2 good personas, but it was ruined by a really bad concept/directing.

Just considering the main movie (without the off-speaking of guest-stars) doesn't even reach 70 minutes, just shows how low on ideas they were.

Intellectually stimulating and even funny at times

[elliesaavedra · 10/10 · 2 July 2014]

It's very funny to read "reviews" of religious zealots who --I'm pretty sure-- haven't even seen this movie. But the most hilarious part is them claiming that being an atheist is a "belief system." Yeah, as much as being bald is a hair style, as Bill Maher aptly said. And it's interesting that you will hear that very same argument (or lack thereof...) from the science-haters throughout the entire movie, as the base to criticize rationality is, obviously, sheer irrationality. And it's so rewarding and intellectually stimulating to watch two great scientific minds mercilessly destroy the childish make-believe world of religious people with arguments that can only be attacked from a very irrational and nonsensical perspective.

Despite being an ardent admirer of these two gentlemen --not to mention a scientist myself-- I was hesitant to watch this movie, because I assumed it was going to be a tad on the boring side. We all know the argument and we all know what the irrational minds (and I'm generous about that last word...) keep saying in their endless battle against reason, so I wasn't really in the mood for another round. Surprisingly, this movie is more of a "behind the scene" look at these men and only occasionally shows a debate with the anti-science crowd, though I must say that the scene with the Archbishop of Sydney was hilarious.

In other words, it's no so much about the reason vs. religion debate as much as it is about these two extraordinary men, their subtle sense of humor and a slice of their daily lives. All in all, a very enjoyable documentary which only the religious zealots can hate.

Respect

[lovbadger-259-862712 · 10/10 · 6 November 2015]

I admire the bravery, articulation, integrity and intelligence of this man.

I enjoyed watching it. I'm purchasing Lawrence Krauss book.

Thank you,

Katrina ; )

(N/A) I need more words to fill the guidelines to post this. I don't know why there must be a full ten lines of text to post this. I am wondering if this is supposed to be more of a book review, than a comment section. For whatever reason this site has for this I am annoyed.

Self-Aggrandizing. Preaches to the Choir and Alienates Converts.

[pcernea-1 · 3/10 · 13 September 2014]

I'm a big fan of Dawkins and Krauss, but I was somewhat disappointed by this offering. It was self-aggrandizing, a lot of shots of them driving around in fancy cars. I think they would do better to avoid belittling the intelligence of their adversaries: it will lose converts. They need to realize that not everyone is lucky enough to be as smart as they are or have gotten their level of education. Most people respond better to emotional appeals than to pure reason, especially in crowds. Maybe they were trying to play on that, but especially Dawkins came off as narcissistic.

I was looking forward to seeing the debates, but they just cut off their opponents at the beginning. Not very sporting. Come on, "why" is not a stupid question!

That said, I believe that cosmology definitely provides a better answer than organized religion: it has predictive power, and it provides a sense of urgency for getting off the planet. I'm not a cosmologist, but my impression is that the best evidence for the Big Bang is that Hubble observed the universe to be expanding in all directions. Running this backwards, common sense dictates there would have been a Big Bang. Why didn't they once say this? Why just state "Big Bang is fact", "evolution is fact"?

My sentiment is that these guys come off as being dogmatic themselves--about the status quo of science. I'm willing to bet there are general relativity solutions out there that don't posit a Big Bang that perhaps also involve a universe that seems to expand, maybe depending on where you are in it. Or solutions that don't involve an end of the universe. Maybe that could explain dark matter/dark energy? Just a thought. I don't think that the Big Bang has been proved as a mathematical necessity within relativity, or that all physical arguments to the contrary have been exhausted. Even less so for an end of the universe. Even general relativity is not the final word in physical theory.

It's important to keep in mind that physics has its limitations. Computer science has allowed us to prove that there are questions which are undecidable--which cannot be answered. The classification of four-dimensional spaces, if I remember correctly, is one of those questions. That probably also applies to relativistic space times, a subset of the 4d spaces. If so, I'm betting the Big Bang debate is far from being settled.

I don't find anything endearing or heartwarming about the universe needing to have an end. So indeed we should be trying to find a way out of that. Maybe one possibility, even if the universe does have an end, is to use a black hole's gravity to make OUR sense of time seem infinite, even if a farther-away observer would see an end in finite time.

Makes the atheist community look like a bunch of snobs

[mcmahongamer851999 · 12 October 2014]

I'm not even rating this one. That's how COMPLETELY AWFUL it is. This movie is, simply put, a boring slog of Richard Dawkings and Lawrence Krauss smugly talking about how religion is evil and science is beautiful and blah, blah, blah. Listen: I'm an atheist. These people are members of the branch of atheists that I like to call "Smug Jerks Who Like To Categorize Whole Religions By Their Extremists". This movie is great for fedora wearing redditors to drool over lectures from the famed scientists mentioned at the beginning of this review. For everyone else, this movie is the equivalent of "God's Not Dead" for the nonreligious crowd. Boring and offensively one-sided, this is one of three movies that I have not been able to see all the way through. I recommend that you stay far, far away from this film.

This isn't a documentary it's a personal promotional video.

[dempseytroy · 2/10 · 25 June 2015]

The sole executive producer of the film is Lawrence Krauss who is also one of the main subjects of the film. So if that seems like a bit of self-promotion propaganda that is exactly how the movie feels. If you are an Atheist or a Theist looking for a film about the best arguments of Atheism and intellectual stimulation from two of the leading proponents of Atheistic thought, you won't find it here. If you're an Atheist looking for mindless hero worship of Atheist leaders, this is your flick. This isn't a documentary it's a promotional piece. We don't learn more about the subjects, we don't really learn more about the subject. There is no plot, no hero's journey, no 3 act structure, or even a story line. The editing is nonsensical. At one point it seems to be edited to show (we assume unintentionally) that Lawrence Krauss is a hard worker and in demand while Richard Dawkins isn't. It is filled with meaningless images that don't set the mood or even transition well to the next scene. This film was poorly conceived, poorly made, poorly edited, and is a waist of time.

Interesting but not a lot of actual knowledge or philosophy in any academic sense

[robwealer · 28 June 2013]

I don't know that these people understand the term "atheism" or have unwittingly hijacked it to mean "against extremist religion" for there is not a lot, beyond personal and untrained anecdotal observation, to chew on in any academic sense. If you've ever heard Joseph Campbell speak on the subject, you'd realize how bush league and irresponsible this is. Atheism is now it's own market and has put these guys on the road to promote the film. Untold semiological crimes are being committed in the name of commerce and personal financial agendas, the first being the blurring of the term "atheism". These kinds of irresponsible broad releases can really backfire if the players don't have their terms and definitions in order and decline to include anyone who may have studied the subject seriously. Lots of books are being sold and our cultural philosophy is, once again, being determined by editors who are responsible for selling books and movies. Only this time, we are not modifying the definition of family, planting a product brand into our cultural consciousness or associating a core value with a car. We are talking about using a core belief (or unbelief) system potentially as a vehicle for something totally unrelated that will have many opportunities for adulteration and being re-fit to market along the way (like any brand.) None of these guys are saying much beyond a fairly surface polemic against an obviously delusional minority (I think they may be pumping the stats for their own ends as well.) Very hard to believe that half of the population does not understand or give any credence to the theory of evolution despite it's universal acceptance by all the major religions and it's instruction in faith based schools for more than half a century.

I would take their own advice and not believe everything you hear.

If you hate religion and like media that validates you, you'll enjoy

[omega_work · 5/10 · 26 August 2016]

This film is essentially preaching to the choir. Which is fine, but not really entertaining. Nor does it seek intelligent debate. When you have a film that opens up with someone saying "Science is beautiful and right, and religion is not beautiful and not right" - you know what you are getting into here - people who are just as closed minded as those they are accusing of such.

What I don't understand is why these people who pride themselves on being smarter than everyone else have nothing better to do than to try to convince believers of any religion that having faith is wrong by means of trying to make them feel stupid. If it makes people happy why are you interfering?

What baffles me is how these so-called geniuses condemn "religion" so readily and yet can't accept the concept that a higher being is responsible for their scientific findings. Funny enough one of them even says "to assume the truth without asking the questions leads you nowhere" - yet he is assuming within his own beliefs - which is that natural selection etc occurred without the presence of a deity.

Anyway, people these days don't want to hear anything contradictory to their own world-view so this film that attempts to be smart is actually very dumbed down, knowing that it is essentially just telling a certain group of people what they already want to hear.

Because it refuses to understand the other side of the debate it is not brave, it is not exciting and it is not intelligent. But Ricky was in it so I'll give them a couple stars for that.

Very interesting views, but just a so-so documentary

[Nickemon · 5/10 · 3 August 2015]

Deeply intelligent world-changers such as Krauss and Dawkins deserve a better documentary than this. If I were to rate their thoughts and views on the world and on science vs religion, I'd easily give this film a 10. But since I am rating the documentary and NOT their views I can only give The Unbelievers a weak 5 out of 10.

The documentary doesn't share any new knowledge, any interesting new facts or any conversations beyond the most simple interviews, etc.

Anyone on the hunt for deeper knowledge will be disappointed. I really have no idea what the film makers tried to tell the viewer?

PS. All the celebrities featuring in the cast list are just a smoke screen. They don't share anything of value and are only on screen for 1-2 minutes combined. DS.

Under the cover of science and reason..

[meritcoba · 5/10 · 7 February 2016]

When one makes a fanpic.. eh documentary of two prominent scientists who are also known or perhaps even more known for other reasons - they are atheists - it would be of great importance that the cover of the documentary correlates with the stated content and that the actual documentary is in tune with those as well. In this the unbelievers makes a tactical error as the title points to their atheism(but not literally), states to be about two scientists talking in public(the thought alone!) about the importance of science and reason, but is in fact about two atheistic scientists, Richard Dawkings and Lawrence Krauss on a tour through two mostly Christian countries(Australia and the US,) mixing the two up while talking mostly among themselves in front of an audience who are already biased to them anyway. If this isn't preaching to the choir, than what would be?

Any religious scientist might take offense at the suggestion that science and reason and unbelief are intimately connected. The one leads to the other, or perhaps vice versa. It isn't really openly admitted, but it is implied. It suggests an arrogance to claim that science and atheism go hand in glove and which is slapped in the face of any Christian by showing of a Christian cross on the cover thus admitting that it is the Christian religion this is aimed at. The rest got of the hook, for the moment.

The problem with this documentary is that it doesn't really know what it wants to be and, to be honest, it gets boring fast. This is the kind of documentary that just barely rises above the level of a family home movie and if the participants had not been known figures nobody would watch it but the family of the two. The only other audience that now might appreciate this will be the fanboys who will nod enthusiastically and tell how truly amazing and eyeopening this documentary is. Nothing that surprises.

The subtitle 'What are you willing to believe!' makes the documentary even worse as its provocative line, ending with an exclamation mark, is so at odds with the real content that is delivered. The unbelievers, mostly two men babbling away, never stimulates, challenges or adds anything new to what we already know and have been told over and over. On youtube discussions mostly, often in a more engaging way and with people who do not fall in line with Krauss and Dawkins so easily. A summary of some of the important debates would probably have been a lot more lively and to the point.

The result is a movie that is more like a homage to two atheist scientists regurgitating stock ideas. Which is a shame really for the two involved men are better than that. More annoying is adding some other famous people to the documentary just to beef it up a bit. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen and the like make a less than one minute appearance so they can be credited and suggest some fireworks. If that isn't a cheap shot, than I don't know what is.

I think that there is a statement that captures the weakness of this movie very well: don't tell, but show. This movie is all about telling things we already know in a boring way in front of a predisposed audience, but doesn't show a new thing unless you are new to this all.

Pathetic Propaganda

[csharpe357 · 1/10 · 25 September 2013]

If this film tried to argue its position, i wouldn't have rated it so lowly. Unfortunately it doesn't, it is only a propaganda piece. It uses emotional arguments and the cult of celebrity in attempt to endorse a belief system. Meanwhile, one of the stars of the film in Richard Dawkins runs scared from open intellectual debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig. This is a scientist who claims to be an advocate of reason who chooses, rather than debate his position in open forum, to instead use the cult of celebrity to convince the human cattle that his belief system is the one and only true belief system, and all others are wrong.

If your intellectual capacity has run so dry that celebrity endorsement can convince you of any belief system (ie atheism), this film is for you. For those of a more critical nature, this film is offensive.

An angsty physics lecture disguised as a subversive documentary.

[matthewssilverhammer · 4/10 · 28 April 2018]

For a film covering such curious individuals as Dawkins and Krauss, it doesn't actually seem that curious about anything other than its very myopic perspective: that science cancels out religion. Irritated and irritating.

Cash in

[alperilgazaytek · 1/10 · 9 August 2021]

This is either self-promotional advertising or the director and writers saw the cash in value of the subjects "questioned" and exploited the fame of the people associated with these subjects. Either way this is an insult to the importance of science and reason in the modern world.

Atheism is irrational.

[parolina · 1/10 · 3 October 2014]

Dawkins and Krauss are not that prominent in their respective scientific communities. They are proponents of atheism under the guise that it is more rational than religion. Yet, their "arguments" in this movie are based in their faith that hell doesn't exist, the soul is not immortal, humans descended from fish, etc., despite there being very little scientific evidence for any of those positions.

A healthy dose of skepticism is good, but when it leads to ideologies like Dawkins and Krauss are promoting, it becomes just as bad as the other "religions" they like to attack for being violent.

For a much better, less biased film on science and religion, see the upcoming film from Rocky Mountain Pictures:

The Principle