SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

gorf I find it strange that people like Richard Dawkins make documentaries and books about the evils of religion, when according to him, there's no such thing as evil, or good, or free will for that matter. But if there's no evil, why bother about terrorism and genital mutilation? If people have as much free will as a bag of sugar (as one atheist put it), religious believers, including atheists, just can't help it. Atheism undermines itself.Richard Dawkins is best known as the leader of the "Cult of Dawkins". A strange form of Darwinian religion made up by 30 or 50 white males between ages 25-55 who use "The God Delusion" as some kind of a Bible ("Dawkins says this, Dawkins says that"). According to one of the many Dawkinsian creation myths, little green men from outer space intelligently designed life on earth. According to another one, there are infinite universes, and infinite versions of yourself. In one of these universes, you have a green mustache. But the most popular myth is that life just decided to created itself. It makes even less sense than Scientology.Dawkins is also known for his now totally discredited theory about "the selfish gene", and a bunch of other pseudo-scientific books, including a children's book called "The Magic of Reality" which tells kids how meaningless everything really is. Because telling kids that there's a God is child abuse.He's a big supporter of eugenics, and has made some disturbing comments about "mild" sexual abuse and rape on both his website and on twitter. This caused some of his followers to run away, but the majority stayed with their beloved master. He probably gained some new fans from NAMBLA, though.The documentary (if it deserves to be called that) "The Root of all Evil?" Came out in 2006. It was very popular among teenagers who shared it with their friends by sites like YouTube. Suddenly, everyone knew about the angry Englishman. The point behind the documentary is to show how evil, stupid and primitive religious people are compared to enlightened atheists. Since Richard Dawkins is a coward, most of of the people he chose (or, his neurons "chose"...remember, kids, no free will in Darwinland) to interview were easy targets. He actually interviewed theologian Alister McGrath, but the interview ended up on the cutting room floor because it would have ruined a good propaganda movie.Dawkins would later debate John Lennox in front of a large audience. During the debate, it became apparent how weak and pathetic Dawkins' arguments really are. Watching Dawkins in a debate is a lot like watching Mister Burns trying to throw a baseball...funny and sad at the same time. Some years later he chickened out on a chance to debate William Lane Craig. Many of his fellow atheists admitted that it made him look like a wimp. Chick...uhm, Richard Dawkins claimed that he didn't want to debate Craig because of Craig's defense of infanticide in the Old Testament...which is ironic if you watch Dawkins' conversation with Peter "Let's Screw Animals" Singer, where Dawkins says he's a big fan of infanticide.Except for a few deluded fans in small, secular countries like Norway and Sweden, Richard Dawkins is no longer considered relevant. To say that you're still a "big fan of Richard Dawkins" will most likely ruin your chance at spreading your selfish genes. Most "serious" atheists now consider him to be a joke. Sometimes I wonder if Dawkins is trolling. In reality, he's probably a religious believer who's trying to show the world how incredibly stupid atheism is. I bet Dawkins has converted more people to Christianity than C.S Lewis. Maybe we should thank God for people like Richard Dawkins?

Sophia Park Film: The God Delusion Genre: Documentary Rating: 4/5 Director: Russell Barnes Writer: Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion is a critical documentary that addresses a very controversial topic, whether God is real or not. The main speaker and character in this documentary is Richard Dawkins. He is a scientist that believes that there is no actual proof of the supernatural and divine. He believes that mankind is about evolution and that brought us to be who we are today, however religious leaders or highly religious people believe that creationism is what made humans what we are today. One example when Richard Dawkins addresses the controversial issue that religious people tend to believe what people made up to make sense of the world by implying what the scripture wrote. The death of Mary in Christianity isn't actually written in the Bible, however the pope told the followers that her body shot up to heaven, and eventually people just considered it to be a fact. When interviewing religious leaders and people, one of the people I found the most shocking to hear was Yousef Al Khattab. Yousef used harsh and edgy words where he insulted atheists and straight out denied Dawkin's opinions. Near the end where he says that the atheists needed to "fix your society and fix your women and are letting the women dress like whores". I was really shocked that he had such strong views and opinions. Overall I thought that this movie really addressed the controversy in religion and evolution and I would give the rating a 4/5.

gavin6942 This documentary follows scientist Richard Dawkins around the globe to find religion's varied impacts, with a special focus on America and Britain. Dawkins pulls no punches and is quick to shut down anyone in his path. Religion is not given a moment's notice to put up a shield.For those who are already opposed to religion, this is for you. Like Bill Maher's "Religulous", this documentary follows a known anti-theist around challenging the beliefs of the faithful. It's not at all fair or balanced, which you might want in a documentary. We already know that Dawkins is against everyone he meets and is eager to make them out to look foolish. Not to say he doesn't make good points -- he does -- but religion isn't given a fair shake.Ted Haggard is particularly lambasted. Haggard brings much of this on himself, insinuating Dawkins' arrogance while he himself comes off as high and mighty. Haggard then proceeds to kick Dawkins off his property, adding to his image as a jerk. However, in Haggard's defense, Dawkins was being arrogant (as usual) and I don't think he was given a chance to explain himself outside of a confrontational setting.For those of you who've read "The God Delusion", this material will not be new. Dawkins covers similar ground here... the book merely expands on the points he makes. If you haven't read the book, and liked this film, I'd suggest reading it to get a fuller picture. If you didn't like the movie, you may not like the book... it's hard to consider Dawkins unbiased. Either way, I suggest going through the movie (and book) with a strong sense of skepticism.If you can pick up a copy of this, do it. I think "Religulous" is the better of the two films, but there's certainly plenty of material here to mull over. And together, they make a great pair. Dawkins is a giant in the world of atheism, and his ideas are worth understanding, whether or not he happens to be right.

Brian Bagnall I'm an Atheist, but I found Richard Dawkin's behavior around religious people in this series to be disrespectful. He visited an evangelical church in the US, similar to the type in my city, and he was just rude. The pastor has 3 sins against an elitist like Dawkins: 1) He has a southern accent 2) He was religious 3) He was positive and outgoing. I noticed Dawkins lip trembling through the conversation in apparent anger, and he did *not* approach the conversation coolly as he should have. It is possible to remain friendly and have a debate, something the minister realized but Dawkins seemed oblivious to.I also noticed he seemed to favor bashing Islam and Christianity, but when he visits Jerusalem he is extremely sympathetic to the Jews, even though they behave like the Third Reich when it comes to Palestinians.When he meets with a New York Jew who converted to Islam and now lives in Palestine, he seems curiously relaxed at first, then when he realizes the fundamentalist is hard core he loses his temperament again. The fundamentalist raises good issues - in our lands (the Western world) we are seeing more and more human degradation on TV, on the Internet, and in our daily lives. He argues that our women are dressing and acting like whores, and Dawkins doesn't seem to have an answer to this and doesn't seem concerned about this, saying women are deciding to do it themselves. The truth is these young girls are being fed these messages from TV and society - it isn't coming from within these young girls. The culture is becoming bankrupt, and the people foisting these values on the Western world certainly are not Islamic, and they are not devout Christian. Why isn't Dawkins concerned about what Atheists are doing? Overall, I was not impressed with his supposed free thinking. He seems very leftist establishment oriented to me.