Interesteg What makes it different from others?

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

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

Matt Greene 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.

Katrina Kane 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.

gavin6942 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?

ruby-27-444971 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.