The Unbelievers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?