The Unbelievers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?