ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

deadwitchflying 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.

dempseytroy 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.

n_van_gils 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.

pcernea-1 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.