Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

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.

Clarence Duclo The subject matter is quite interesting and there are some very good statements from people in the documentary. Learned something about the issues in an entertaining way. Some really dynamite quotes. Learned that Cameron Diaz is a freethinker, so I actually have more respect for her as an individual, although I still think she's not much of an actor. Now the bad stuff. It's a very "jerky" production with lots of jump cuts, fast forwards and a lot of filler of cityscapes, etc. But the worst part of it for me was the sound quality. For some reason, almost throughout the film there was a music accompaniment that was very intrusive. For instance a recording of REM's "Orange Crush" playing for quite a while, with the volume going up and down. This was when one of the subjects was speaking, and when his volume went up, so did REM's. I think they used some type of "normalization" software that adjusted the music volume to the general volume of the speaker. Very distracting, and really poor soundperson work. BTW, there are some (thankfully brief) Woody Allen interviews (along with many others) at the end and the beginning. But you really shouldn't be listing him as one of the actors or featured persons in your description, any more than you should list Cameron Diaz, Penn Gillette or Stephen Hawking. They all have some statements in here, but Woodys is no more a featured item than the others.

Hrutka Pal 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.

parolina Dawkins and Krauss are not that prominent in their respective scientific communities. They are proponents of atheism under the guise that it is more rational than religion. Yet, their "arguments" in this movie are based in their faith that hell doesn't exist, the soul is not immortal, humans descended from fish, etc., despite there being very little scientific evidence for any of those positions.A healthy dose of skepticism is good, but when it leads to ideologies like Dawkins and Krauss are promoting, it becomes just as bad as the other "religions" they like to attack for being violent.For a much better, less biased film on science and religion, see the upcoming film from Rocky Mountain Pictures:The Principle