It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Blistering performances.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The Root of All Evil?/The God Delusion, written by Richard Dawkins, is a documentary in which he tries to argue that the world does not need religion to function, and that it would actually be better off without it. He supports this by examining the miracles that took place at the Lourdes, a discussion with a Jew-turned-Muslim in Jerusalem (whose views are definitely something I disagree with), and so on. He concludes by saying that we should strive to be atheist, rather than religious because it provides so many more benefits than religion does. Personally, I felt that this documentary was a bit overbearing and biased at times so it hard to keep watching. While I understand that Richard Dawkins is very confident in his beliefs, I felt a bit awkward and uncomfortable around the some of the statements he was making, and the way he would phrase things and act around others, such as the way he acted around the pastor from Colorado Springs. It felt like he was purposely goading them on, and I felt like there was a lack of religious tolerance. It also felt like he was nitpicking the people who would have views strongly agreeing or contrasting with him. He did find some good evidence to support his claims such as some passages from the Old Testament, but the rest felt inconclusive. While I do not outright hate this documentary, I think it could have been much better done.

I totally agree with everything Dawkins says but the problem with atheists is that they too are fundamentalist believers just like theist ones, they are so sure that what we know yet about the universe, biology and evolution is the absolute truth and everyone else who disagree with them is blind and wrong. I don't believe that god exists (no evidence), we all know that, but I also don't believe that god does not exist as there is no evidence on this claim too, so I can say that I'm an atheist until proved otherwise. but what we think we know about god and the universe which is religion is bad and naive and causing much more harm than good to the human race(hatred, killing in the name of god, terrorism,myths and superstitions blocking our pursuit of the truth about this world). If there is a god somewhere (which I highly doubt given the indifference and lack of interference in our war torn world) I don't think that such a deity who made us in the first place and programmed us (genetics) to be good or evil would burn us in hell for eternity if he's to be fair, and if he's not then why bother praying and dedicating our time and finite resources to the stupid and meaningless rituals that we human beings do throughout our lifetime hoping that in the other life god will reward us and save us from hell when he already decided who wins and who loses.Richard Dawkins - two thumbs up.

This documentary follows scientist Richard Dawkins around the globe to find religion's varied impacts, with a special focus on America and Britain. Dawkins pulls no punches and is quick to shut down anyone in his path. Religion is not given a moment's notice to put up a shield.For those who are already opposed to religion, this is for you. Like Bill Maher's "Religulous", this documentary follows a known anti-theist around challenging the beliefs of the faithful. It's not at all fair or balanced, which you might want in a documentary. We already know that Dawkins is against everyone he meets and is eager to make them out to look foolish. Not to say he doesn't make good points -- he does -- but religion isn't given a fair shake.Ted Haggard is particularly lambasted. Haggard brings much of this on himself, insinuating Dawkins' arrogance while he himself comes off as high and mighty. Haggard then proceeds to kick Dawkins off his property, adding to his image as a jerk. However, in Haggard's defense, Dawkins was being arrogant (as usual) and I don't think he was given a chance to explain himself outside of a confrontational setting.For those of you who've read "The God Delusion", this material will not be new. Dawkins covers similar ground here... the book merely expands on the points he makes. If you haven't read the book, and liked this film, I'd suggest reading it to get a fuller picture. If you didn't like the movie, you may not like the book... it's hard to consider Dawkins unbiased. Either way, I suggest going through the movie (and book) with a strong sense of skepticism.If you can pick up a copy of this, do it. I think "Religulous" is the better of the two films, but there's certainly plenty of material here to mull over. And together, they make a great pair. Dawkins is a giant in the world of atheism, and his ideas are worth understanding, whether or not he happens to be right.

I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say "that is long" or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, "a process of non thinking" he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, "bronze age myths" he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn " I am right, he is wrong" but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish.