UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Documentary >

The Unbelievers

The Unbelievers (2013)

December. 13,2013
|
6.9
| Documentary

Scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss travel the globe promoting a scientific worldview and the rational questioning of religious belief.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Lightdeossk
2013/12/13

Captivating movie !

More
Doomtomylo
2013/12/14

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

More
Brendon Jones
2013/12/15

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

More
Neive Bellamy
2013/12/16

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

More
Clarence Duclo
2013/12/17

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.

More
meritcoba
2013/12/18

When one makes a fanpic.. eh documentary of two prominent scientists who are also known or perhaps even more known for other reasons - they are atheists - it would be of great importance that the cover of the documentary correlates with the stated content and that the actual documentary is in tune with those as well. In this the unbelievers makes a tactical error as the title points to their atheism(but not literally), states to be about two scientists talking in public(the thought alone!) about the importance of science and reason, but is in fact about two atheistic scientists, Richard Dawkings and Lawrence Krauss on a tour through two mostly Christian countries(Australia and the US,) mixing the two up while talking mostly among themselves in front of an audience who are already biased to them anyway. If this isn't preaching to the choir, than what would be? Any religious scientist might take offense at the suggestion that science and reason and unbelief are intimately connected. The one leads to the other, or perhaps vice versa. It isn't really openly admitted, but it is implied. It suggests an arrogance to claim that science and atheism go hand in glove and which is slapped in the face of any Christian by showing of a Christian cross on the cover thus admitting that it is the Christian religion this is aimed at. The rest got of the hook, for the moment. The problem with this documentary is that it doesn't really know what it wants to be and, to be honest, it gets boring fast. This is the kind of documentary that just barely rises above the level of a family home movie and if the participants had not been known figures nobody would watch it but the family of the two. The only other audience that now might appreciate this will be the fanboys who will nod enthusiastically and tell how truly amazing and eyeopening this documentary is. Nothing that surprises. The subtitle 'What are you willing to believe!' makes the documentary even worse as its provocative line, ending with an exclamation mark, is so at odds with the real content that is delivered. The unbelievers, mostly two men babbling away, never stimulates, challenges or adds anything new to what we already know and have been told over and over. On youtube discussions mostly, often in a more engaging way and with people who do not fall in line with Krauss and Dawkins so easily. A summary of some of the important debates would probably have been a lot more lively and to the point. The result is a movie that is more like a homage to two atheist scientists regurgitating stock ideas. Which is a shame really for the two involved men are better than that. More annoying is adding some other famous people to the documentary just to beef it up a bit. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen and the like make a less than one minute appearance so they can be credited and suggest some fireworks. If that isn't a cheap shot, than I don't know what is. I think that there is a statement that captures the weakness of this movie very well: don't tell, but show. This movie is all about telling things we already know in a boring way in front of a predisposed audience, but doesn't show a new thing unless you are new to this all.

More
gavin6942
2013/12/19

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?

More
ruby-27-444971
2013/12/20

I recently saw this film at Filmbar in Phoenix, and I was left dissatisfied. I feel like the film wasn't sure what it wanted to be, ultimately causing it to fail on two fronts. IF the point of the film was to just show you the working life of Dawkins and Krauss, that's fine, but it seems to do a lot more than that and if a biased way. The directors are clearly fans and the film is edited with that influence.I am an Atheist with no argument to make for religion, and I was left feeling that we can do better.If the film IS trying to make an argument for Atheism and against religion, it's a pretty poor one. The film seems to imply that no one who is religious values sciences, the multiverse, physics - things any fair person should know is not true. It ignores that there are many scientists now and in history that had faith. The film behaves as if fundamentalism and Bible literalism are the bulk of religious opinion. I don't believe that is so. Also, there are some statements about history as it pertains to religion that are false, and easy to dispel.In short, I think Atheism is a positive embracing of secular ideals, but I don't think the way to inspire it in people is to parade celebrity endorsements, imply superiority, and belittle people who believe differently than you. When this is your method, it seems like the cult of non-belief instead of rational thought. We can do better than this.

More