Root of All Evil? (2006)

Undescribable Perfection

best movie i've ever seen.

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

I watched this after watching Religulous and have to say I can't recommend it. It's a straight forward attack as preachy as the people he attacks. Both sides are arrogant and superior sounding to each other as they ask the other to "not be arrogant and superior sounding".The whole thing seemed an exercise of watching 6 year old kids fighting in a school yard. It was even ironic how Dawkins continuously pushed his faith like a preacher, demanding proof for everything which is a goal not a possibility. All the while forgetting that the basis of science is faith. We can't prove anything in science, all it does is help disprove things and we assume what's left, no matter how improbable is true or real or at least almost so.I also wish the language he used were less harsh and more objective. It could have a nice documentary instead of verbal porn.See Religulous instead. It's gentle and funny.BTW, my 6/10 means it has redeeming values, just barely. Watch it if you're really really bored.

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.

This is a 90-minutes documentary that examines and challenges religion. It covers an impressive amount, addressing Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Catholicism, without any of them being glossed over. It raises questions that have to be asked, and makes remarkable points. The aggressive and uncompromising way of more than one of the groups should not be ignored. Like The Enemies of Reason, this has disturbing material. This is put together of footage taken from the various areas(including famous sites) that writer Dawkins visited in making this and interviews with people from both sides, several of which are specifically known for their views on the subjects. This is more confrontational and impassioned than the later-produced, aforementioned piece, and this is sure to offend some. I don't think that is as much the intent as a side-effect... I would say that Richard means to provoke exploration, reflection, independent, free thought. I doubt he is particularly likely to go for shock value. The subject matter does perhaps make for more emotional responses, what with the deeply personal nature of it. Richard Dawkins asks great questions, and argues impeccably well. Not always equally respectful, but invariably eloquently and intelligently. I recommend this to any skeptic, and anyone in general who is willing to hear him out. 8/10

This documentary provides a great view at religion and its contradictory evilness. As we live in a world that's threatened by religious fanatics and almost all major conflicts are based on religion, shouldn't it be time we start questioning religion? Dawkins does question religion and everything else. And he continually stresses that as opposed to faith, science tries to discover the world and congratulates everyone who makes theories obsolete.There's a common word used against people like Dawkins - arrogance. But isn't arrogant the one who says he knows everything? Dawkins says he knows nothing but what the facts reveal him.Fear the one who offers all knowledge for he is lying.