Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Michelle Ridley The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Klaus Burton First of all I'd like to say I loved the idea for this film. I was really looking forward to seeing a lot of philosophical perspectives from different people, however I was left with the impression that one religion in particular (not one I believe in, so I have no vested interest in seeing it like this) was the victim of bias, whether intentional or unintentional I don't know.I watched this last night with 2 friends. I don't have any religious beliefs and neither does one friend, but my other friend is a Christian. Part way through we paused it to have a discussion and my Christian friend pointed out what she perceived as biases against Christianity in the film. I wasn't sure about it at the time, since I hadn't been watching with that in mind, but when we started watching it again I realised all her points were right.The main ones are:The language used by the film-maker showed his bias as well as the editing. At one stage he even referred to non-atheist perspectives as "superstition".Almost all of the non-religious people were well-spoken and presented in settings like universities or beautiful gardens while the Christians were presented as ignorant, poor, etc. For example there were famous nonbelievers (Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Leonard Susskind, Carl Sagan's wife...) and famous non-Christian religious people (Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Arthur Uther Pendragon...) while the supposed representatives of Christianity were devoid of anyone that most Christians would listen to or relate to. The Christians got Jed, the evangelical who even extreme evangelicals would distance themselves from (see the next point) and a seemingly homeless man living in a burned down church who thinks dinosaurs are still alive. A lot of time was given to the evangelical Brother Jed Smock. He appeared throughout the film along with his wife and daughter, despite the fact that most Christians would be just as appalled by him as non-Christians would be. At one stage the filmmaker even shows a long scene of his friend throwing classic "gotcha" questions at Jed, which wasn't exploratory, it only served to demonstrate how ridiculous the filmmaker and his friend think Jed is. Again, please note that I have no religious belief, and I agree that if the filmmaker's friend and Jed were in a debate the friend would win hands-down because his points were huge and Jed had no good reply for them, but I don't think people would start watching this movie thinking "I want to watch an atheist try to demolish the beliefs of a Christian", they will watch it hoping to find an exploration of beliefs in a way that encourages them to draw their own conclusions.I have given it a 3/10 instead of 1/10 because there were some really interesting parts. I loved seeing the scenes in China and India since those religions seemed free of the biases, Carl Sagan's wife's home had some amazing things on display, Leonard Susskind is hilarious and very likable, and there were other good scenes that stopped the film from being a complete waste of time.

Mike B This is a smörgåsbord of various belief sets. It's entertaining and funny. There are some very quotable quotes and some that are rather less so. It's very rapid fire which I did have a problem with – I prefer more of an interview style. But the pay-off is the wide diversity of religions presented. He travels the U.S. in search of answers and continues this in China and India (which is a real blast!). He does drop by briefly in Jerusalem and Italy to pick up a few tidbits.I will probably watch it again at a later date for some more insights, because there are so many prophets, soothsayers, preachers, gurus spouting there little pearls of wisdom that I may indeed get a revelation (but I doubt it!)

skcfilms Roger Nygard, a smart, talented filmmaker who has given us fun documentaries in the past, delivers his best film to date. The Nature of Existence is fast moving, hilarious, sharp, film about the meaning of life. If anyone can make an enjoyable film about a personal and controversial topic as religion, is Mr. Nygard. He gives everyone a chance to voice their opinion without judgment and he himself seems to have learned something while making this film. Although the film is hilarious, it is also a personal journey about finding "what it all means." Laughed from the beginning to the end but also leaves you thinking... Thoroughly enjoyed the film and recommend it to all who ever asked "why?"!

ediblelogic210 I saw a special screening of this film last night in Professor Richard Brown's Film 101 Class. Professor Brown introduced Roger Nygard as ,"…a film maker , artist and storyteller…a unique talent…one who is important to listen to." I must say that Professor Brown was indeed correct. This film turned out to be quite an ambitious attempt to give insight to the question of why we exist. The questions that Nygard tackles are too numerous to mention, but he did say that they were all listed on the film's website. When first reading the questions, it's easy to understand how people might think that this is an extremely heavy and serious film. Although the questions & answers show incredible depth & insight – many of the answers are extremely and surprisingly funny ! I genuinely had some of the biggest laughs that I've had in a long time. I really hope that this film does well in the theaters and has an extended run in all the cities that it's playing in. This type of film is really the kind of film that should be experienced with a group of your best friends, followed by a visit to the local diner . Order lots of coffee to prep yourself for some of the most stimulating & engaging conversations that you've had in long time.