George Tirebiter What I expected and what I got were two totally different things. It was as if the event was edited by someone from Wilson's camp (perhaps a barely capable family member or some benighted member of his congregation). Throughout the whole film, Hitchens seemed mostly annoyed or straining under a monumental exercise of patience (possibly sick, hungover, or both). In my humble opinion, Hitchens seems to humor Wilson and appears to laugh at his jokes, while Wilson uses the same old verbal slight-of- hand that the religulous learn on YouTube to restate and misrepresent Hitchen's viewpoint and generally run in circles while burbling about how he believes in God because he believes in the Bible because that is how he was raised. At no time during the debate, do we see the usually unapologetic and direct Hitchens introduce any of his familiar counters to Wilson's rudimentary "logic" or respond in any way that would sharply advance his side of the debate. How someone of even Wilson's meager intellect could let his argument stand on a few shaky points of intellectual dishonesty in defense of his belief system is difficult to comprehend. How a reasonably intelligent person can dedicate their life to the rote memorization of such baseless nonsense is quite beyond my reach. With the latter in mind, how he manages to be so ill-prepared to defend it is even more incomprehensible. I think when he discusses the breadth of Hitchen's superior knowledge of the topic at hand in terms of "copiousness"...this is Wilson's capitulation. Like many Christians, the bulk of his education has centered exclusively around authors and sources that support his perspectives (while ignoring the classics/philosophy that also have contributed to our current notions of morality)...his desperate grasping for clever or germane quotes only serves to show he is a fraction as learned as his opponent. Either the condition of payment for his time was to abstain from giving Wilson the effortless trouncing that he gives EVERYONE ELSE or all of that was simply edited out to push some agenda that represents the movie as a friendly debate that ends in a draw. If the latter is the case, I cannot imagine why Hitchen's agreed to either the book or the movie. The direction and camera work only served to distract from the serious topic of the film, presumably to appeal to a younger crowd weaned on the crass lack of originality brought to you by Tarantino and his slow- witted adherents. What 10 year-old was called upon to select the music for this? Awful indeed. The time wasted on attempting to "dazzle" the audience with "production value" or the "talent" of people who should have stood aside to let their speakers be heard, is shameful. Cack. This movie is a disgrace to Mr. Hitchen's legacy and his estate should purchase the rights to it and burn it publicly as the sham that it is.

David I would have given this film a 9 for sure if it hadn't been for the terrible camera-work. Whoever did the editing had WAY too much fun jiggling the camera, putting in flashing effects, cutting in and out. I guess it was meant to be hip or something. At first I thought I had put the Bourne Supremacy on by mistake. I was even starting to get a little motion-sick. Add to the flashing images and close-ups on Wilson's nose or the left side of Hitchen's face, you also have completely mismatched background music accompanying nearly every word that was said. The visuals were, for me, a total defeat for what could have been the best Hitchens debate documentary to ever come out. I think Wilson is the best opponent Hitchens has ever faced. He's educated, determined and passionately attached to his Christian faith. Wilson is one who begins to approach Hitchens's education, analytical and debating skills and devotion to the cause. Why, guys, why oh why did you spoil it all with the poor camera-work?

Randy I'm a huge fan of any sort of religious or philosophical debate subject matter. I absolutely love contemplating the intricacies of this stuff.The subject matter is straightforward, and I enjoyed seeing both Hitchens and Wilson present all manner of arguments for their positions on all manner of tangential issues regarding Christianity. They stick mostly on morality which got a bit tiresome frankly, (I thought Wilson's repetitive god-based reasoning were fairly easy to absolve however.) It was interesting to hear them go 'round and 'round about this issue or that. I thoroughly enjoyed the debates.What I absolutely loathed was the cinematography style. The camera never stood still. It was zoomed into Hitchens' face, darting around as if the cameraman was trembling uncontrollably. This isn't a punk music video! But you wouldn't know it from the obnoxious heavy metal soundtrack either. Totally inappropriate to the subject matter, distracting, and frankly they should re-edit the entire film to remove as much of the extreme-closeups, shakiness, and death metal as possible.

rzajac I've been a big fan of Hitchens for some time, and was very curious to watch as he took on the "big" challenge. I suppose it was just a matter of time.It's interesting: Hitchens has spent--some would say misspent--a lot of energy sparring with distinctly unworthy opponents. While it would be easy to say that Hitchens has lowered himself to do so, to be fair it's arguable that the field is rife with shabby "champions" of faith, and it was only natural that he wind up sharing the stage with same.Don't get me wrong. In the case of Wilson, I still feel Hitchens prevails. The key to the glory of "Collision" is not that Hitchens is evenly matched. It's that the film does a very good job of creating a third realm in which we see an interplay of different takes on humanism. Wilson, by constitutionally agreeing that, in the end, real answers must be found, aids no less than HItchens in tracing the outlines of this third realm; one in which (if we're perceptive) we may acquire tools of our own as we search for truth.So, for example, I drew a kind of provisional conclusion in which I can see that there is a very interesting answer to Wilson's repeated challenges to Hitchens--the challenge to assert a foundation for his humanistic moral probity. Since Wilson feels compelled to assert that his foundation consists of a Biblical character portrait of the divine which informs his morality, it naturally begs the question: Why is the portrait of Hitchens's character any less compelling than the portrait of the divine offered by the Bible? In the end, I'm not convinced that Hitchens loses even that battle.The image of the divine drawn via a creative approach to interpreting scripture can be characterized this way and that way.And what *is* the foundational image of the "divine" (as it were) of Hitchens' prophetic lightning bolts "from on high"? I'm pleased to report that Hitchens continues to found his morality on a truly refined wit and warm good humor, albeit coupled with the genuine (hot) interest in real-world human affairs that sometimes lashes out.Sound familiar? It should. And: Is there some genuine, well-intentioned reason that this is supposed be one-upped, out of the box, by the fundamentalist Chistian moral foundation repeatedly cited by Wilson? I don't think so.This is the special genius of Hitchens, and worthy of thoughtful consideration, and possibly emulation... though I would fain get all capital-'R' religious about it. And therein also lies the humility of Hitchens. I can see this, and it's pretty apparent Hitchens quietly and persistently knows this as well.And--not forgetting this is a film review--this hopefully highlights why "Collision" is a wondrous good venue for Hitchens *and* the fundamentalist set.If you ponder these things--and you want to see a good and proper launching point for apprehending Hitchens' place in the "new atheist" pantheon--see this movie.Add to this that the film is lovingly edited and finely produced, and you have a real winner for all parties.