What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) User Reviews

Ramtha will see you now. Bring your checkbook.

[jz-10 · 6/10 · 26 September 2004]

About 20 years ago, I encountered quantum mechanics in The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, and the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. Despite the *relative* popularity (note the emphasis on "relative") of such books, the average person in the street has never read a science book that wasn't assigned to them in high school or college. And those books certainly weren't speculating on the nature of Life, the Universe and Everything based on the implications of quantum physics!

In my own life, awareness of the intersection of science of spirituality has given me a smidgen of additional fuel in my life of studying Christian and Eastern mysticism. So imagine my delight when I learned "What the Bleep" promised an exciting investigation into the cutting edge of science and spirituality. Surely there would interviews with people like Rupert Sheldrake, Freeman Dyson, and Larry Dossey!

Well, no, although most of the scientists were well-qualified to speak on the quantum concepts addressed. Strangely, the film undercut itself intellectually by not giving the names and qualifications of the speakers underneath their "talking heads" but only at the end. Regarding spiritual speculations, I find Capra, Sheldrake, and Dossey have more depth when it comes to this sort of thought, but the opinions shared may be eye-opening for many viewers who have never considered the inter-connectedness of mind, the universe, and God.

"What the bleep" has a beautiful visual style, exciting graphic effects, and also gets out of typical documentary mode by creating a small story of a deaf woman photographer's frustrations with life. The "Polish Wedding" sequence is hilarious, and might actually have you rolling in the aisles, as it did me!

The disappointment comes, oddly enough from the "Spiritual Teachers, Mystics, and Scholars" used. Sounds impressive right? There were only two. One was "Miceal" Ledwith, (elsewhere spelled Micheal), former member of the Catholic International Theological Commission, (who retired from Maynooth College in Ireland about the same time he made a private settlement regarding sexual abuse of a minor--see the Irish Times article of June 1 2002). The other was--get ready--RAMTHA! Yes, Ramtha, the absurd "Neolithic entity" supposedly channeled by JZ Knight.

Both Ledwith and Ramtha seemed to only be used to bash conventional religion with "the shackles of restrictive doctrine," and in Ramtha's case, assure us all that we are God. Yippee! No need to worry about meditation, service, or denying the ego. Why, I wondered, would someone go to the trouble of sharing the scientific plausibility of mysticism only to undercut it with the bitter statements of a former Catholic priest and the laughingstock of New-Age kookiness?

Perhaps it's because, according to Wikipedia.org, all three filmmakers are students of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. Ultimately this was a long, entertaining commercial. Ramtha will see you now. Keep your ego, but bring your checkbook.

Highly sensationalized

[spoonerisms · 4/10 · 6 September 2004]

My wife and I had heard enthusiastic recommendations and came to the film expecting something along the lines of "A Brief History of Time." Do not bother seeing this movie if that is what you're expecting! I am a professor of philosophy (with my area of specialty being philosophy of science) and my wife is a professor of biology. We found about one third of the claims (in our respected fields) to be flat out false; another third were blatant hyperbole or, at best, "poetic truth"; the final third were, indeed, true. However, the entire film was presented as if 100% of the content was uncontested scientific Truth (with a capital "T")! Many of the claims were downright embarrassing and more in line with the claims of urban legends and/or those asinine emails about weird phenomena that are forwarded to you by burned-out new-agers. Instead I highly recommend Errol Moritz's aforementioned documentary on Hawking, or perhaps his excellent "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control." In fact, I even recommend "Showgirls" over this travesty committed, sadly, in the name of science.

Sadly, a disappointment

[cbcon2 · 4/10 · 26 June 2005]

I wanted to like this film and was prepared for a treat. The visuals and the unusual way of presenting the material was initially stimulating and creative. What made it even easier for me to get involved was that the social ideology advanced closely matches my own. But the expressed connection between particle physics and social prescription was, in my view, either wishful thinking or intellectually dishonest. You can't use the harsh rigors of science to establish credibility and then let your logic go all warm and fuzzy coming to the conclusion you wanted all along -- especially if the conclusion is quite defensible on other bases. As a scientist, I was irritated. As a social liberal, I was embarrassed.

I saw the movie as new age religion passed as scientific fact.

[MakoShark · 23 October 2004]

The movie got a lot of the quantum theory and neurology right, but then it proceeds to make a lot of wild tangential claims that are loosely based on the theory and pass it off as the absolute truth. Anybody with a advanced physics background (my job requires an advanced math and physics background) will be deeply turned off (despite the fact that a number of physicists and neurologists are interviewed for the film). The scientists back up the scientific theory, but then some new age woman and others (some scientists, but mainly that woman) kept on saying things that were loosely based off of the theory. The movie basically passed that off as scientificly valid as quantum theory, but provides no serious argument as to why. I was really bothered by the fact that the movie was already drawing conclusions for me instead of posing questions as to different possibilities.

The movie may be interesting to some, and I don't discurage anybody from watching it, but please watch it with a grain of salt.

Cult Propaganda

[memphistim2001 · 1/10 · 30 April 2005]

This film is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo apparently produced by members of The "Ramtha School of Enlightenment", a religious cult. One of the main interviewees is Ramtha herself, J.Z. Knight, who claims to channel the wisdom of the ancient warrior "Ramtha' and heads the Ramtha School of Enlightenment cult. I believe this film duped reputable experts in the field of quantum physics into believing that they were involved in a legitimate project aimed at making quantum theory accessible to the layman. One later said that he didn't realize how his interview would be used. "In the movie, my views are turned around 180 degrees," said Physicist David Albert of Columbia University.

The real intent of this film is to interweave images of legitimate scientists with those of Knight and her apologists so she can leech off of their credibility. Rev. Moon did the same thing when he got U.S. Congressmen to attend a reception where he was crowned as some sort of living deity (not that U.S. Congressmen of late have had all that much credibility).

I hope that Ms. Matlin was also deceived. I have never associated her with the egotistical Hollywood whack-job cultists like Cruise and Travolta. The film is worth seeing if only as a litmus test to your susceptibility to cult indoctrination. It also has the funniest credit of all time: Ramtha channeled by J.Z. Knight.

-Tim T.

Complete Load of Crap

[cthulhu-23 · 2/10 · 20 June 2005]

I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent "Short History of Nearly Everything" and what I was able to choke down in "A Brief History of Time," it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually "channelling" some loony named "Ramtha" completely upset the applecart for me.

What a waste of two hours.

Fascinating but heavily flawed

[Anonymous_Maxine · 7/10 · 25 October 2004]

It's nice to see that there are some movies being made and released into mainstream theaters that actually make you think. Great fictional films do this through the delivery of their stories, but What the #$*! Do We Know does it in a much more direct way, almost like an educational film. It's a fascinating exploration of existential theories and philosophy, and is one of those very rare movies that will challenge the way you think even about everyday life. It's a strange film and moves entirely too fast for much of it's material to sink in, but it's a great exploration of quantum physics and some of the implications that it has on our lives that we really don't think about, but should.

The story sporadically focuses on the life of Amanda (Marlee Matlin), a deaf woman suffering through heartbreak and work troubles but who ultimately alters her perception by applying certain rules and theories of quantum physics, as I imagine we are expected to after seeing the movie. The great thing about the movie is that it makes you think, but the biggest problem with it is that it uses presentation to make simple statements seem grand and make crazy assertions seem like they have merit.

There is one point where the movie says, "Here's a puzzle - why should we be able to remember the past and not have the same access to the future?'' What is that? A completely obvious fact of linear time is rendered strange just by being in this movie. It's odd that the movie delves so deep into such statuesque disciplines as quantum physics and the very fabric of the universe, while not knowing why you can remember a conversation you had today, but for some weird, unknown and mysterious reason, you can't remember a conversation you will have tomorrow.

The film also makes outlandish claims and then shrouds them in the mysteriousness of unobservable history. There is a part of the movie that claims that when the first ships arrived in what is now North America, the Native Americans looked out to sea and saw the water parted by the ships, but could not see the ships themselves because they had never seen anything like them before. This, obviously, is utter nonsense, but the movie uses it as an example of its suggestion that there are different levels of reality for different people. There is no pure, objective reality, but different plains of existence for different people.

A friend of mine, who hails this as one of the greatest films he's ever seen, explained to me that the Native Americans' minds simply did not understand how to decode the concept of a ship, a signifier which they had never encountered and so it was perfectly understandable that they couldn't see it. Wrong! Sure, they had never seen ships before, but I am willing to go out on a limb and assume that they had seen wood before, and since vision is merely the process of light bouncing off of objects and coming into contact with the retina inside the eye, it is physically impossible for a Native American to have x-ray vision because he or she doesn't know what a certain object is.

My friend used the example that it is not until you learn that lightning travels from the ground to the clouds rather than the other way around that you really begin to see it that way. Before you learn that curious little fact, you see lightning and are completely sure that it's coming out of the clouds and zapping the earth. You do see it differently from then on, it's true, but you did SEE it before you knew where it originated, right? And incidentally, lightning is known to travel from the ground to the clouds, from the clouds to the ground, and from one cloud to another. But when it occurs, I am willing to suggest that it's rarely invisible, even if, as they say, there's no one there to see it.

I believe that the human mind is set up to believe what it wants to believe (hence religion), but I do not feel obliged to believe that people's beliefs or knowledge enable them to see through solid objects just because they've never seen them before, nor do I believe that any human has the ability to change the molecular structure of water just by thinking about it in a certain way, which is another of the more bizarre claims that the movie makes. I don't know, I just never thought of water as susceptible to being offended or made happy, or having any effect over human emotions.

But while the movie does slip up by going a little far in claims like these, it's important to have things like this because even for things like invisible ships, which we know are not reality, it is good that it makes you think about them. There are a lot of things in the world that we take for granted, and not just possessions but truths, and it is movies like What the #$*! Do We Know that really get people thinking about them. For a while, at least.

Absurd

[jdbornem · 1/10 · 5 December 2004]

Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.

For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)

Save your money.

A must-see for those interested in spirituality and growth

[nobbyh2 · 8/10 · 13 January 2007]

I really liked this film because it brings to a wide audience the marriage of mysticism, spirituality and science. It also gave me a deeper insight into the validation of spiritual concepts that quantum physics is providing.

I have long agreed with the basic thrust of the movie, namely that our thought processes produce the reality that we experience. But the addition of so many scientists to explain how quantum physics fits so well with these beliefs was a real joy. I realise that there are many scientific people out there who are offended by, and dismiss as ridiculous, any sort of acceptance of the paranormal or spiritual. People in this category would be wise not to view the film.

My first viewing was on the wide-screen but I then bought the DVD and have watched it several times since. Each time I enjoy it more. After reading many of the negative reviews I have re-examined the movie and find none of the scientific theory to be in error. It is not meant to be (nor could it be) a scientific treatise. It is presenting complicated scientific notions in a format that the masses can understand and it adds a human interest story (Marlee Matlin as Amanda) to demonstrate the results of applying the theory.

I have reduced my vote from 10 to 8 because of several non-verifiable assertions or opinions throughout the movie. One was the story about the Indians not seeing the ships and there were several others by Ramtha. These were not necessary for the storyline and detract from the validity of the rest of the information. One other possible fault was the rapidity with which the concepts were thrown at you. Often, it was not possible to absorb the information as quickly as it was given. Re-watching the film has helped with that.

The acting was highly credible, the animations were amusing and terrific, the scientists and specialists were highly informative and often amusing. The "plot" was very realistic and plausible. All-in-all a wonderful film that all those open to new ideas, change and personal development would be advised to see (several times).

nice movie but misleading if you're not familiar with the topics presented

[celestia63 · 7/10 · 16 January 2006]

If you're prepared to take this movie not too seriously (if you're a critic) chances are you will like this movie.

At least I did.

I'm a physics Phd myself, and as such, I probably should be irritated by the more outrageous claims, or the reckless extrapolations of solid scientific facts far far beyond their valid domain.

But I'm not: even though the claims are highly questionable from a scientific point of view, I think the philosophy of it all is very appealing. I honestly believe that if you really want to believe in anything at all, this should be it.

At least, it's a whole lot less dangerous than some religions I can think of.

Terrible, misleading movie

[eflood · 1/10 · 13 July 2004]

As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.

Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.

I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.

This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.

Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.

My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.

I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.

At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."

This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."

Shakes our deeply ingrained notions about reality

[howard.schumann · 8/10 · 18 October 2004]

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a sometimes annoying, often preachy, but always thought provoking documentary about things in life we don't often think about -- the nature of reality and our place in the universe. The film has become something of a phenomenon, having gone from one theater in Washington State to more than 100 in 30 states to a national release by Samuel Goldwyn/Roadside Attractions and has repeatedly played to sellout crowds. Supporting the concept that the only reality is consciousness, it combines documentary, fiction, and computer animation to counter the current scientific/materialist paradigm that human beings are survival machines largely powered by chemicals and genetic coding, at the mercy of a random and uncaring universe. In the view espoused by the film, the universe is directed by conscious choice. There is no chance, no coincidence, and there are no innocent victims.

There is a story of sorts also. Marlee Matilin is Amanda, a depressed wedding photographer whose relationships have not been nurturing and is going through a life crisis requiring her to take tranquilizers to keep going. When she reaches her lowest point, however, she learns to see the world in a different way. Amanda is aided in her quest by computer-generated characters, a precocious pre-teen basketball player, lots of loud music, and entertaining imagery such as dozens of basketballs bouncing at once and water flowing backwards into a fountain. Some sequences, however, especially one at a Polish wedding, were so over the top with cutesy animated special effects that I thought I had inadvertently wandered into an elementary school science fair.

"Bleep", however, is not about weddings but about ideas. Commenting on Amanda's experience are fourteen scientists, mystics, college professors, and philosophers who remain unidentified until the end credits. These include William Tiller (The Science of Crystallization), Amit Goswami (The Self-Aware Universe), and Fred Alan Wolf (Taking the Quantum Leap). The main thrust of the discussion centers on quantum theory, an entirely theoretical abstract branch of science that contradicts other laws of the universe. Quantum physicists state that on the quantum level, the laws of Newtonian physics do not apply. There are no certainties, only possibilities. What governs behavior of matter at the smallest level is consciousness. What you think becomes reality. The chair you are sitting on may feel solid but, according to the physicists in the film, consists mostly of atoms each of which consists mainly of empty space. The stuff inside that space is elusive -- sometimes it acts like a particle, sometimes a wave. One Ph.D. states that "The most solid thing you can say about matter is that it's more like a thought."

Another tenet of the film is that our thoughts and feelings influence the material world. According to an experiment by Dr. Masuro Emoto that has been replicated, the taping of different words such as "love" and "hate" onto jars of distilled water left overnight altered their appearance under a microscope. The conclusion drawn from this experiment is that water is alive and reacts to the emotional fields surrounding it. Since our bodies consist mostly of water, the clear implication is that our thoughts and feelings can alter our biochemistry. The film also tells us that people can be as addicted to emotions and feelings as they are to coffee or tobacco and that if we observe rather than run our internal "tape recorder", we can choose a more satisfying response. Unfortunately, the channeler Ramtha, who otherwise has some interesting things to say, uses the film to launch an attack on organized religion that seems out of place in a film devoted to scientific discussion.

What the Bleep Do We Know!? has been dismissed by many critics who attack the credentials of the speakers rather than seriously consider what they are saying. These critics, who delight in throwing around tired epithets such as "cultist" and "New Agey", fail to note that science is now simply catching up with what has been a basic tenet of Eastern religion for centuries. While I consider "Bleep" to be an important film and welcome its appearance, I feel that it misses the mark in several ways. It encourages turning what is essentially a personal spiritual experience into a rational belief system, and by suggesting that the act of creation is a process of conscious will rather than underlying (and often misunderstood) intention. While the film has its flaws, it does succeed in shaking our deeply ingrained notions about reality and offers much stimulation for those interested in exploring alternative explanations of their experience. If we simply come away with the awareness that the world is a more mysterious place than we imagined, What the Bleep Do We Know!? will have made a unique contribution.

What? The Natives "didn't see" the ships?

[covington-2 · 6/10 · 29 March 2006]

What's this revisionist anthropology about the natives "weren't able to see" Columbus' ships, because they had "never seen ships before"??? These people weren't idiots; they lived on an island! I don't think they flew there. They knew very well what boats were, and when they saw Columbus' ships, they probably said, "Look! Really BIG boats! They're not ours, though. Uh-oh, this isn't good." This sounds like Anthony Robbins-style "perception" crap, which doesn't give credit to people's intelligence. We're not a bunch of stupid robots. This movie is a good overview of some aspects of quantum mechanics, but it seems to have a lot of complete BS as well.

You convinced me

[dcarmich-2 · 1/10 · 4 October 2004]

If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.

Recipe for #$*!:

3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientist

Mix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.

Serving suggestion: barf bags.

Comments arguing against many claims made in the movie.

[swmmng · 13 December 2004]

OK, first I'm going to tear down the "Columbus's ships" thing. I'm fairly certain the Caribbeans had some sort of seaworthy craft, such as rafts or canoes. From these, any normal human intelligence can extrapolate their concept of "boat" to include these ships. Also, where did the writer get this story? Source? Since it's not common knowledge, you need a source.

Next is the direction of time question. In Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," he talks about the 4 arrows of time accepted by the scientific community at large. While it is true that some fundamental (classical/Newtonian) physical laws don't care which direction time is going, many do. The arrow that I remember (it's been a while since I last read the book) is the thermodynamic arrow of time, which causes us to experience events in such a way that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe increases. For example, a cup falls off a table and breaks, not the other way around.

Ah, then the probability discussion. Yes, for subatomic particles like electrons and quarks, the probability wave is spread out enough that the particle can be in >1 place at a time. However, when you look at anything larger than these specks, the waves get exponentially more concentrated, so that a large (visible w/naked eye) object really has an infinitesimal probability of being in more than one state. So small is this probability that you would have to watch a "large" object say, a tennis ball, for more than the present age of the universe (15,000,000,000 years) for it to have an appreciable chance of doing anything strange.

Closely linked to my last paragraph is the talk about particles popping in and out of existence. The answer to "where do they go" is "they turn back into energy." This is what E=mc^2 means. In the "vacuum" of space, particle/antiparticle pairs of subatomic particles are constantly being created from random energy fluctuations, but these particles are existing on borrowed energy, which they very soon have to repay by annihilating with their mate.

Next is the water conversation. First of all, those pictures were of FROZEN water, which the narrator conveniently forgot to mention, only saying the jars were "left out overnight". Next, the claim that our bodies are 90% water is completely bogus. If that were true, there'd be no way we could so much as stand up. Instead: newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55% (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/958588306.An.r.html).

This sheds doubt upon the rest of this "experiment."

The claim that if you only believe enough, you could walk on water is another seriously questionable one. If it's true, why didn't they show us? Tape someone walking on water. Even though you could fairly easily fake it with some video editing software, it'd still be a little more convincing than them simply telling us it's so. Using this "positive thinking" idea to then say that you create your own reality is equally flawed. Sure, I can very well believe that I live in a world inhabited by one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people-eaters, but that's irrelevant if the beings you interact with don't see the world this way.

And then the movie goes on to preach to us about God! How can a "scientific" movie propose to do this? Actually, I have a problem with that one guy proscribing what God is and what He isn't. Shouldn't that be up to the individual, thank you very much? Also in this part, one of the women commentators mentions that we have "antigravity." No, we don't. It's that simple.

Biology's not my thing, but there's a point where you just have to bring out a contradiction. One lady says that if you keep bombarding a cell with a certain chemical, the receptors on that cell will decrease. But soon after, a guy comes on and says that this same daily bombardment will cause the cell to produce a new cell when it divides that has MORE of the receptors. Contradiction. Oops.

I also have to comment on the guy who earlier on this board said this movie would appeal to anyone who's read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. I strongly disagree; I own and have read that book, and nowhere are its ideas remotely connected to this movie's ideas.

Lastly, I will agree with whoever said the movie is rather drawn out. Especially at the end. They just won't stop talking. They keep on going. Repeating the same stuff over and over. Which is what I'm doing for effect, if you couldn't figure that out.

Impressive indeed

[leshafurman · 1/10 · 29 September 2004]

Well, what can I say.

"What the Bleep do we Know" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as "The Postman", "The Dungeon Master", "Merlin", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.

This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.

The first thing that struck me about "What the Bleep do you Know" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.

The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the "writers" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.

The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an "explanation" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a "paradigm shift" and "go down the rabbit hole". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.

Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.

In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.

I want 2 hours of my life back.

Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:

"What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal." - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics.

"What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.

[while looking at herself in the mirror] "I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer.

What the bleepin' bleep!!!??

[IOBdennis · 1/10 · 17 March 2005]

A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.

Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.

In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.

The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.

No great cinema, but despite a few flaws the message is worth it.

[hareck · 7/10 · 12 December 2005]

Do not watch this film, if you:.

• want to know more about Quantum Physics.

• look for a great cinematic experience.

• cannot stand a little bit of American superficiality.

• do not like the fact (or the idea), that one of the commentators is actually channeled by a medium.

This movie is not about physics, it is about psychology. It is about the fact, that we change our body and our reality by our thoughts and beliefs. And about the fact, that the main hindrance to using this process creatively is our own disbelief in it. So, if you are ardently convinced that matter is the root of everything and you cannot change your life by your own efforts, then probably you will not like this film.

But for everyone who believes in and has experienced the power of the human mind and looks for some inspirations in that area, this is a worthwhile and even at times funny and witty way to spend an evening.

Unenlightening and Highly Flawed Film that Attempts to Connect Quantum Physics to "Spirituality"

[brandonrerickson · 1/10 · 26 March 2004]

I had numerous problems with this film.

It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.

The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.

It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.

Avoid this film.

Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.

An introduction to quantum physics in a very digestible and enjoyable way

[marcousis21 · 9/10 · 6 August 2006]

I was extremely glad to finally see a movie/documentary making an attempt to introduce the concept of quantum physics (and partly quantum psychology) to a wider audience than the subject by written publications alone had reached. If you already know something about the subject I would still recommend it, there will definitely be something new worth finding out, especially for the more spiritually oriented person. It does open your mind to another way of looking at reality and to appreciate the importance of the subjective experience when understanding the world round us, often omitted by modern science. Perhaps a film you would want to see more than once to fully understand and might stimulate you to further enquiry in the subject. Check it out, it s a bit trippy too!! ;-))

helpful gobbledygook if you're feeling down

[bryander · 6/10 · 23 November 2005]

Yeah, ordinarily the pretentious preachiness of this kind of film would annoy me out of the theater within 20 minutes. But I was feeling a little sorry for myself after a less-than-stellar phone conversation with my ex-girlfriend, as I recall, and its one morsel of wisdom got through to help me pick up and dust myself off a little.

Of course, this one point of light isn't something particularly mysterious or unknown: that wallowing in a stressful state isn't particularly healthful. But if you, my dear reader, have logged in here, saw my 6 star rating, and wish to learn of the movie's merits -- though I've no idea how you managed to find my little blurb -- I should warn you there really is none. In addition to the lack of structure, poor understanding of empirical methodology, and specific statements inferred from broad sweeping generalizations, the acting talent is badly directed.

I'm in fact writing this review now only after just being reminded of the film upon seeing news of another forthcoming doosey. Some quick background: I joined the learning annex listserv. True, I find the kind of desperation that drives some of the classes I see announced somewhat unsettling. But the class titles themselves, and added commentaries from the org's president, often provide a joyful roll on the floor (laughing, which unlike prolonged sadness, IS healthful).

OK, so what was the class announcement that had me in hysterics, and remembering the 6 star value "What the bleep?" had to me once upon a time? "Behind the Scenes of THE CELESTINE PROPHECY with the Author!...When I first read The Celestine Prophecy, I was blown away by its fast-paced action and philosophical insight. It's not often that someone can seamlessly combine those two elements into a story, but James Redfield did it masterfully!...That's why I was so excited to hear that The Celestine Prophecy is being made into a movie..." -William Zanker, Founder and President, The Learning Annex

Yes, you heard it here first. This seeming-inexplicably popular book has been made into a movie! I remember holding out hope for something of value through the reading of that book. I suppose that was a bit worse than forcing myself to sit through a few awful films, before I finally realized that they really never do get better after the first 20 minutes.

Mush

[tom-55 · 1/10 · 15 March 2005]

Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.

Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.

This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.

Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation.

Movie made with certain purpose

[muthuswamy-1 · 10/10 · 2 November 2005]

I found a lot of critics in IMDb audience for this movie. Some of them claimed that they know quantum physics and neurobiology. They also said that the movie is inaccurate. But I really feel sorry for them. They missed the point (not only in this movie) but also in their subjects they study. They lament that this movie is not teaching an accurate quantum physics. To tell you the fact, I am glad that they are not teaching it. But the scientists make sure that they share their philosophy to the general audience. Some of the scientists are so noble, it is really inspiring. I am a graduate student too. I decided that I will be one of those scientists (like Jhon Haglien or Fred Alen Wolf). In fact Jhon Haglien is the co-author of super string theory which is revolutionizing the modern physics. If such a man turns so humble and he calls all the scientists to unite together for the sake of humanity, then I would say he got the point. That is the right understanding of science - The commonsense at its best. He proved the world - scientifically- that meditation can bring down 25% crime rate in the Washington DC area. The purpose of science is to bring wisdom. Same with neurobiology. Stuart Hameroff M.D devoted his whole life in understanding consciousness. William Tiller, one of the great mind - is so humble and simple to engage in noble pursuit of understanding consciousness for the rest of his life. The other huge criticism is about Ramtha and his(her) school of enlightenment. If those directors got some enlightenment from her, they I don't see a great problem in interviewing her. I think she is far more better than interviewing any politician. The directors made sure that this movie is not preacher and it clearly concluded their version of enlightenment. But certainly they as well as we (audiance) know that enlightenment is far more deeper and spiritual than it can be said. I felt that this movie can be trimmed a lot. The last set of sequence was dragging as by that time - the "Point" was already made making that part slightly tiring. The polish party was funny and again could have been sacrificed. If the directors decide to make one more movie like this (I really encourage them to change the trend of movie making - *NEW AGE STYLE*, I am sure they will learn by their past mistakes. For religious critics: Having some acquaintance with Christian philosophy, I don't see any clash between the thoughts of Christ and this move. If any then possibly we both need to check the book (keeping our ego aside). Please support this movie by making your friends to see

A Docu-Drama's Brilliant Promise But...Unbalanced by a Near Fatal Flaw

[lawprof · 7/10 · 11 October 2004]

Directors William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente started off with a brilliant idea for a novel docu-drama. Bring to the screen for intelligent viewers cutting edge questions and dialog about Quantum Physics (or Mechanics, if one prefers). With the blizzard of recent documentaries attacking and praising the presidential candidates or allowing a former Secretary of Defense one last exculpatory hurrah or following the fortunes of convicted pedophiles seeking to clear their names no one recently has made a film about Quantum Physics.

What we have is from a production values perspective an engagingly original amalgam of live acting, many interviews, data boards and some fine, very original animation. So far so good.

"What the Bleep..." begins promisingly with Marlee Matlin, who doesn't get too many major studio assignments, as a pill devouring, anxious, depressed professional photographer who is perplexed about life's annoying problems (her chief one being having found her boyfriend or spouse in flagrant delicto or, if you don't speak law, in the sack with a bimbo).

Interviews with a number of MDs, scholars and (here's the problem) New Age advocates alternate with animated and acted scenes. Some of the interviewees, whose affiliations are only given with the end credits, are clearly working at the cutting edge of trying to understand the nature of time and the experience of consciousness. An MD who works with patients is cautious and insightful, tethered by his clinical work to ambient reality. Several of the professors line up at varying points on the accepted knowledge to theorizing to speculating wildly continuum.

This is very difficult stuff (I have no background in physics) but a number of the interviewed academics speak plainly and whet the viewer's appetite for more.

The near fatal flaw is the false and in fact anti-intellectual attempt to ordain an equality of ideas by treating with equal time and attention a few outspoken folks whose theories are the stuff of New Age fantasy. One woman who becomes increasingly directive about her cosmic views is revealed at the end to be affiliated with some organization that is, shall we say, below the stature of the world class universities where her fellow commentators study, teach and write.

All ideas should be explored for the viewer's benefit? Imagine a documentary on the latest research in the field of evolution "balanced" by comments from creationists. Amusing? No doubt. Instructive? No, it would be distractive and inherently anti-science.

That's the problem with "What the Bleep..." The desire to balance tips the apple cart away from a deep and well-connected inquiry into some remarkable research in the world of ideas.

Unfortunately Ms. Matlin's role adds little. She is earnest and remarkable insight comes to her through a chance encounter with a little boy with an apparent I.Q. of probably 250 who engages her in shooting hoops with him in a public park. This savant takes her into a level of discourse and discovery that even for a science/philosophy flick is incredible. Actually unbelievable. It just doesn't work well.

So I was disappointed that what might have been a solid voyage to new and exciting ideas was diluted with a lame side drama and the prattling of New Age mystics (the woman referred to above glows with the bright fire reflective of either raging malaria or burning zealotry.)

7/10 (reluctantly because the intelligence of the directors comes through enough to have made this film worth watching. Once.)

Like watching an orientation video for a crappy job

[hoppercool · 1/10 · 23 August 2004]

If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again.