|
What the Bleep Do We Know | 
| Directors: William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente
Actors: Marlee Matlin, Elaine Hendrix, John Ross Bowie, Robert Bailey Jr., Barry Newman
Studio: 20th Century Fox
List Price: $24.98
Buy Used: $3.84
You Save: $21.14 (85%)
Used (15) Collectible (3) from $3.84
Rating:  1224 reviews
Sales Rank: 6919
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), German (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: VHS Tape
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 90 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 4.2 x 1.1
UPC: 024543171072
EAN: 0024543171072
ASIN: B0006UEVQI
Release Date: March 15, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Still in orginal packaging.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
The unlikeliest cult hit of 2004 was What the (Bleep) Do We Know?, a lecture on mysticism and science mixed into a sort-of narrative. Marlee Matlin stars in the dramatic thread, about a sourpuss photographer who begins to question her perceptions. Interviews with quantum physics experts and New Age authors are cut into this story, offering a vaguely convincing (and certainly mind-provoking) theory about... well, actually, it sounds a lot like the Power of Positive Thinking, when you get down to it. Talking heads (not identified until film's end) include JZ Knight, who appears in the movie channeling Ramtha, the ancient sage she claims communicates through her (other speakers are also associated with Knight's organization). What she says actually makes pretty good common sense--Ramtha's wiggier notions are not included--and would be easy to accept were it not being credited to a 35,000-year-old mystic from Atlantis. --Robert Horton
Description
WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW?! is a new type of film. It is part documentary, part story, and part elaborate and inspiring visual effects and animations. The protagonist, Amanda, played by Marlee Matlin, finds herself in a fantastic Alice in Wonderland experience when her daily, uninspired life literally begins to unravel, revealing the uncertain world of the quantum field hidden behind what we consider to be our normal, waking reality. She is literally plunged into a swirl of chaotic occurrences, while the characters she encounters on this odyssey reveal the deeper, hidden knowledge she doesn?t even realize she has asked for. Like every hero, Amanda is thrown into crisis, questioning the fundamental premises of her life ? that the reality she has believed in about how men are, how relationships with others should be, and how her emotions are affecting her work isn?t reality at all!
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 1219 more reviews...
 Provoking as it showed even amongst the reviews! February 20, 2005
Lam Kwok Wa (Hong Kong)
1095 out of 1479 found this review helpful
It is the first time I ever write an on-line review of a movie and I was movitated to share my observation after having read all the other reviews.
I noticed that most people who have reviewed the movie either love or hate it. It is a sure sign of a very outstanding film, either in the positive or negative way. I have no intention to judge what the review of this movie 'should' be. Frankly speaking, what the bleep do I know, really? So go find it out yourself. One film, 2 extremely different outcomes. Isn't it an interesting phenomenan worth investigating? Our perception determind our reality. I can't help but agree with what the film suggested. And each and every of us, no matter how apart we stand, is RIGHT! ...^_^... Isn't it amazing? How we have been conditioned to think, "when I am right, you have to be wrong if you don't agree with me."
I happended to have read 'A Brief History of Time' and 'The Universe In A Nutshell' by Stephen Hawkin a couple years ago. I have just finished 'The Field - the quest for the secret force of the universe' by Lynne McTaggart, one of books recommended by WhatTheBleep movie website. And I have also read many many so-called New Age stuff. Being a Chinese from Hong Kong, I've been exposed to Eastern philosophies. It seems to me that the Newtonian world view, which served the human race well a couple centuries back, has fulfilled its historical purpose. Isn't it time to ask questions about the missing link between the seeming separateness of physical matter and the interdependent nature of quantum particles that are the very foundation of matter?
My personal experience has been: if I am serious about learning, I'm better off being open-minded and let the knowledge be revealed to me. If I just want to prove myself right, no matter which direction I look, there are moutains of evdience to support my point of view. Given its provoking nature, What The Bleep is an excellent mirror to reflect our state of mind. Just for that, I think $8 and less than 2 hours are very reasonable investment to gauge where you stand. It is very useful information to yourself.
Even with the imperfect executions, What The Bleep has accomplished what a movie needs to fulfill. A pebble has been thrown into the water. The rest is up to you.
Did I enjoy the movie?
Yes, a lot. It is an audio book and need to be 'read' many times.
Will I recommend it to others?
Definitely to anyone.
Is there any pseudo-science involed?
Read and educate yourself. Verify by your own experience whenever you can. Even if intelligence can drop from the sky, you need to lift your hands to receive it. So get plenty and be happy!
 What the (Bleep) Were they Thinking?!? October 27, 2005
E. M. Hodge (Virginia Beach, VA)
348 out of 415 found this review helpful
This movie is a perfect example of what Nobel Prize Winner Murray Gell-Mann calls "Quantum Flapdoodle", i.e. an attempt to use Quantum Theory to support a metaphysical, even mystical, view of the world. This is often the result of confusing Quantum Theory with the interpretation of Quantum Theory. The premise of the movie seems to be to prove that we create our own reality through the observation of it. What follows is a lengthy pseudo-scientific explanation of specific elements of Quantum Theory placed in a light that supports a distorted mystical view.
One of the first and most glaringly aggravating points about this movie is the editing. Many of the physicists in this movie were filmed for hours explaining Quantum Theory and the mechanics behind it, but only select pieces of the footage were used out of context to make it seem as if these experts were supporting a mystical world view, when in fact they almost universally scoff at it. Coupled with that is the fact that many of these "experts" actually have no physics credentials, Quantum or otherwise.
But what about the science, you ask. Unfortunately, the science in this movie is abysmal. First, as mentioned before, they confuse the theory with the interpretation. This is simply because they advocate the "observation is reality" idea, which isn't part of the theory. For a theory to be considered scientifically valid, it must be provable or disprovable. Observation creating reality cannot be disproved simply because it would require an observer to validate, which would then invalidate the "theory". So from the beginning we have a faulty basis for science.
Following that, the movie then cites its "proof", which is also scientifically invalid. The first was the popular fable that when Columbus arrived in North America that the natives could see "the ripples in the water" but couldn't see the ships. Nowhere in the movie does it state that this is a fable... its actually presented as literal fact (though I should note it isn't implicitly stated in the film that this is a fact, it is certainly implied). This example fails to hold up to scientific standards for various reasons. First, its hearsay. There aren't any written records or verifiable evidence supporting the story. Its a legend, pure and simple, and as such proves nothing. Second, it fails entertain the more logical reasons, such as the ripples appearing in the water before the ships had actually arrived, a distinctly logical conclusion.
The second example illustrated the "Maharisi Effect". For those unfamiliar with the experiment, in 1993 four-thousand people practiced trancsendental meditation in an attempt to lower the crime rate in Washington DC. After the "experiment", the data was analyzed, tweaked and otherwise manipulated to reveal, amazingly, that violent crime was down 18% (though the film claims 25). This was viewed as proof of the power of group meditation and positive thinking. Sadly, this example also fails to satisfy the rigorous criteria of science. First, there was no control group, and as such no way of knowing what the crime rate would have been without the meditation. This implies that the lowered crime rate could be the result of several, unrelated factors. Also, the crime rate was only 18% lower than what was predicted by analysis of previous criminal trends in the area. Violent crime increased from the previous year, just not as much as was expected by experts. Second, the murder rate during this time actually increased, so while violent crime as a whole increased less than was predicted, more murders were being commited during this time than were predicted. Thirdly, the panel who reviewed the data created by this experiment were followers of the Maharisi and could not be counted as impartial, non-biased observers.
The third piece of "proof" supplied is Dr. Emoto's famous Water Tests in which he tapes words to containers of water and freezes them into crystals that, supposedly, create beautiful images when nice words like "love" and "thank you" are taped to them and horrible, ugly images when mean words like "I hate you" and "I want to kill you" are used. These words were tried in several languages and sometimes images are used as well. Unfortunately, Dr. Emoto's amazing work has never been independently recreated in a scientific setting. In fact, the James Randi Educational Foundation has offered a $1,000,000 prize to Dr. Emoto if his data can pass a double blind test, a prize which he has refused to even attempt to claim.
After this there is a long discussion about cellular peptides and how these are responsible for all observation, emotion and, in essence, reality. This was the only part of the movie that had some sound basis in reality and could be backed up with science. It is 100% true that the chemical processes in our brains can vastly effect how we view reality, which is the basis of psychiatric pharmocology. The movie then moves on to use this as proof of the power of positive thinking, i.e. "Our brains control how we view reality so we don't need mind-altering medications to be happy!" Yay! Except when there's something wrong with our brain and those chemicals are out of balance. I'd like to see somebody tell Charles Manson that all his insanity could be cured by the power of positive thinking!
The final straw that breaks this movie's proverbial back is the inclusion of Ramtha, the 35,000 year old Atlantian warrior spirit brought to us courtesy of a Tacoma housewife named JZ Knight (his "channel" in New Age circles). In a thick, Hollywood-esque Eastern European accent, Ramtha tells us about the wonders of Quantum Physics and how it is the first science to even come close to explaining magic and miracles. Okay... I don't even know where to begin with this. First of all, if this is a movie about science, why are they including the claims of a New Age cult leader who can't be verified one way or another. Also, what are this person's credentials. If its just JZ Knight pretending to be some ancient Atlantian, does she have a Quantum Physics background? Second, if she IS some ancient Atlantian warrior, what are HIS Quantum Physics credentials (which could be easily verified with a series of Doctorate level tests)?
Of course, her/his authority is never questioned, and there's a reason. It took a little digging to find, but the vast majority of the people involved in making this film are followers of Ramtha. When this came to light, I was flabbergasted. The fact that most of the movies views fall right in line with her group's New Age philosophy puts an entirely new spin on the movie. Suddenly this looks like nothing but one, big recruitment piece for Ramtha.
I gave this movie one star because it does one good thing: It gets people thinking about Quantum Physics and reality. Some people who see this movie might be interested to dig deeper into the actual science and check out John Gribbin's excellent series of books about Quantum Physics for the layman. I recommend "In Search of Schrondinger's Cat" most highly.
As Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics", and that sums up the major problem with this movie. It provides a view of quantum mechanics that is absurdly simple and abysmally unscientific. The beauty of particle physics is magical in and of itself, it doesn't need to be married to philosophy and New Age metaphysics to be amazing.
Pure Bunk September 12, 2004
Mike Blaszczak (Mercer Island, WA, USA)
203 out of 323 found this review helpful
Over my vacation last year, I listened to an audio book of lectures by Richard Feynman called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". The lectures left me charged with passion about science. One of the most memorable portions of the lectures involved Feynman wondering why so few people saw the beauty of science deeply enough to use it in art.
After all, there are many paintings of people or nature, showing their beauty. Why not tell the stories of scientists and their exciting discoveries? Why not show the beauty of mathematics in an interesting, fictional story?
When I saw the posters for What the #$*! Do We Know (which I'll call WT#DWK for brevity), I was very excited. I thought it would be such a movie, that would demonstrate the passions we can feel around science. I hadn't heard of the title before, and didn't know the origin of the movie until I researched it after leaving.
Before you spend time or money on it, you should know that the movie was directed by a bunch of new-agers who run a cult. J. Z. Knight runs "Ramtha's School of Enlightment" in Yelm, Washington. She claims to channel an ancient warrior from Lemuria (now present-day Monglia) who lived more than thirty thousand years ago.
This woman believes and preaches falsehoods and executes irresponsible practices. Statements like: "It's just a fact that we use less than a tenth of our brain," and stories of trusting her child's healthcare to a vision she had during an out of body experience are the brunt of her website.
Had I this background before paying for my tickets, I would have been prepared. Instead, I had my lofty hopes for a science-focused movie and I was, instead, profoundly disappointed. This movie is absolute tripe.
The first thing that struck me was the vast inductive leaps the movie made. The movie examines some simple observations, such as the behaviour of a molecule. And it inductively rides those into saying that people, after all, must behave the same way. No connection is made; no explanation for _why_ we should believe that people behave like molecules. We're just expected to believe it. The movie saddles up this fallacy and rides it into town; if people behave like molecules, then all laws of physics that apply to matter must have analogous laws which apply to people, right?
Other phenomenon are treated as if they're unquestionable facts, as if they're every-day occurrences. Global conciousness, for example.
Particles can't be in two places at once. Quantum physics tells us that we're sometimes not sure where they are, but current thinking tells us that matter only occupies one space at an instant.
And so on.
I really loved some of the anmiations and graphics, which showed physical phenomenon in a very lear and approachable way. Why not spend this kind of money on making graphics for students and teachers?
This kind of inductive cultism scares the pants off of me. It was all I could do to not leave the theater; I tried to follow the movie and give it a chance, but I was vastly disappointed. I know that a lot of people believe that there's something more out there; I do too, sometimes. But the way this movie uses tangible science to justify such profoundly unsupported conclusions leaves me cold.
Proof by analogy means nothing, and neither does this film.
Sadly there is no negative stars option. February 27, 2007
Julian Cook (Everywhere)
130 out of 154 found this review helpful
A previous reviewer quoted it best....(requoted to bring it back to the top)
Factual errors:
The movie states humans are "90% water" when in fact newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55% ... and that's just the beginning.
About the film's "Experts"
As the purported experts speak throughout the movie, they make several references to concepts, ideas, and alleged facts about quantum physics and other specific items. However, few of the scientists involved are actually professional physicists doing research in quantum mechanics, and one of those, David Albert who does such research has complained that his views were deliberately misrepresented.
The ideas and theories presented are based upon the beliefs of JZ Knight/Ramtha, who appears frequently in the film as a scientist or spiritual teacher. By the end of the film, during the credits, she is identified as the spirit "Ramtha" who is being "channeled" by "JZ Knight.". Knight was born Judith Darlene Hampton in Roswell, New Mexico. The spirit, Ramtha, whom she claims to channel, is "a 35,000 year-old warrior spirit from the lost continent of Lemuria and one of the Ascended Masters." (Knight speaks with an accent because English is not Ramtha's first language.)
John Hagelin was the head of the 1993 Transcendental Meditation project in Washington, D.C. (The Washington TM study was mentioned in the film, but Hagelin was never identified as one of its authors.) He was awarded an Ig Nobel Prize, which is a parody offered by real Nobel prizewinners, for the most ridiculous theories. Organized by the scientific humor journal Annals of Improbable Research (AIR), they are presented by genuine Nobel Laureates at a ceremony at Harvard University is for "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced", i.e., for pseudoscience, for this project.
David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, speaks frequently throughout the movie. While it may appear as though he supports the ideas that are presented in the movie, according to a Popular Science article, he is "outraged at the final product." The article states that Albert granted the filmmakers a near-four hour interview about quantum mechanics being unrelated to consciousness or spirituality. His interview was then edited and incorporated into the film in a way that he claims misrepresented his views. In the article, Albert also expresses his feelings of gullibility after having been "taken" by the filmmakers. Although Albert is listed as a scientist taking part in the sequel to What the Bleep, called "Down the Rabbit Hole", this sequel is a "director's cut", composed of extra footage from the filming of the first movie.
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is a teacher at Ramtha's School of Enlightenment as is Amit Goswami, Mgr. Miceal Ledwith, and JZ Knight, who channels the Ramtha warrior spirit.
People quoted in this movie do not even attempt to explain precisely how the theory of quantum mechanics actually proves any of the mystical or religious teachings found in the film. Statements from physicists are made, then they are intercut with statements from people who have created their own religion, medical doctors, and others. No logical proof connecting the findings of Quantum Mechanics(QM) with the movie's core message is offered.
Bob Colwell, who was Intel Chief Architect for pentium 2,3 and 4,and who presumably knows a lot about quantum physics, wrote a review of the film for "Computer" Magazine. A brief excerpt:
"One particular interviewee kept reappearing, and I couldn't make heads or tails out of what she said. Eerily she was precisely mimicking the physicists intonations, facial expressions, and utter confidence, but to me she was speaking utter gibberish. It suddenly dawned on me : She wasn't a physicist- She was some kind of New Age mystic who had borrowed the physicists' language and was happily doing free associations between quantum physics and her personal religious beliefs."
A Complete Collage Of Crap April 9, 2005
Ted Dunning
93 out of 114 found this review helpful
See this movie, and behold the face of horror! I give this film five stars because it is a great horror movie. This movie kept me on the edge of my seat. I yawned through "The Exorcist." "Blair Witch" just gave me a headache, but "What the Bleep," this movie... my dear Lord, the horror!
But Seriously...
Remember back in college, being wasted, sitting on a couch in a corner of some Friday night college-town keg party, gripping the arm of the sofa to keep the room from spinning, but you can't block out the insipid "conversation" of the 24 year old (male) graduate student and the two cheesecake muffin-head 19 year old freshmen chicks (both 19ish) who are sharing the opposite end of the couch, and he's going off on some tangent about the brain and quantum this-and-that and the girls are nodding and agreeing and occasionally interjecting things like "Oh yeah, that's so RANDOM!" and all that tittering that passes for dialog foreplay and it just makes you want to smack them, then barf...
This movie is all that and worse.
I don't know where to begin explaining on how many levels this movie fails, is amateurish, transparent, and jaw-droppingly simple. But I'll try.
The casual viewer, or even the discriminating viewer who bothers to watch the final credits, would not be blamed for failing to realize that this a propaganda piece... nay, a publicity kit in movie form, for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. One must spend a few minutes Googling this quagmire to learn that. Every one - EVERY ONE - of the talking heads in this film is shown without credits, curriculum vitae, title, nothing. At the end, in the credits, we see some sketchy resumes.
Go online (http://whatthebleep.com/scientists/) and you will see that each of the people portrayed as uncredentialed experts in this film are ALL shills for the Institute for Noetic Sciences, which itself is a front for a woman named J.Z. Knight who, although having a name more suited to that of an east coast rapper, is the current physical embodiment of an Atlantean warrior, some 35000 years old, named Ramtha. Naturally...
And I can't help but forget to point out that the hand-wringing chiropractor so often featured as a talking head in this film, one "Doctor" Joseph Dispenza, utters the word "mediocricy" which is, in fact, not a word. At least not in English. I assume he meant "mediocrity." He was speaking to the subject of how we empower and enrich our lives through positive thought and visualization, and that he sees so much evidence in his day-to-day life that reinforces the fact that what he believes and thinks manifests itself in his reality. Apparently, he doesn't visualize proper diction and grammar.
To call the followers of Ramtha and the Institute for Noetic Sciences a cult would be to do a disservice to genuine hardworking cult members. I have absolutely no use for these people and their tripe. At its best, "What the Bleep" is a distilled, dumbed-down version of a few really good episodes of PBS's "Nova" and at its worst (which is most of the time) it is pretentious infomercial drivel dressed up as hifalutin' philosophy.
People who see this and say "It really makes you think" or "That is SO right on" are not nearly as smart as they want to be.
This movie is probably the "Celestine Prophecy" for this decade. I take comfort in the knowledge that foolishness of this kind is nothing new. But it is cold comfort.
Sigh...
|
|
|
We'll be adding even more exciting features to assist you in the coming year.
Thank you for shopping at the Depot.com online shopping depot.
©2008 Depot.com | |
