| |||||||||||||||||||||
Save now on popular classic TV favorites such as Charlies Angels, Sanford and Son, Soap and many more. Offer ends May 31, 2013. |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
- Filmmakers' Q&A
- Interview clips with Will Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente, Marlee Matlin, John Ross Bowie, Elaine Hendrix, and Robert Bailey Jr.
- Aeon Spoke "Emmanuel" music video
- Theatrical trailer
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
Product 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
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
219 of 234 people found the following review helpful
By JerzeyBird
Format:DVD
I saw What the Bleep many years ago and recently viewed this extended version. Most of the reviews here fall generally into two categories; those who are searching for and finding herein a confirmation for the notion that it's super cool that we create our own reality, and those who take up the "real science" camp position or who may have a more refined understanding of quantum physics and know that the application of quantum mechanics to consciousness is still possibly quite the quantum leap. Unfortunately, this latter group suffers from much of the same extreme thinking as the former group; the former not engaging in enough critical thinking, and the latter claiming that it's all pseudoscience by non-scientists. Neither of these extremes is anywhere near accurate.
For me, there were some real gems in this movie. The cartoon demonstration with Dr. Quantum of the double slit experiments was the best description I've ever seen of them. I wish something this amenable to common sense was available to me any of the many times I had to suffer through abstract explanations of this model in school. In fact, I think that the film makers should rent/license this segment of the film to universities. Once students gain this common sense understanding of these experiments, then the math of it becomes easy. This appreciation goes doubly for the great graphics explanations of neural networks and the neurochemical feedback from the cells demanding satiation [and who doesn't love a Polish wedding]. This is a reasonable and literature supported model of cognition and addiction that is presented here in a way that is completely accessible and very well done. I have often referred people in my care to this segment of What the Bleep? because it's such a great explanation of neural networks and the relationships among brain, belief and behavior, and I feel it's handled even better in this extended edition of the film. My best friend, an academic physicist, said to me a couple of decades ago that science is completely amenable to common sense understanding. We all interact with science all day long in every common thing we do. If someone can't understand science it's because the scientist has failed to properly explain it. I have found this to be absolutely true as it relates to my field of biology. These two demonstrations in this film are excellent teachings of REAL science.
I'm one who bristles regularly at the new agers around me who chirp on about quantum physics and yet wouldn't know Schrodingers cat if it threw up a hairball on them. But I take even more exception to the critics writing here who dismiss everyone in the film as pseudo scientists, or non-scientists, with the exception of the real scientists who supposedly all complained about being misrepresented in the film. Really? Candace Pert is not a real scientist? She was only the director of an NIH lab and discovered the enkaphalin [opiate] receptor. Amit Goswami? He was only a distinguished professor of quantum mechanics for three decades, and wrote two text books [one used on the graduate level] on quantum mechanics. Just because these have retired from their establishment positions doesn't detract from their entire lifetime of experience as scientists, and people who have said such things as "not currently earning a paycheck in a scientific job" as a credible critique of their appearance are merely taking cheap shots. I guess Einstein's not a real scientist either because he's so retired he's dead. Stuart Hameroff? Are you kidding me? This guy is *currently* testing a hypothesis that the collapse of the wave function occurs in the cytoskeletal proteins of the neural microtubules, and therefore, that consciousness *is* the collapse of the wave and it occurs in these brain structures. This hypothesis is co-authored by Roger Penrose for heaven's sake, the all but sainted Oxford mathematician and physicist, and the math of it - especially the temperature issue, is currently being duked out in those circles. The Google corporation is sponsoring a meeting on their campus this coming October [2010] on this very issue of robust quantum effects in warm biological systems, at which Hameroff will participate. This is a truly hot topic in neurology right now, developed by Hameroff's decades of experience as a physician and anaesthesiologist. In the film he articulates very reasonable ideas about the interface between quantum effects and brain microarchitecture.
All the bruhaha in these comments about the real scientists all complaining about their appearances is false. Yes, David Albert complained about his appearance, but both Pert and Goswami list their appearances on their websites. Hameroff, in answering a critical review of the movie in Scientific American, told people to lighten up because entertainment often opens minds to new ideas. And it is also a false claim made here that many of the presenters in the movie are affiliated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment [the film makers are RSE affiliated]. Only Joe Dispenza seems to have an actual relationship to RSE, which is unfortunate because he's a smart guy who well articulates brain learning systems. Others, such as Goswami and Hagelin have been invited speakers at RSE but are not otherwise involved. An ex-student of RSE, a neuroscientist, invited them to speak when he was with the school, but as he discusses in a film clip on Factnet dot org, none ever joined or taught there. IMO, the problem with the "science camp" reviewers here is that they can't curb their dogma long enough to remember that all the current scientific ideas once came from people thinking way outside the box, and that this is exactly how science moves forward. Scientists are often not afraid of exchanging ideas with others who challenge their assumptions about reality, and in doing so, a scientist does not lose credibility. These scientists have not lost their credibility just because they have exchanged thoughts in a public way with meditators, or disembodied entities or other scientists who are attempting to apply the experimental method to psychic phenomenon. The ideas about consciousness as a quantum phenomena pondered in this movie are deeply provocative, not just to new agers. Listen to Roger Penrose in the movie A Brief History of Time based on Hawking's work; he ponders this relationship between quantum findings and consciousness. So our BEST scientific thinkers think about these things and feel there is a worthy connection.
As for the Ramtha issue, well yeah, that's big time problematic for me. It's not even so much the channeling of a disembodied entity, but there's just so much information about JZ Knight being such a scam and RSE being a truly abusive cult that it fatally burdens this film with baggage making it too difficult to define the film as a documentary. Although it is not true as claimed here that the film can then be deconstructed to be little more than a support for her cult's views because we hear nothing in the film of some of RSE's teachings that evil lizard aliens will come and defeat our world and that only her initiates will survive because they've tunneled into copper-lined caves where the lizard aliens cannot find them. My main problem with the film is that I take huge exception with the conflation made by the movie's premise that consciousness as a quantum event means that science and spirituality have met, which is obviously the whole sell of the movie. There is absolutely nothing necessarily spiritual about any of this, even if it is shown that consciousness is a quantum event, even if it is shown that consciousness is the observer and can influence the eventual collapse of superposition and that it is the mechanism through which entanglement unfolds. If these things prove true, it means that the brain is awesome which still has nothing to do with left over church fables about a god or about a spirit.
For me, there were some real gems in this movie. The cartoon demonstration with Dr. Quantum of the double slit experiments was the best description I've ever seen of them. I wish something this amenable to common sense was available to me any of the many times I had to suffer through abstract explanations of this model in school. In fact, I think that the film makers should rent/license this segment of the film to universities. Once students gain this common sense understanding of these experiments, then the math of it becomes easy. This appreciation goes doubly for the great graphics explanations of neural networks and the neurochemical feedback from the cells demanding satiation [and who doesn't love a Polish wedding]. This is a reasonable and literature supported model of cognition and addiction that is presented here in a way that is completely accessible and very well done. I have often referred people in my care to this segment of What the Bleep? because it's such a great explanation of neural networks and the relationships among brain, belief and behavior, and I feel it's handled even better in this extended edition of the film. My best friend, an academic physicist, said to me a couple of decades ago that science is completely amenable to common sense understanding. We all interact with science all day long in every common thing we do. If someone can't understand science it's because the scientist has failed to properly explain it. I have found this to be absolutely true as it relates to my field of biology. These two demonstrations in this film are excellent teachings of REAL science.
I'm one who bristles regularly at the new agers around me who chirp on about quantum physics and yet wouldn't know Schrodingers cat if it threw up a hairball on them. But I take even more exception to the critics writing here who dismiss everyone in the film as pseudo scientists, or non-scientists, with the exception of the real scientists who supposedly all complained about being misrepresented in the film. Really? Candace Pert is not a real scientist? She was only the director of an NIH lab and discovered the enkaphalin [opiate] receptor. Amit Goswami? He was only a distinguished professor of quantum mechanics for three decades, and wrote two text books [one used on the graduate level] on quantum mechanics. Just because these have retired from their establishment positions doesn't detract from their entire lifetime of experience as scientists, and people who have said such things as "not currently earning a paycheck in a scientific job" as a credible critique of their appearance are merely taking cheap shots. I guess Einstein's not a real scientist either because he's so retired he's dead. Stuart Hameroff? Are you kidding me? This guy is *currently* testing a hypothesis that the collapse of the wave function occurs in the cytoskeletal proteins of the neural microtubules, and therefore, that consciousness *is* the collapse of the wave and it occurs in these brain structures. This hypothesis is co-authored by Roger Penrose for heaven's sake, the all but sainted Oxford mathematician and physicist, and the math of it - especially the temperature issue, is currently being duked out in those circles. The Google corporation is sponsoring a meeting on their campus this coming October [2010] on this very issue of robust quantum effects in warm biological systems, at which Hameroff will participate. This is a truly hot topic in neurology right now, developed by Hameroff's decades of experience as a physician and anaesthesiologist. In the film he articulates very reasonable ideas about the interface between quantum effects and brain microarchitecture.
All the bruhaha in these comments about the real scientists all complaining about their appearances is false. Yes, David Albert complained about his appearance, but both Pert and Goswami list their appearances on their websites. Hameroff, in answering a critical review of the movie in Scientific American, told people to lighten up because entertainment often opens minds to new ideas. And it is also a false claim made here that many of the presenters in the movie are affiliated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment [the film makers are RSE affiliated]. Only Joe Dispenza seems to have an actual relationship to RSE, which is unfortunate because he's a smart guy who well articulates brain learning systems. Others, such as Goswami and Hagelin have been invited speakers at RSE but are not otherwise involved. An ex-student of RSE, a neuroscientist, invited them to speak when he was with the school, but as he discusses in a film clip on Factnet dot org, none ever joined or taught there. IMO, the problem with the "science camp" reviewers here is that they can't curb their dogma long enough to remember that all the current scientific ideas once came from people thinking way outside the box, and that this is exactly how science moves forward. Scientists are often not afraid of exchanging ideas with others who challenge their assumptions about reality, and in doing so, a scientist does not lose credibility. These scientists have not lost their credibility just because they have exchanged thoughts in a public way with meditators, or disembodied entities or other scientists who are attempting to apply the experimental method to psychic phenomenon. The ideas about consciousness as a quantum phenomena pondered in this movie are deeply provocative, not just to new agers. Listen to Roger Penrose in the movie A Brief History of Time based on Hawking's work; he ponders this relationship between quantum findings and consciousness. So our BEST scientific thinkers think about these things and feel there is a worthy connection.
As for the Ramtha issue, well yeah, that's big time problematic for me. It's not even so much the channeling of a disembodied entity, but there's just so much information about JZ Knight being such a scam and RSE being a truly abusive cult that it fatally burdens this film with baggage making it too difficult to define the film as a documentary. Although it is not true as claimed here that the film can then be deconstructed to be little more than a support for her cult's views because we hear nothing in the film of some of RSE's teachings that evil lizard aliens will come and defeat our world and that only her initiates will survive because they've tunneled into copper-lined caves where the lizard aliens cannot find them. My main problem with the film is that I take huge exception with the conflation made by the movie's premise that consciousness as a quantum event means that science and spirituality have met, which is obviously the whole sell of the movie. There is absolutely nothing necessarily spiritual about any of this, even if it is shown that consciousness is a quantum event, even if it is shown that consciousness is the observer and can influence the eventual collapse of superposition and that it is the mechanism through which entanglement unfolds. If these things prove true, it means that the brain is awesome which still has nothing to do with left over church fables about a god or about a spirit.
120 of 130 people found the following review helpful
By Friend
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
This revised edition contains most of what was in the first edition, however it seems to have been put together in a more coherent and understandable format. Additional interviews and animations were added to accomplish this. If you are interested in learning about quantum physics, and dramatically increasing your understanding of reality, this is an entertaining way to do so. However, it should be mentioned that the information is presented in a very rapid manner, for the most part. For the average person, it may take several viewings to be able to adequately comprehend some of the concepts that are being discussed.
Plus as a bonus, DVDs #2 and 3 contain an unedited version of the movie, which is about 5 hours of information, about half of which is in the edited version. There is a feature that allows you to turn off the "drama" sequences which is nice. There is also a random generator feature that switches around the order of the information, I think. I didn't try this feature because the original layout has been ordered in a coherent manner, and I believe it would make it difficult to follow the content if it weren't done like this, but I can't say for sure. I still have yet to watch the 6+ hours of interviews that are contained on the reverse side of the 3 DVDs. Anyways great movie! I always feel empowered after watching it.
Plus as a bonus, DVDs #2 and 3 contain an unedited version of the movie, which is about 5 hours of information, about half of which is in the edited version. There is a feature that allows you to turn off the "drama" sequences which is nice. There is also a random generator feature that switches around the order of the information, I think. I didn't try this feature because the original layout has been ordered in a coherent manner, and I believe it would make it difficult to follow the content if it weren't done like this, but I can't say for sure. I still have yet to watch the 6+ hours of interviews that are contained on the reverse side of the 3 DVDs. Anyways great movie! I always feel empowered after watching it.
95 of 107 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
Oh, get off it! This is a light-hearted, thought-provoking and exploratory movie that accomplishes what it sets out to do. It is provacative and downright funny at times and makes its point concisely and clearly. Just because it doesn't "fit", viewers seem to pan this movie - frankly, I am surprised. I found it a highly interesting blend between information and entertainment and I recommend it for anyone open to that. If you are not open to a non-standard movie, or if the quasi-science disturbs you, then this is not the movie for you. However, I must say, this has prompted much conversation among friends, community, my wife and myself, and is a gesturally important movie that ought to be considered by the intellectually/emotionally open crowd. Frankly, I believe in the cellular and energetic effects we have on the world around us - without being too froo-froo, I have seen it apply again and again in my own life.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Love This!
Perfect movie to open up your mind and start your spiritual journey. Awaken your soul and enjoy the ride down the rabbit hole.
Published 11 days ago by Mizchvus
4.0 out of 5 stars
I want MORE...
Because I have studied and practiced in the paranormal field for many years, I was happy to see a film like this. Read more
Published 15 days ago by Connie S. Stewart
5.0 out of 5 stars
awesome
Very interesting enjoyed it! people should watch this, it will open their eyes to life, brougth up interesting ideas and concepts
Published 17 days ago by Roxanne R. Goin
1.0 out of 5 stars
New Age Bologna
This is the worst DVD I've watched since The Secret. I can't abide the drivel which is espoused to portray intelligence.
Published 1 month ago by Thomas R Jackson
5.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting
Interesting DVD. Some things were over my head. Had to watch twice to understand parts. Makes you think about life
Published 1 month ago by Jan
5.0 out of 5 stars
changed my life!
It is difficult to explain this movie, because anything I say will sound strange until you watch it (actually even then it will still sound strange). Read more
Published 1 month ago by Jane
5.0 out of 5 stars
Love it
Love the video. I use it in addiction recovery group therapy sessions to teach people how to get high without drugs.
Published 1 month ago by goldenskyhook
5.0 out of 5 stars
Satisfied
I would recommend this product to everyone who have interest in it. I did not had time to watch this one yet, but I know about it since 2004 and have had 3 since there, always... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Gabriela Borba Bezerra de Araujo
5.0 out of 5 stars
What the Bleep Do We Know
The dvd was in great shape, so the product that was used was truly "like new" and much cheaper than a new one. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Roberta Donnenwirth
5.0 out of 5 stars
Super transaction
I ordered this DVD because I have owned and given it away several times. I watch it 3 to 4 times per year. So many good points to remember. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Catherine
Look for Similar Items by Category
|
