Customer Reviews


1,537 Reviews
5 star:
 (761)
4 star:
 (182)
3 star:
 (107)
2 star:
 (104)
1 star:
 (383)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


140 of 156 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Much better than the original
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...
Published on April 5, 2007 by Friend

versus
297 of 321 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Real Gems Among the Quantum Flapdoodle
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...
Published on August 22, 2010 by JerzeyBird


‹ Previous | 1 2154 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

297 of 321 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Real Gems Among the Quantum Flapdoodle, August 22, 2010
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


140 of 156 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Much better than the original, April 5, 2007
By 
Friend (Long Beach, CA USA) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


111 of 129 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars What's with all the one star reviews?!, September 28, 2006
By 
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


17 of 18 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Trying to See Both Sides of the Quantum Field, May 6, 2005
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
First of all, couldn't they have titled the film something like "What do we really know?" Or like, "We just don't know nothing do we"--anything really, without that bleep. That bleep doesn't help things. But, then again, there is this forceful geekiness to this whole project, it is just so uncool in so many ways, kind of like seeing your parents try to wear low-cut designer jeans, that it almost becomes appealing, because how could anything truly evil and cultish really come off so silly?

As entertainment, this film scores points with me because it is just so astoundingly weird. It has created a new genre, as far as I am concerned: New Age Camp. Because that is exactly what it is. These awkward plotlines, the badly animated sequences involving amino acids, and cells that look like gummy bears, as if Fellini had directed some sort of acid-tinged toothpaste commercial, that kid with his basketballs that kind of has you wishing you really could cross over into a parallel universe just so you can kick him in the head, Marlee Matlin scowling at everyone, bowing under the weight of her oversized camera, and yes, JZ Knight, a woman who claims to be channeling a 35,000 year old sage...I mean, how could you NOT LIKE THIS?!!? It's AMAZING!

Now, look. I'm no dummy. I am sure this movie was indeed financed and created by members of a cult (The Ramtha School of Enlightenment, applications now being accepted!) but who cares really. What it has to say may not lack a shred of empirical evidence, but there's something so innocent about it, so fascinating in its use or misuse of of scientific ideas and theories, that I would say even to the most downtrodden cynic, that this film is worth checking out. And hey, if the concepts being bandied about mean something to you, then I feel that is valid, and if they don't, that too is also valid. I think it depends on the person.

The film is a pseudo-documentary that crosses Quantum Mechanics with some New Age theories in order to demonstrate that we may not fully realize our own reality. It isn't entirely successful in this respect, but then again, it can't be so easily dismissed either, and doesn't deserve some of the vitriol it's been getting on this site. There is also a sort-of-plot that wraps around these theories, that is meant to demonstrate the discission by showing an unhappy woman's cathartic realizations about herself and her reality. The core of her unfulfilled existence, really. This woman is played by Marlee Matlin, perhaps the first woman in cinema to use physics in order to feel better about her thighs.

There are various scientists interviewed who speak about how one can control one's destiny through the power of thought. In the end, you may be somewhat disappointed by the identities of some of these "experts", but then again, I think one is meant to detatch as much as possible, and absorb on a visceral level. That is why, I think, their resumes are reserved for the end credits. Once again, if these ideas affect you, then that's valid I think.

The power of positive thinking... An interesting idea, very popular in the Self-Help section of bookstores, but to inject all that with Quantum Theory, is at once both sort of insane, and kind of beautiful. I mean, just try it...Right? Has anyone who has lambasted this movie ever just tried to use some of these ideas in their day-to-day lives and see if it made a difference for them? Maybe it will. Maybe it can. I don't know! But the movie isn't asking for anything more than that (it's not even asking for that) nor does it disguise itself as something it's not. A lot of reviewers seem to imply that, but I disagree, I think it's all about how you, individually, see this movie.

For instance, the bit about the Water Crystals, and how emotional words affect the shape of water. And, therefore, "if thoughts can do that to water, imagine what thoughts could do to each one of us." Now, maybe the movie implies rather strongly that this is a crucial scientific breakthrough. In actuality, Masaru Emoto's work was created as ART, and was never entered into a scientific journal. It was also not a "double blind" experiment; that is, Emoto provided the specimen as well as received the sample for analysis, providing what is known, apparently, as "confirmation bias"--so in effect, it's not a true scientific experiment. It may be presented as such, however you look at it, but the film wants you to absorb these ideas within themselves, and not necessarily seek to prove or disprove them. So in that sense, does it really matter if it's art or science...maybe words can really affect water, and if they can, that's really cool, and what does that mean for us and our consciousness...

The film is shot on location in Portland, Oregon, which looks dreamy and sleepy, and was one of the most fascinating aspects of the film, since I am not familiar with the Pacific Northwest, and didn't know what city all this lunacy was taking place in. I say that lovingly. On a final note, I have discovered an online, up-to-the-minute, self-edited encyclopedia, Wikipedia.org, that for some reason people don't seem to know about. Anyway, on it, they have an intelligent and objective analysis of this film if you want to learn more.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


784 of 987 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars What the (Bleep) Were they Thinking?!?, October 27, 2005
By 
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
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 science it must be disprovable. Observation creating reality cannot be disproven 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. Make no mistake, there are some valid pieces of science to be found in the film, but on the whole the representation of Quantum Physics is ridiculously distorted into some pseudo-scientific new age cult mysticism. 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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


124 of 155 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Why the bleep?, September 20, 2006
By 
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
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 pysics and her personal religious beliefs."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


183 of 231 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Sadly there is no negative stars option., February 26, 2007
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
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."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


125 of 157 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Disappointing! Don't be fooled!, April 4, 2005
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
As a science student, I was extremely excited when I first saw the fliers for "What the Bleep..." Quantum physics illustrates some of the most mysterious and mind-blowing characteristics of our universe and I thought this movie was going to be about Quantum physics.

I would hardly call this a movie about Quantum physics. Full of new age philosophies and "experts" fit for cable access, "What the bleep..." was a huge disappointment. I do not claim to know everything about this topic (as there is so much to learn), but I know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

This movie felt like one long introduction for a movie about Quantum physics--"experts" kept explaining how amazing and weird quantum physics is without ever actually explaining it! There was no mention of the double-slit experiments, Schrödinger's cat, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, etc.

I guess I was expecting something of "Nova" quality and instead, got a bunch of new age hippies talking about "creating your own reality, blah blah."

Perhaps this is a step in the right direction towards science awareness. For future refrence, for people thinking about making a science-themed movie/documentary: the truth is a lot more amazing and weird and mind-blowing than the pseudoscience, not to mention more important.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


21 of 24 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars To call this Sagan-esque is a profound insult to even Carl Sagan, April 30, 2007
By 
B. F. Davis (Simpsonville, SC USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
This thing is so bad, I don't know where to start. But let me try. (I'm sure that in spite of my Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, I'm just being close-minded and all that).

First it completely misapplies the idea of quantum mechanics (e.g. uncertainty, superposition, etc.) These effects occur at the atomic level and below. Even as the so-called "observer", you do not get to change the macroscopic world by simply seeing the universe as you'd like it to be. Reality is still reality, even if our perceptions of it are incorrect. I don't know if the ideas of cellular structure and brain chemistry are presented in an equally incorrect way, but I would suspect so... based on the things that I do know, and how they treated that.

They do no better with history. I don't know how they could possibly get the idea that the Peruvian Indians literally could not see the Spanish ships on the horizon when they arrived in the Americas (ostensibly because it was not a part of their reality)... nor can I find any such story from a credible source after the fact. I've read that they percieved the ships to be raven gods and whatnot, but they sure SAW something in all the accounts I've heard.

And water molecules that change their emotions due to what's written on a piece of tape stuck to their container? Puh-lease! Even if we grant that a molecule is somehow capable of emotion and empathic communication with humans, why would something that's been traveling the planet for the last 4 billion year give a damn about my opinion of it?

Sagan at least tried to keep his facts reasonably straight, and didn't try to degrade the sciences into a new mysticism. The universe is a beautiful and complicated place. Theres no need to embellish on the way it works. Of course, watching a 2 hour movie and thinking happy thoughts about it is a lot easier than actually working to understand what we truly know (and don't know).

I guess the cosmos will have to punish me for being so negative now.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


53 of 65 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Ramtha will see you now; don't forget your checkbook!, April 12, 2005
This review is from: What the Bleep Do We Know!? (DVD)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2154 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

What the Bleep Do We Know!?
What the Bleep Do We Know!? by William Arntz (DVD - 2005)
$24.00
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.