|
What the Bleep Do We Know!? |  | Directors: Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente, William Arntz
Actors: Marlee Matlin, Elaine Hendrix, John Ross Bowie, Robert Bailey Jr., Barry Newman
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy New: $12.99
as of 9/3/2010 03:23 CDT details
You Save: $1.99 (13%)
New (41) from $6.91
Seller: Amazon.com
Rating:  1308 reviews
Sales Rank: 589
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, Full Screen, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Languages: English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language), German (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Region: 1
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Running Time: 109 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.7
MPN: FOXD2227089D
UPC: 024543170884
EAN: 0024543170884
ASIN: B0006UEVQ8
Theatrical Release Date: 2004
Release Date: March 15, 2005
Shipping: Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| | |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Explores human perception, quantum uncertainty and life at a cellular and mollecular level through the eyes of a jaded divorced photographer who begins to question the reality of her existence.
No Track Information Available
Media Type: DVD
Artist: MATLIN,MARLEE
Title: WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW
Street Release Date: 10/11/2005
Domestic
Genre: DOCUMENTARY
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
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 25
 I can't understand how anyone could try to discredit this movie! August 22, 2010
VikG
This entire film is pure fact. I can understand the disbelief about the indian chief bit, but it is a story merely to help further implant the idea they are trying to explain. Aside from this, everything has been proven hundreds of times. This is a very inspirational film backed by proven scientific facts. This movie has the ability to change someone's life in one sitting. I couldn't count how many times I have seen this movie yet its still seems new every time I watch it. Highly recommended!
 Real Gems Among the Quantum Flapdoodle August 22, 2010
JerzeyBird
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.
fascinated August 17, 2010
Mary P. Molander-scull (Marin County, CA)
Fascinating movie for anyone interested/open to the theory of quantum physics. I was very struck when the main character turned her thinking from self-loathing to appreciating and loving life.
Though this movie is not for everyone (my husband left the room saying he was bored), it is a fun resource for the seekers and those of us looking for a alternative ways to look at the our destiny.
 BORING August 5, 2010
JANET (TEXAS)
So very sad that this wasn't more exciting. I'm glad I rented it instead of purchasing. Its too bad...I was looking forward to an interesting film on the subject.
Shallow - Disappointed July 28, 2010
Georg Rauh (carpentersville, Illinois United States)
Watched this since i heard many good things about this.
The whole movie can be summed up as:
"Quantum Theory is 'really cool' - because this means we can create our own reality."
The movie is nothing more than a constant repeat of this mantra - there is no depth to it and and you wont get any new "insights" beyond the statement "We create our own reality". Let alone that quantum physics and whatever comes with it is seen in more scientific light.
The movie rather seems to be some kind of "feel good" movie based on the wonders of quantum physics - however, also from a philosophical point of view the movie stays very, very shallow.
What i also found very odd is that we see a bunch of people interviewed, each of them stating their amazement upon this "exciting new quantum physics and what it means for our reality" - however i have NOT the slightest idea who those people are. Are those scientists, philosophers or simply new age people?
I have participated in online discussions which had more depth and which were more interesting than this movie.
I think the movie is only interesting for people who never heard about quantum physics and its philosophical ramifications...but it is far too shallow if you really become interested in that subject and want to know more. What has been said in the movie could have been fit into a 10 min clip - the movie NEVER goes beyond those basic ideas. Sad. I hope the second movie is better.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 25
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.
 
| |
