Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

jltdubs-23958 I have always admired Bill Nye--first, for the whacky science guy that got kids engaged in trying to figure out the world. Second, I appreciate what he is trying to do for science. Scientists aren't always the best at conveying their findings in layman's terms, but he (and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and OF COURSE Carl Sagan) is a fabulous science "translator," as well as advocate/ambassador for real science. The claims that he isn't a scientist just blow me away. He IS a scientist. Merriam-Webster defines a scientist as a person who studies, specializes in, or investigates a field of science and does scientific work. He is an engineer and inventor and has contributed to designs of 747 planes and of equipment used to clean up oil spills. He holds 3 patents and has worked with JPL to design and create a sundial and camera calibrator on the Mars Exploration Rover. His understanding of the science of global climate change parallels the 97% consensus of published and peer reviewed climate research. While he is afflicted to a degree with stardom, this movie shows that he couldn't be more serious about science and the desire to spread enlightenment.

tiffanyfloria Bill Nye the science guy was a staple in my youth. If I was home from school, PBS was on and I was watching Bill Nye. He was a part of my inspiration to go on and become involved in science. This documentary takes a personal approach to looking at Bill Nye as a Science Advocate, and less so about the kids science show host. It is about his shift in his role of impact on the world. I feel it is that this documentary is to let the kids who grew up with him, that he is now focusing on us yet again. His goal now is to educate the generation who watched his shows, who have now grown and have families of their own - to be sure that the importance of science, and evidence, and questioning the world around you. So that we, can then make sure to impress that importance to our own children. Well done, and worth watching.

rangergirlie As a kid, I loved watching Bill Nye: the Science Guy in school and developed a love of science that is boundless. This documentary gives you an insight into who Bill Nye, the man, really is, and just how hard he is fighting to keep this world from destroying itself. It's a tiring battle, but someone has to change the world.

u-25699 Growing up outside of the US I never had the pleasure of watching Bill Nye on TV, or in the class room. Instead I had a biology teacher, Mr Andrews. In my first ever lesson with Mr Andrews, he filled a beaker with a highly acidic (pH of 2), solution. He then dunked his finger in the solution, and put it in his mouth. He then asked the class why his mouth wasn't burned. My friend had observed that the finger he dunked in the acid, was not the same as the finger he put in his mouth. While true this was not the correct answer, you see we were asking the wrong question. The question should not have been why his mouth wasn't burnt, but rather why his finger was not burnt? The answer, the liquid was just water.This demonstration really cuts to the core of what makes science special. It is the investigation, the examination of available evidence to come to a conclusion. We assumed that our teacher was trustworthy, but we had no reason to come to this conclusion. We were not acting as scientists, we didn't examine the liquid ourselves. Furthermore, this demonstration shows the power of a leading question. We were asked why his mouth didn't burn, implying that the mouth was significant. We were directed away from the truth.This documentary eloquently shows how not examining evidence, can lead a population to anti-science views. Anti-vaccination, climate change deniers, creationists, all of these ideas require an inability to effectively examine available evidence. They require trust in untrustworthy sources. Like Mr Andrews, Ken Ham and those of his ilk present a beaker of acid, and require that you simply believe that supposition. They use this supposition to build extraordinary claims. In the case of Ken Ham, he uses the supposition that the bible is 100% true to build the claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that evolution is not a fact, that the entire Earth was flooded 4000 years ago. This of course is despite a complete lack of corroborating evidence. Once they accept the supposition any claim can be made. There is no difference between isotopes of mercury, therefore vaccines cause autism.I've never seen a cat turn into a dog, therefore evolution cannot be true.It snowed today, therefore the climate cannot be warming. All these logical fallacies result from the inability to examine the evidence. An inability to understand statistical significance. An inability to question 'trustworthy' sources. In short, an inability to perform effective scientific enquiry.I can't know if Bill Nye's approach is the most effective one. Perhaps debates are pointless because they only bring more attention to extreme views, or perhaps they are effective means of exposing people to new ideas. All I know is that Mr Andrews is the reason why I have a passion for science, and I know that Bill Nye has similarly inspired many. Perhaps documentaries such as this, have the power to change minds, or at least to lead people in the right direction.