Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

intheair1987 It's quite unfair for those who tune in for the science stuff that the latter half of the movie started going "spiritual". It's really exciting for the scientific parts, but I gotta say, you see, science experiments that seem unexplainable are often inconclusive, controversial, debatable, and might later be explainable. For example: the 2 slit experiment. Remember the tiny electrons that got shoot out? As it turns out, they don't emit light. So for scientists to be able to observe it, the observation device (which is presented in the movie as a big eye) shoots out photons somehow to make the electron detectable. So, what collapses the wave function of the electrons to become particles is actually caused by the photons. It's called the observer effect. Something like taking a photo of a man and he closes his eyes because of the flash. Plus, the latter half of the movie is really, really creepy. It's like they were trying to convince you and convert you into some kind of spiritual cult, like a cult gathering or wake-up-now gathering, brainwashing. I am truly disappointed.

Edward Chan Having no prior knowledge about the "what the bleep" series, I picked up this film with the following two assumptions:1) It is an in-depth exposition of quantum mechanic principles and how it relates to everyday life.2) It is *not* an attempt of some obscure occult movement trying to link the "spiritual" and the "physical" worlds.The first 30 minutes or so was a barrage of ideas that may or may not have to do with quantum physics or to each other. Then it got a little more weird ... when they talked about how meditation could influence electronics and crystal growth, and how basketballs can be at one place and everywhere (may work as an example, but not in reality). I started skipping sections after sitting for about an hour. When I heard something about some Atlantic warrior God ... okay, that's too much ... I wonder if the meditation is doing something to my DVD player.I really wonder how they get a line-up of all these doctors and professors. (Okay, one was a priest-turned-physicist, and a couple of them got their degrees at on-line universities). I can only imagine that, the physicists and doctors, at least those who were reputable, were somewhat deceived when they signed in for the interviews.In the end, I felt cheated, to see that, this is nothing more than a propaganda for some new-age occult religious movement, based totally on misrepresented scientific principles. I wish they were a little more up front about their film, or at least put a disclaimer on it, to let the viewers be aware its purpose.In my opinion, the whole film was meant to confuse the viewer with sound bites from all the interviews, while a "message" slowly builds up with the Amanda plot line. The leaders of the cult probably assume that they fan easily manipulate the viewers' intelligence the way they do to their own followers. Sorry, I am not a physicist, but I know enough to say that it is all rubbish.Out of ignorance, incomplete understanding, many of these so-called philosophers and religious practitioners claim that Einstein's theory of general relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are the missing links between the scientific and spiritual world. To quote the words of Prof. Dick Feynman, "as always ... when philosophical ideas associated with sciences are dragged into another field, they are usually completely distorted." Indeed, this film distorts what is quantum physics and the filmmakers feel no qualms about it.

tragicdragon There is an amusing little tale in Flavius Josephus' "Against Apion" about an ancient Egyptian superstition. A Jew is traveling with some Egyptians who suddenly stand still upon the sight of a particular bird descending on a tree. Their belief demands that they stand still as long as the bird remains perched on the tree branch. The bird is supposed to be able to foresee the future. Then the Jew shoots the bird and says: "If this bird can foresee the future, why did it come here, for then it must have known I was going to kill it." I get the same feeling from this film. I generally take an optimistic view and when something appears to be less than positive, go out of my way to find something good in it. So how come I think this film is about the worst example of pseudo-science and pseudo-religion; degrading, misrepresenting and insulting both science and religion if my thoughts influence my perception and reality? The entire film is going nowhere. The opening animation suggests a parody on new age attempts to fuse science and religion in a rather unwholesome way. Then it switches to documentary style. Very soon it becomes clear that the science presented is anything but groundbreaking. The double slit experiment is hardly new. Concepts of science are thrown around without explaining them. I'm not a scientist so I do not know what a Bose-Einstein condensate is and from my scientifically trained friends I heard that Schrödinger equations are difficult to understand even for them. So let's switch to my field of training: theology/psychology. That's when I felt like stopping the DVD in disgust. People are victims because they think they are victims? Try selling that to someone dying of hunger in Darfur! This is anything but spiritual and a very convenient way to avoid responsibility. It goes even further in degrading religion. The old worn out cliché of God as a big daddy up in the sky keeping score and Jezus as big brother placating big daddy for us is brought up again. "Many" Christians believe this, it is said. Well, I sure don't and how many is many anyway? The interpretation of Genesis is even worse. If this is the standard for both religion and science, I can wholeheartedly understand the scientific criticism on this film It's teeming with logical fallacies. So after the snowflake nonsense I was ready to stop watching this film and label it new age baloney and possibly harmful to the uneducated and uncritical. Trying to find some good, I switched to another perspective. Could this be the depiction of the thought processes of a depressed photographer, trying to make sense of life after being hurt in marriage, her mind clouded by negative thoughts and tranquilizers? In the second part of the film it seemed to go that way. But then the film abruptly ends with Dr. Quantum giving a demonstration of "flatlanders". That book was written in the 19th century! Verdict: 3/10 (some of it was amusing) unimaginative, uninspiring, shallow, containing some truths, some half-truths and a lot of unsound thinking, degrading both the glory of science and God. A better tale can be made out of this. For instance: our unity can easily be demonstrated by showing the evolution of the universe. Our peptides are made of atoms created in stars and flung into space when these stars became (super)nova. I don't need grossly misinterpreted quantum physics to understand that were are all united. The oxygen I breath to maintain the life in my cells is produced by algae in the ocean and trees on land. In turn I breath out carbon-dioxide to feed the trees. This is classical biology and enough to make me gasp with awe and wonder. Move out into space in your imagination and look at the planet. Can you see boundaries separating the landmasses into countries?

vmoyle This movie did not develop ideas beyond the first version on any level: intellectually, creatively, visually, or spiritually. It did not deserve the effort or financing to produce it, and in fact seemed like a rehash of all the footage that wasn't used from the first film.*Perhaps* it included a couple of new 'talking heads'--but that only conveyed to me an egoism in trying to appease all the experts in the field. It contained no new information that was not already included in the first movie.Supposedly this movie is about cutting edge thought--but in fact, it pandered to an audience that doesn't have a clue, just because it repeated itself. Sort of like just shouting louder to someone who doesn't understand your point the first time.I liked "What the Bleep?" (liked, not loved) and I was prepared to LOVE "Down the Rabbit Hole..." But in my book, it was the same movie. What a disappointment!