michelvega
Divided in three sections: Religion, 9/11 and the economical system, or should I say the banking system, this documentary is very informative. It starts rather annoyingly though with a cacophony of sounds and pictures of war and whatever. Way, way too long. After over 30 seconds of that, I fast forwarded on Netflix until it got to the crux of the presentation: Religion. Religion is evil, we are told. Completely agree, but I learned far more than I thought I would. Then came the «Truth» about the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Great stuff. I had more or less accepted the official version, but after what I heard, I realized I have been fed bullshit. The arguments made for the alternate version (whatever it is) are quite compelling. I never liked Bush and Cheney, but what I heard there make the evil emperor and Darth Vader in Star Wars look tame by comparison. On the Central Bank, the third part, my knowledge in this area is less than adequate to judge the veracity of this alternate vision. As a result, I found the argumentation tedious and a tad to pat to be convincing. As good as it is, this documentary would have been much better with about 15 minutes chopped off. But it does make you think, a lot.
dragokin
At the time when Zeitgeist hit the internet it's been recommended by several people around me. And since it's been available online for free, i decided to give it a try. From today's standpoint it is clear to me how viral campaigning can't work alone, i.e. posting your home video and expecting millions of viewers to share it. Traditional media must be involved at some point. Because of this lesson i gave Zeitgeist the second star.Concerning the contents, Zeitgeist fails already in the first of three segments. The story of Christianity and comparison to other older religions was interesting, yet my desktop research failed to identify or prove any of "evidence" presented. It is not whether you're a Christian or not, rather about using your mind.From then on the i regarded Zeitgeist as a video experiment, although on under-graduate level.The segment on 9-11 was just one of many conspiracy theories. Whether you believe the official version or not, in today's world it should be clear how any media report is skewed according to that particular media's needs. And even when it is the truth and nothing but the truth, some spin doctor might use it to support the bad guys. Therefore i don't see why i should believe Zeitgeist's version of events leading to and surrounding 9-11.The third segment asserted how history is manipulated to benefit the small group of greedy individuals. On the one hand, it should be clear that there would always be an elite profiting from any event in contemporary society. On the other hand i doubt it would be a group of Freemasons, Men in Black, Rothschilds or similar members of conspiracy theorists' menagerie controlling all events around the globe.Overall Zeitgeist puts forward some interesting ideas that are mixed with fabrications to such extent that it discredits itself.
classicalsteve
At the beginning of the film, there is a comparison between Christianity, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels of the New Testament, and myths associated with paganism. No question, pagan ideas infiltrate much of what becomes "Christian mythology". Fair enough. However, then the discourse moves to the other far extreme of the spectrum, trying to claim Jesus was not an historical figure. Their reasoning? It's one big fallacious hoax concocted by first century forgeries. This is absolutely ridiculous, and this is coming from someone who believes the Gospels are an interplay between historical facts and mythology. While we don't have a lot of sources independent of the New Testament to corroborate the historicity of Jesus, most biblical scholars are confident we have enough to prove he did exist. (Whether or not he claimed to be the Son of God is another matter entirely.)The film falls into some of the rhetoric I've heard Evangelicals claim but in the other direction. They claim the writings of Josephus, a first-century historian who mentions Jesus, albeit only briefly, is a forgery. I have read many writings composed by the top biblical scholars over the years, including Bart Erhman, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, and many others, and not a-one contests that Josephus is some kind of a hoax and/or forgery. While some of his details are certainly disputed by scholars on finer points, Josephus is generally regarded as a reliable primary source for events close to his own time, particularly those in the first century.The film then goes onto claim that the 9/11 attacks, similar to the conspiracy of the historicity of Jesus, is also a giant conspiracy hoax. The filmmakers claim the attacks were engaged not by Al-Qaeda led by Bin Laden but by a secret world order/government in order to perpetuate the war on terror. While I do believe there are many unanswered questions in terms of how the Bush Administration handled the attacks, and even questions which might indicate some people in intelligence knew something was going to happen, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that in fact the Bush Administration was acting as some pawn for a secret world government. I do believe the Bush Administration acted recklessly in its deployment of troops in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.A film which takes conspiracy theories to the extreme. Because of the lopsided rhetoric, many will dismiss the film outright and may be reluctant to understand issues raised about 9/11 which should be explored. While I am not adverse to the idea of some conspiracies (I believe there was a Lincoln conspiracy but not a JFK one) I believe the film fails to adequately address the questions. It falls into the same trap as other documentaries which favor completely exonerating the Bush Administration of any wrong-doing. This is just far left-wing propaganda pure and simple.
ironhorse_iv
While it's full of conspiracy thinkers, it's better to listen and take in what they're saying rather than keeping yourself out in the dark. You don't have to agree with what they are saying, but at less give yourself an open mind when watching this film. The more you know, the better. Having watch, both right wing and left wing documentaries, these movies does have more standards of journalistic integrity than the others. Directed by Peter Joseph, the Zeitgeist documentary style films (2007's Zeitgeist the Movie, 2008's Zeitgeist: Addendum & 2011's Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) are all pretty well-made films, that does give light into a lot of things that hasn't been talk about, much. Most of things talk about in the films, I found interesting and agree often on, but sadly, the first film is in the series, is by far, the weakest one of them, all. It felt too out there to be taken serious. It's also badly put-together. Zeitgeist: The Movie is split into 3 parts with showcase how Western Civilization is control. The first part talks about how the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the Bahá'í Faith) control people, using Christianity as an example. Yes, historic, it's true that many of the modern day religions do hold some control over people, but it has little differents if paganism or an atheism society came into control. In such a society, control would still be manual for society to exist. Is giving control to a higher power, a bad thing? Not always. Having faith in something doesn't make it, all bad. Without it, we wouldn't have the wonders of cultures. Does civilization need to more from religion like beliefs to a science like belief to achieve greater means? It's really up in air. About Christian religion specifically is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical assertions, astrological myths and traditions. Yes, part of the Jesus myth does, but it also derived to those events that Jesus went through. Peter Joseph forget to mention that. Indeed, there were some historical proves that Jesus might have live. Is he a deity? That's for another debate. However, some of the parts that director Peter Joseph bring up is either distorted, out of context, or completely made up. Some of his sources are also either non-existent or heavily biased. Still, this sequence was pretty alright. The next sequence is the one that really bogged me down. The movie lost so much credit, when it talks about the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It states that it was orchestrated by the US government in order to generate mass fear, initiate and justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil liberties, and produce economic gain. Let me break this illusion, down. This film has no credible information because the film didn't add anything new to already well-spoken conspiracy theories that been surrounding 9/11 since that day. It didn't go to Washington D.C, Pittsburgh, or New York crash sites to search for clues, and it damn didn't go to Afghanistan. Let's note that this film is created in 2007, so it's a bit outdated. There are a lot of documentaries that came after this, that pretty much show that there is no way, the US government could had done an attack like that. It would first be costly. Let's remember the years after 2001 had an economic bust than a boom. Second off, war isn't as profitable as it was in the old days due to technology grown in the private fields. Third, if the government did do it, do you really think that all those people would cover up a horrible act for so long? NO—somebody will come out. I do think there are honestly some good people in the government. I don't think our government planned 9/11, but perhaps they knew, some information of the terrorist attack ahead and couldn't stop it happening. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying trust your government! I might be against the idea that the government did 9/11, but no way, believe everything they say. I do know about the government covering up events in the past before, such as the 1964's Gulf of Tonkin incident, the whole Operation Northwoods, the whole pre-knowing of Pearl Harbor, and even the Remember the Maine incident. The film asserts that such wars serve to sustain conflict in general and force the U.S. government to borrow money, thereby increasing the profits of the international bankers. I do think the banks do have too much power, and need to be review badly. Still, if an secretive power elite like the Rothschild's family had a globalist agenda conspiring to eventually rule the world, then why do the Rothschild wealth have subsequently declined. They lose more money than gain. That's why I don't think all bankers are evil like the film says. Even, if the banks have control, why are we able to watch film like this? It would be total George Orwell's 1984 state by now. While, I'm not against Globalization, and capitalism, I don't think it's as evil as the documentary state it is. We do enjoy some freedoms under a capitalism system. I'm not the biggest fan of it, or socialism, personally. I do have to believe that some kind of order is better world than total chaos like the film wish to have. Capitalism is no different than religion. It works because people believe it works. If the people in charge didn't believe in it, it would quickly show its flaws and fall apart. At some point I dream people can abolish the monetary system completely, instead use automatic systems which would monitor all the useable resources on the planet like the Venus Project, but it will take years of economic evolution for such ideas to be successful. With that, go see these films. Can we believe in absolutely everything that these films say? Obviously not. But it's worth looking at and do your own research.
