CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.2/10
14 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
La búsqueda de una fotógrafa de ficción para redescubrirse espiritualmente a sí misma se entremezcla con imágenes documentales de científicos y teólogos que discuten los aspectos filosóficos... Leer todoLa búsqueda de una fotógrafa de ficción para redescubrirse espiritualmente a sí misma se entremezcla con imágenes documentales de científicos y teólogos que discuten los aspectos filosóficos de la física cuántica.La búsqueda de una fotógrafa de ficción para redescubrirse espiritualmente a sí misma se entremezcla con imágenes documentales de científicos y teólogos que discuten los aspectos filosóficos de la física cuántica.
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados en total
James Langston Drake
- Groom
- (as Jame Drake)
Michele Mariana
- Tour Guide
- (as Michelle Mariana)
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaJohn Gorenfeld wrote in a September 2004 Salon article that David Albert, one of the interviewed experts in the film, feels he was duped and misrepresented as to the real purpose and agenda of the movie. "Albert, a professor at the Columbia University physics department, has accused the filmmakers of warping his ideas to fit a spiritual agenda. 'I don't think it's quite right to say I was "tricked" into appearing,' he said in a statement reposted by a critic on What the Bleep's Internet forum, 'but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed. I certainly do not subscribe to the 'Ramtha School on Enlightenment," whatever that is!' he finished. Albert provided Salon with an excerpt from a piece he's writing on the subject, in which he says, in part, 'I'm unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis.' When told of Albert's complaints, [Meyer Gottlieb, president of the movie's distributor, Samuel Goldwyn Films] said, 'I certainly don't see it,' but acknowledged he's 'not into the science 100 percent.'"
- ErroresDepiction of quantum mechanics in the movie bears no resemblance to the real theory of that name. In particular, the common misconception that the "observer effect" is dependent upon a sapient, human observer is incorrect. If any object interacts with any other, and either requires information regarding the current state and properties of the other, then that constitutes an observation.
- Créditos curiososThe Scientists, Mystics and Scholars interviews herein were chosen based on the expertise in the subjects which they discussed. They do not necessarily agree with all viewpoints put forth in the film. Likewise the Filmmakers may not agree with all the viewpoints put forth by the Interviewees. Agreement is not necessary - thinking for one's self is.
- ConexionesFeatured in Brows Held High: Mr. Nobody and Living in Bad Faith (2015)
Opinión destacada
I was not surprised to see many of the comments here about this film calling into question everything about it's premise. While reviewing this film for my newspaper (Cedar Rapids Gazette) I knew immediately that the concepts would be controversial and hard for the conditioned American mind to wrap itself around.
Having said that, it seems that many people view a movie like this as an all or nothing proposition -- if one theory or belief seems flawed, then it all must be called into question. What I think too many polemicists are forgetting is that this picture is a smorgasbord of different theories presented, as Rod Serling might say, for you approval -- or not.
But what many are missing is what makes this film revolutionary -- that filmmakers were able to present these concepts in the medium of film in a way that was at least entertaining and most, thought provoking. You don't have to buy off 100 percent on what is here, but the presentation, in and of itself, was stunning in its bombardment of the viewer with multi sensory imagery.
That this film was even made at all is a mini-miracle, especially in our current intellectual and cultural climate. Its sad to me to see such judgmental reviews. I knew conventional Christians would simply dismiss this as "new age" fluff and I mentioned that in my review. But I would have hoped that lovers of film and higher order thinking would be more tolerant of some of the excesses.
In short, this is a film that needs to be seen not just for its quasi-cinematic, quasi-documentary methodology but for a presentation of theories and beliefs that are rarely discussed in the ossified American mainstream. For that alone, I thank the filmmakers.
Having said that, it seems that many people view a movie like this as an all or nothing proposition -- if one theory or belief seems flawed, then it all must be called into question. What I think too many polemicists are forgetting is that this picture is a smorgasbord of different theories presented, as Rod Serling might say, for you approval -- or not.
But what many are missing is what makes this film revolutionary -- that filmmakers were able to present these concepts in the medium of film in a way that was at least entertaining and most, thought provoking. You don't have to buy off 100 percent on what is here, but the presentation, in and of itself, was stunning in its bombardment of the viewer with multi sensory imagery.
That this film was even made at all is a mini-miracle, especially in our current intellectual and cultural climate. Its sad to me to see such judgmental reviews. I knew conventional Christians would simply dismiss this as "new age" fluff and I mentioned that in my review. But I would have hoped that lovers of film and higher order thinking would be more tolerant of some of the excesses.
In short, this is a film that needs to be seen not just for its quasi-cinematic, quasi-documentary methodology but for a presentation of theories and beliefs that are rarely discussed in the ossified American mainstream. For that alone, I thank the filmmakers.
- kegbot1
- 26 oct 2004
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is What the #$*! Do We (K)now!??Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 10,942,306
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 7,655
- 8 feb 2004
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 21,054,050
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 49 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was ¿Y Tú Qué Sabes? (2004) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda