ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,2/10
14 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA fictional photographer's quest to spiritually rediscover herself is interspersed with documentary footage of scientists and theologians discussing the philosophical aspects of quantum phys... Tout lireA fictional photographer's quest to spiritually rediscover herself is interspersed with documentary footage of scientists and theologians discussing the philosophical aspects of quantum physics.A fictional photographer's quest to spiritually rediscover herself is interspersed with documentary footage of scientists and theologians discussing the philosophical aspects of quantum physics.
- Prix
- 2 victoires au total
James Langston Drake
- Groom
- (as Jame Drake)
Michele Mariana
- Tour Guide
- (as Michelle Mariana)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen this movie was released, both film critics and scientists noted that it was not entirely up front about the role that the Ramtha School of Enlightenment (RSE)--a New Age spiritual sect often characterized as a cult--played in its precepts, development, and production. Though J. Z. Knight appears early and often as an interviewed expert in the movie, it is not until the end that she is identified as the founder of RSE, and her most controversial aspects (among which are her claim to be able to "channel" a 35,000-year-old warrior spirit named Ramtha) are not included at all. Many sources (for example, John Gorenfeld's September 2004 Salon article and Alison Willmore's October 2020 New York magazine article) state that this movie's three directors, William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vicente, were at the time also followers of Knight and RSE. Mark Vicente later became involved with another prominent cult: NXIVM, the human-potential-development and sex-trafficking pyramid scheme founded by convicted con artist Keith Raniere. After leaving NXIVM, Vicente participated in the exposé documentary series The Vow, revealing many of the cult's damaging tactics; however, nowhere in The Vow does Vicente admit that NXIVM was not his first time adhering to a cult-like group.
- GaffesDepiction 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.
- Générique farfeluThe 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.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Brows Held High: Mr. Nobody and Living in Bad Faith (2015)
Commentaire en vedette
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
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is What the #$*! Do We (K)now!??Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- What the Bleep Do We Know!?
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 10 942 306 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 7 655 $ US
- 8 févr. 2004
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 21 054 050 $ US
- Durée1 heure 49 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre