IMDb रेटिंग
5.2/10
14 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA fictional photographer's quest to spiritually rediscover herself is interspersed with documentary footage of scientists and theologians discussing the philosophical aspects of quantum phys... सभी पढ़ेंA 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.
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 2 जीत
James Langston Drake
- Groom
- (as Jame Drake)
Michele Mariana
- Tour Guide
- (as Michelle Mariana)
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाJohn 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.'"
- गूफ़Depiction 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.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe 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.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Brows Held High: Mr. Nobody and Living in Bad Faith (2015)
फीचर्ड रिव्यू
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.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is What the #$*! Do We (K)now!??Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- What the Bleep Do We Know!?
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,09,42,306
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $7,655
- 8 फ़र॰ 2004
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $2,10,54,050
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 49 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें
टॉप गैप
By what name was What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) officially released in Canada in English?
जवाब