I Am

While another review described this movie as "liberal," I must say that while it may be, it still had a lot of interesting information in it. At one point in my life, I thought Rush Limbaugh was too liberal, but yet I still enjoyed this movie and have watched it several times.

There were several turn offs, yes. The New Age vibe the movie gives off is one of them. However, this is also a plus, because New Agers must be one of the last groups in America that have an upbeat outlook for the future. I may not agree with them, yet it is totally refreshing to see what is an unusual stance in this day of "doomsday preppers."

The other negative of the film is the kind of glowing nostalgic view of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Yes, both of them may have really done some good in some way, but there were a lot of dark things about Mandela that were pushed under the carpet, and making him look like he could walk on water really does a disservice to history. The same with King, who in some ways did help move America to the "left" politically, but yes, he did accomplish some things that were needed in America.

That being said, there are some really positive things about the movie. The look at America as a consumer-based society. The look at community versus individualism is interesting. Really, all of the interviews in the film are pretty interesting and the movie is worth watching just for this reason.

Lynne Mctaggart, the author of one of my favorite books, "The Field," is interviewed in the film. For anyone wanting to look more at the scientific side of "I Am," I highly recommend getting a copy of "The Field."

I will add as a side note, that while it isn't totally fitting to "I Am," I recommend the book, "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt expands on some of the same issues, discussing community versus individualism, consumerism, etc., and even discusses some of the political views that affect these topics.

Rather than it being one or the other, Haidt points out that both Left and Right have some truth to them, and that America is better off because both sides exist.

I think that is how "I Am" should be viewed. There is some truth in it, and it should be watched even if you don't agree with every single minute of the movie.

In fact, I think people can grow from hearing different viewpoints even if they don't agree with them. In that respect, "I Am," offers a lot to think about, again, even if you don't agree with all of it.

This is a complete change of pace from the man who brought us Ace Ventura and Liar, Liar. Here Tom looks at the deeper questions of what is wrong with our world and what can we do to change it. Unfortunately, that makes it sound like homework and it is anything but. Tom uses his skill as a filmmaker and his humor to bring us on a journey of enlightenment with him. He has thoughtful conversations with many of the worlds best thinkers and puts the question "what's wrong with our world" to them. Are aggression and competition really the natural order? Is there a better way? This movie asks the questions and gives some possible answers in an entertaining and non-preachy way. The world is what we make of it, and our experience of life is ours to control.

See this movie!!

Director Tom Shadyac speaks with intellectual and spiritual leaders about what is wrong with our world and how we can improve both this world and the way we live in it.

I appreciate that Shadyac decided to look beyond the world of comedy and try to find a deeper truth in the world. He is an intelligent man and it is good to be able to see this side of him, because "Ace Ventura" does not necessarily suggest a man craving wisdom.

I also like some of the folks he sought out. There is clearly a liberal bias with Chomsky, Hartman and Zinn being the models, but it was still good to hear from these thinkers. What would the right-wing think tank members say on what is wrong with the world?

In the end, though, I give it a moderate rating because it never really gets in any depth. The question is vague, and without looking for specific answers, you cannot get the best advice. We all know the world is better if we love one another and pass on a smile, but what is the fundamental problem?

I like the moral premise and idea that all life is connected and happiness is not directly related to money once basic needs are met, but when the filmmaker resorts to pseudoscience trickery he alienates me . Somethings can't or don't need to be proved.The filmmaker shows yogurt with meter probes "reading" his feelings.The next one that got me was the"random number generators that all stopped when there was a major catastrophe. What they are used for anyway? Why they stopped did not impress me.What does a computer care about a tsunami? Is it alive? If you want to prove something with science you have to show more data. So if you want a show that starts with a nice warm cooperative premise and ends with trickery this is a good "bait and switch" for you.

PS:Happiness is living in a Malibu beach mobile home with 10 million in the bank and a career in Hollywood film directing.Does that compare to the the average struggling person in a mobile home park with no other options? Now I must stop myself.

This is movie shows the ability we have to change and shift the world as we know it. Tom did a wonderful job with this documentary. The high school students who were in attendance to the screening began to ask deep questions. Questions that brings me faith in a new world that works for everyone.

Be the drop the in the sea and make a difference. Tom's work is spurring work that I've already begun. I highly recommend this movie to everyone, including our teenagers. If I had a chance to see this as a teen, I would've related. It took me 37 years of my life bouncing back and forth of seeking the truth on opposing sides of issues. I've found the answer is not in a position against anything.