ironhorse_iv I'm sorry, as much I'm open to the idea of letting people know to make the most of their minds, in order to affect our world. It shouldn't been told, via the misrepresentation of the laws of physics, especially when it comes to the principles of quantum mechanics. After all, the most essential point about quantum mechanics is bypassed in this movie. Quantum mechanics deals with small systems, and quantum effects (especially Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).The movie exploits these effects by falsely implying that Broglie Wavelength also deals with bigger everyday objects, which it's highly debatable. Nevertheless, the movie doesn't explain precisely how the theory of quantum mechanics actually proves any of the mystical or religious teachings found in this film. I found, most of this new age-pseudo science documentary to be full of blatant lies, when it comes to justifies and proving that there is spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness. Some examples of that, are the way, the film edits the talking head sequences. The interweaving & quote out of context of legitimate scientists to match it up with those of preach spiritualism & mysticism is appalling. One of them, Physicist David Albert was so outrage, on the way, misrepresented his views that he went on the media circuit, after the movie was release, bad mouthing the film, for taking advance of his service. Another problem with this movie is how, nearly all the experiments that the filmmakers did for the film, were incepted. One such example is the sequences involving claims that individual cells are conscious from Candace Pert 1997's novel 'Molecules of Emotion'. While, I love her book and champion, Pert earlier work with drug, Peptide T, based on the research, I have gather; there is no evidence to support her claim of individual conscious cells. Yes, I know that the cells of the human body communicate with each other, hold internal state, and have certain "behaviors". Nevertheless, human cells function more like cogs in a complex hive-mind machine rather than independent creatures seeking out a life in an uncertain world. It's gestalt intelligence. As for other claims like the meditation experiment, call the 'Maharishi effect", put on by physicist, John Hagelin in Washington D.C. According to many books, written on the subject, by many scientists, they found little evidence that mantra meditation programs such as TM were effective in reducing psychological stress or improving well-being. While, it was true, the number of brutal murders in D.C had decreased, it is also documented, that the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. Much of this claim is hogwash. Then, there is the part of the movie that claims that when the first ships arrived in what is now North America by Christopher Columbus, the Native Americans couldn't find the words to deserve them. As many historians, had pointed out, Columbus was not the first person to discover the New World, nor was his ships, the first vessels, ever to sail near the island of Guanahani AKA 'the Bahamas'. In truth, many of the indigenous people on the islands were aware of the ocean, as they had fishing canoes and small boats to get around. So, to say, that they were so dumbfound by the appearance of ships is an understatement. Then, there is the works of researcher, Masura Emoto, who claims that consciousness has an effect on the molecular structure of water. In truth, exposing water in glasses to different words, pictures or music, and then freezing and examining the aesthetic properties of the resulting crystals, did little to change the particles in the sampling. Even though, his 'so-called experiments' did had experimental controls; they were often insufficient, and shows extreme examples of tampering, during the super-cooling phrase; when done by other scientists. In short, he's pretty much, a charlatan. He didn't even participate in a million dollar challenge, by James Randi in 2003, if he had been able to reproduce the experiment under test conditions, in front of the public. That's how much, a hoaxer, he is. And what about the claims that positive attitude keeps, you young and healthy? This message was delivered by two women, JZ Knight & Candance Pert who are clearly old & overweight. Look, I'm not saying, be, all depress and close-minded. I'm just saying, the film encourages a distrust for anything logical; which is dangerous. It's clear that this film does not present, any contradictory evidence, discuss any contrarian point of view, nor does it discuss the process of how certain conclusions were reached. As much as I would be all happy, love to travel back through time, levitate, or predict the future. It's alright to be skeptic. Much of things being taught here is indeed, mucho jumbo. After all, it was directed by three cult member from Ramtha's School of Enlightenment: William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente, whom leader, J.Z Knight believes, that she is reincarnation of Ramtha, a Lemurian warrior who fought the Atlanteans over 35,000 years ago. Nevertheless, the movie does have some good things about it, such as beautiful visual style and somewhat entertaining sub story of a deaf woman photographer named Amada (Marlee Matlin)'s frustrations with life in Portland, OR, with the 'Polish Wedding' being the hilarious highlight. While, Matlin's acting isn't the best, and some of the CGI is god-awful; especially the face-time on a flip phone and the mirror scene. I can't discourage anybody from watching it, but please watch it with a grain of salt. Please do some research before jumping to conclusions. Ultimately, this debate will come down to what is meant by consciousness. And if history is any indication, it will be a long time before people agree outside of specific operational definitions. In the meanwhile, read some books on the subject. Don't take everything in this movie for face-value.

flickfiend As much as I found this movie to be cumbersome and boring, there was one idea that jumped out at me worth remembering. And that is- people can become addicted to stress hormones.I'm writing this in the year 2017, and I believe this to be the case. Most are unaware of this, as most are pack animals/sheeple- and follow the flock- or perhaps, lemmings as well (going over the cliff).Stress hormones are drugs, and it seems most are unconsciously addicted to the high they get from it- crazy, but (sadfully) true.I hope this review can help those reading it.Best of luck in dealing with the stress in your life.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?" is a documentary from over 10 years ago that runs for almost 2 hours and tries to make an impact with its messages about religion, life and general well-being. However, it all feels very awkward from start to finish and I never felt the message that the movie was trying to deliver us. Well.. actually there is a lot of acting in this film, so you could only call it a documentary to some extent. For example, Oscar winner Marlee Matlin appears here, but the acting wasn't either on a level where I would say that I was impressed. But you cannot really blame the actors as the script was just too weak and also not full enough of memorable content for such a runtime. The ratings here on IMDb and on critics websites are accurate I would say. it is not a complete failure, but also not a good movie by any means. Overall, I give it a thumbs down.

Bearish78 Although one of the tags for this movie is Sci-Fi (and I must agree - a complete work of fiction), the movie portends to "enlighten" us with what they refer to as new and revolutionary, but in fact what they have done is taken a very elementary understanding of various disciplines (neurology, astronomy, physics, and quantum physics), and contorted that understanding to support ridiculous conclusions. First off, there is nothing new or innovative about this line of thinking. Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher stated once that we are not passive perceivers of the world, rather that we are the creators of the world we experience. This was echoed in the 1999 movie "The Matrix", whose graphics by the way were far more impressive. Even further back there was an Indian guy who used to go by the name of Siddartha Guatama who became the Buddha back before Christ. The fundamental ideas upon which this tragic film has been based are ancient. They are not new. They are not revolutionary. I am a psychology student and the one subject that was emphasized throughout my courses was critical thinking. Part of critical thinking is the ability to spot faulty logic. Faulty logic is simply stating something the sounds like it might be logical, but cannot be either proved or disproved, and this movie is chock full of it:if we believe with every fiber of who we are, it is possible to walk on water. Critical thinking says, show us. Of the 7 billion people on the planet there must be at least 1 human being who with every fiber of his or her being can walk on water - so show us. a zen Buddhist prayed over water, it was left out over night and it took the form of different snowflakes. Firstly, the film-makers failed to mention that water was frozen. They simply said the water had changed. We did not see any footage of this happening - so how do we know that it didn't snow over night? How do we know it is the same water? -so where do the particles go? There is a portion of the movie that claims that when we can no longer observe particles that they "go somewhere" - it's called the law of the conservation of energy and is expressed by an equation you might have heard of it called E=mc2. There is a bit in this movie that has a ring of truth to it - when they talk about how the brain transmits messages, and how our past experience can color the present. There is substantial evidence to support these things, but for the most part, this movie makes wild, and unsupported claims and assumptions. If you want to tell a story, please do so - but do so without pretending that its real. If people can change the physical world with a simple thought, or defy the laws of physics then there should be no problem proving it.