What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)

User Rating:

5.2/10   

Directors:

William Arntz
Betsy Chasse

Writers:

William Arntz (written by)
Betsy Chasse (written by)

Release Date:

27 November 2004 (Japan)

Genre:

Documentary | Comedy | Drama

Tagline:

a quantum fable

Plot:

"WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown...

Plot Keywords:

Science | Photographer | Physics | Channeling | Biochemistry

Cast

Marlee Matlin	...	Lead
Elaine Hendrix	...	Jennifer
John Ross Bowie	...	Elliot
Robert Bailey Jr.	...	Reggie
Barry Newman	...	Frank
Larry Brandenburg	...	Bruno
Daniela Serra	...	Bride
James Langston Drake	...	Groom (as Jame Drake)
Michele Mariana	...	Tour Guide (as Michelle Mariana)
Armin Shimerman	...	Older Man (in subway)
Robert Blanche	...	Bob
Pavel Mikoloski	...	Priest
Alex Rogers	...	Guy #1
Tin Tran	...	Guy #2
Leslie Taylor	...	Bridesmaid

Also Known As:

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (International: English title) (informal title) (USA)
Sacred Science (USA) (working title)

Runtime:

109 min | Germany:113 min

Country:

USA

Language:

German | English | Spanish

Color:

Black and White | Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital

Certification:

UK:12 (video rating) (2005) | UK:12A (original rating) | Brazil:14 | Singapore:NC-16 | Germany:o.Al. | Iceland:L | Argentina:Atp | Australia:M | Canada:14A (Alberta/Ontario) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Canada:PG (British Columbia) | Ireland:PG | Netherlands:AL | USA:Unrated (not rated) | New Zealand:M

Filming Locations:

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California, USA

Company:

Captured Light

Trivia:

The movie that Amanda is watching is _Chasing Destiny (2001)_, which was originally called "Romantic Moritz" as shown on the marquee.

Goofs:

Factual errors: Depiction 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.

Quotes:

Lead: Sometimes I think you make me sane.
Jennifer: Me? The day I make someone sane, they're in trouble!

Movie Connections:

References Chasing Destiny (2001) (TV)

Soundtrack:

She's Too Fat

Contradicts itself again and again.

It seems the makers of this film had trouble deciding what their message really was. Consequently, they had even more trouble delivering it. They began by poorly describing principles of quantum physics which relate to sub-atomic particles. Having established a fuzzy picture of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, they presented a barrage of talking heads who built a case of ridiculous logic intimating that every living person is an entity which follows the same quantum rules on a cosmic scale. Then there was a lot of talk about ideas upon which Stephen Covey and Tony Robbins have made their careers: positive thinking, interrupting bad patterns, always look on the bright side, etc. Next came a bit about how our brains can change our bodies through production of proteins: hormones which we more or less choose to create. If you are sad, you will create sad proteins. If you are happy, you will create happy proteins. It's just so simple, isn't it? Interwoven with our lessons we follow the fictitious life of Amanda, a photographer who pops anti-depressants and hates her thighs. The film makers slowly but surely were trying to get us all to say, "Hey, Amanda, just cheer up!" Why can't she cheer up? Obviously it's because the world is a BAD place where there is crime and poverty and religion, that's why. The conclusion of the film (which is basically the entire second half) brought on a barrage of contradiction. We are all a part of a whole energy where we are not beings, but a collective consciousness, but we are individuals who can change the world, but there are many of each of us because of all the different dimensions, but we can choose who we are, and we have a purpose to do good, but there is no god because there is nothing better than us, so there is no such thing as right and wrong, so there is no such thing as reward or punishment, so nothing good ever came out of religion, but we should still do good anyway, even though there is no such thing as bad and good because there is nobody to decide what that is, except for the fact that we each can make life good if we all meditate, and then crime will cease, and if we say nice things, our water will freeze into pretty shapes. Still with me? Good because there is more. According to Robert L. Park in his book "Voodoo Science", the whole meditation experiment put on by John Hagelin in Washington, D.C. was a farce, the numbers were doctored, and the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. And what about your positive attitude keeping you young and healthy? This was a message delivered by an older man who looked his age and a woman who was overweight.

So does all this work or not? I was lucky enough to see the film at a theater where Betsy Chasse, one of the film's three directors (yes, three) fielded questions following the show. I call myself lucky because I had first-hand confirmation that these people don't know what they are talking about. Several of the questions asked by audience members had her so stumped that her husband, a chiropractor, had to step in and recite the answer. I finally had to leave when the discussion inevitably turned political, and everyone, including Ms. Chasse, began speculating as to how wonderful the world would be if only President Bush could see this movie.