While I liked the film, I always like to cross reference stuff. Here is just one of negative reviews from Amazon. Draw your own conclusions. ---------------- I just recently viewed "What the Bleep" after hearing about the positive response it has generated from much of its audiences. I was interested to see what questions are posed and how they are answered. The film does advocate a certain view of the world and of ourselves. To my disappointment, it dodged the most important questions a worldview must answer - the "why" questions most of us have (why are we here, what is our purpse, etc.) After viewing it I began to research much of what was shown in the film. After doing so, I believe it to be pseudo-science selectively presented to persuade the viewer to consider the spiritual beliefs of those who follow Ramtha, a purported 35,000 year old warrior from Atlantis. The filmmakers would have you take them at face value - neutral parties who are simply on the journey to know more about ourselves and the world around us. It is all about possibilities they say. The film is a clever editing job, with comments interspersed from Ramtha (aka JZ Knight,Judith Darlene Hampton), and several of his (or her?)appointed teachers. Be prepared for several creepy, spacey gazes from Ramtha. None of these teachers were identified as such during the film. One is left to wonder why(see below for an idea). The film's explanation of quantum physics is very narrow, and many of the experts give an agenda-laced explanation of quantum physics. I cannot find anyone respected in the field who is standing behind this film. If you are swept up in the film's seductive notion that we create reality, and think that it is based on science, you are likely to buy into many of the other claims in the film. The filmakers see no problem with their approach to avoiding background information about some of their experts, claiming "it's about the message, not the messenger." Here are some interesting things I researched or observed: 1. In addition to the films three directors, there were actors and others involved in the production who are long time students of Ramthas' School of enlightenment. 2. A disproportionate amount of time was given in voice and film to Ramtha, Dr. Joe Dispenza, and Miceal Ledwith. 3. Dr. Joe Dispenza and Miceal Ledwith are both long time students and "appointed teachers at Ramthas' school of enlightenment (RSE). 4. Dr Joe Dispenza (the one who creates his day) has gone to court and testified that his teacher (ramtha) has told him that terrible times are coming and that he needs to protect his family. He also invested over $10,000.00 in an infamous scam that infected RSE and was touted by Ramtha as a vehicle to gain fabulous wealth and many of the schools membership lost substantial sums of money. Some lost their entire life savings. This is the person who teaches the brain science in RSE. 5. Miceal Ledwith a clergyman with a rather dubious past (a quick internet search will explain why) He is the one chosen by the film makers to be the theological spokesman. Why? He is also the theologian in residence of RSE. He has been marketing several products within the school and its followers. I suppose that could not have been done to easily in the Catholic church. 6. The following persons in the film have all spoken at RSE and sold books there: Fred Allen Wolf, Dr. Candice Pert, Amit Gotswami, John Haglin, Joe Dispenza, and Miceal Ledwith. This is not disclosed by the filmakers. 7. One of the scientists who was in the film and had never appeared at the school is Dr. David Albert, Professor and Director of Philosophical Physics at Columbia university. He has stated in several venues that his views were totally misrepresented in the film. He claims that in over 5 hours of interviews he explained to the filmmakers why their concept of how Quantum Physics works has virtually no support in the scientific community. None of those comments are in the film. He even called in to a radio program the director was on to discuss this and was cut off. 8. To date, the filmakers cannot offer a source for the information which lead to the story about the natives not being able to see the ships of Columbus originated from. There appears to be no evidence to support this claim. In addition, the film mentioned "clipper ships" which were not even in existence at that time. Perhaps that is why they couldn't see them. 9. John Haglin does not mention that he organized the experiment in D.C. with 4000 meditators. He also states that violent crime declined as he predicted beforehand. Official stats say it rose! 10. As for Emoto's water experiment, there has been no replication by other scientists, no control groups, and no publications in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals to confirm his findings. 11. One of the film's directors, William Arntz, along with one of his science consultants, Joe Dispenza, was invited to a forum at Portland State University. To put the question of free will and responsibility to the test a professor put up a photo of a child with Downs Syndrome. The professor asked if this child was free to create any reality he wanted. Was this child responsible for his condition, he queried? Arnzt responded that in fact the child is to blame for his own disorder--he is paying for transgressions in a previous life. A similar worldview is responsible for the persecution of the millions of Dalits in India. I want others who see the film to consider these facts, as it seems to me that the filmakers ommitted a lot of relevant information and misrepresented the views of experts not tied to the RSE. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research and decide for yourself! The film is a slick package of ideas. Investigate those ideas if you desire, but the know about the messenger. The filmakers have said again and again that the message, and not its messengers are important. Is it not important to consider the motivations of the messenger? Despite my negative comments, I don't have anything personal against the filmakers. Obviously I disagree with their worldview and their attempt to hijack science and merge it with Eastern mysticism, but I hope they one day find that which they are seeking.
I am not familiar with quantum theory, quantum this and quantum that. However I always find attractive, the notion, as in the film, of the individual empowering himself/herself to enhance and shape life for the better. But I considered the speculative 'science' in the film fanciful and the correlation with God or spirituality very tenuous.
i am always skeptical of something, when in the few examples of stuff where it plays into my arena (my job, or area of study), it is just obviously off. the cortisol example was perfect in regards to this. this movie tells people what they want to hear, but is NOT anywhere near scientifically rigorous. the only movie i can make a direct comparison to is brief history of time, which has the advantage of being - lord forbid - accurate and well researched
Here's an interesting video about: Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=what+the+bleep&pl=true
A Glorious Piece of Meat: An Overture on Consciousness: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5477683963602021118&q=consciousness&pl=true
I'm sorry, but that just does not make any sense. First of all, how am I supposed to know that this is even real and not completly made up? also, they were doing this with electrons, corect? so they couldn't witness this with their naked eye right? so how were they seeing it? they said they didn't add an observer, or a cemera, until the second time they did the experiment, so how did they know that the first time, it made an interference pattern like a wave? answers please!!!!!!! i am actually very interested and would like to know what you think. so
Yes, I saw this movie for the second time earlier this morning and, once again, I loved it. But there are some things that do not make sense to me. As you stated, it claims that people can become addicted to different emotions and they used science to back it up. This made complete sense to me, hoever, they only showed this with examples of harmful emotions, but is the same true for good emotions, such as happiness? if someone is always happy, will that affect their body as well? will that also block up the receptors and not let it nutrients?
The experiments shown on the film are well known in elementary physics. You are right, it just doesn't make any sense; but that's the way it is. If you're interested, there are quite good layman type books on the subject.