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

2004 "Time to get wise."
5.2| 1h49m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 23 April 2004 Released
Producted By: Lord of the Wind
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Amanda is a divorced woman who makes a living as a photographer. During the Fall of the year Amanda begins to see the world in new and different ways when she begins to question her role in life, her relationships with her career and men and what it all means. As the layers to her everyday experiences fall away insertions in the story with scientists, and philosophers and religious leaders impart information directly to an off-screen interviewer about academic issues, and Amanda begins to understand the basis to the quantum world beneath. During her epiphany as she considers the Great Questions raised by the host of inserted thinkers, she slowly comprehends the various inspirations and begins to see the world in a new way.

Watch Online

What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) is currently not available on any services.

Director

William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente

Production Companies

Lord of the Wind

What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

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

SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen
Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.
Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
FountainPen What a load of pretentious claptrap this is. I've rated it 2 because there are some "movies" which are worse. The patronising, arrogant "scientists" in this presentation should be ashamed of themselves. Even these deep thinkers use the meaningless word "amazing". Ha Ha Ha Btw, I have a doctorate, too.
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.
DaFrea-k If I had known about facepalming back in the day when this first came out, I would have bruised my forehead. This stuff isn't just bad it goes well beyond that. Then again this piece of trash featured Judy Zebra Knight (born Judith Darlene Hampton), an American mystic teacher known for claiming to be the channel of a spiritual entity named Ramtha...When Knight says she is channeling Ramtha she speaks mostly in English in what sounds like an accent from the Indian Raj,[22][23] sometimes in a simplistic way. The claimed entity "Ramtha" has expressed confusion about modern items (or even the ability to read English),[24] although he seems to have clear understanding of complex issues of modern physics, such as the quantum field or neurology, which appear frequently in his speeches.[25] During the channeling of Ramtha, JZ Knight behaves a bit differently and speaks in a deeper and stern voice. In his teachings "Ramtha" has made several controversial statements such as that Christianity is a "backward" religion, that Jesus' parables can be explained by means of photon waves and probability,[26] that "murder isn't really wrong or evil" (if one believes in reincarnation),[20] or (during the court case JZ Knight v Jeff Knight) Jeff Knight stated that Ramtha had declared that HIV is Nature's way of 'getting rid of' homosexuality.[26]
hlcepeda This "documentary" indeed succeeds in raising seductive and vexing questions, with a couple in particular coming to mind: What would JZ Knight look like if she were accidentally run over by a steam roller, and could we (as vaguely suggested by the film) safely write-off the expected result as being mere illusion? Apart from that, this pseudo-scientific mishmash of New Age gibberish and speciously interpreted Quantum Mechanics could only offer two things: a quack remedy for the guileless and emotionally needy, and – as it turned out – a financial bonanza and a cult-followers' cattle call for the film's creators; the duped and the duplicitous. Here's to hoping that future generations will not judge our times by the tin-plated success of this movie; not that we wouldn't deserve it.