One of the best films i have seen

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

After watching 20 minutes I developed a profound sadness in realizing that the "wise" of our times have a very limited perspective of our nature, time, and place. The persistent two dimensional assumptions fail in providing a meaningful insight into the human condition.One significant disappointment is the observations about the pursuit of ever more wealth even though it doesn't bring more happiness. Two things: Many of these people thrive on the game itself, finding inner benefits other than happiness. Additionally, in the 60's we were made acutely aware of the idea of keeping up with the Joneses - it may not make me happy, but at least it's clear that you're no better than me.But Shadyac is telling the story he wants and while he doesn't get it all wrong, his "math" is sloppy. For example he gets the G K Chesterton quote right, but fails to understand the inherently dual nature of the answer.

I started to watch this film, but I turned it off after about 10 minutes. If you think I shouldn't make any comments about it because of that, then stop here.It's not that I couldn't watch it; I didn't want to watch it. Because the beginning of this film was filled with so many errors in logic, I felt. I noticed that the interviewees were setting up false dichotomies and setting things in opposition that don't have to be viewed that way. Also, the approach seemed to be socialistic, based upon the opinion that the best way to be is cooperative. This approach, as stated, allows no room for treating individuals as special (or even as individuals) if carried to the logical conclusion.Which brings me to my main objection. I had the feeling that if I voiced any dissent to the views presented based upon arguments of logic or reason, the answer would probably be "you need to escape the limitations of logic", in one form or another. This is something I am not willing to do. As a thinking animal, I function that way.A less severe criticism I have is that some terms being used by the interviewees were being used very loosely--in a fuzzy way that promotes misunderstanding, not clarity. A certain amount of this is unavoidable, but I don't prefer conversations that "live" in the fuzzy regions of our existence.I am not saying the film contains no ideas that are true or valuable. But I think I know those already.It is one thing to condemn what we might call excessive competition (my success promulgated on, and designed for, your failure), but competition in general is a valuable (and inescapable) condition.I think one can watch this film and pick up nuggets of truth, but this film seems to be couched in what I consider to be a dangerous approach to thinking and evaluating. Since I did not watch the entire film, I have not given it a score. To those who choose to watch it and who gain benefit from it, I say "Good".

As a pastor I often try to make the point that faith and science are not opposed to each other. Rather, they're complimentary. They approach many of the same questions, but they do so from different perspectives. It's difficult to convince a lot of people of that. Hard core atheists will deny it; hard core religious extremists will deny it. But I believe it's true. And that's one of the reasons that I was so delighted to stumble across this documentary.It was made by director Tom Shadyac - who's perhaps best known for directing some of Jim Carrey's comedies. This, however, is not a comedy. Shadyac made this after a life altering experience that had him facing mortality. It's not a "religious" documentary. It doesn't promote any particular religion or faith. It's more of an exploration of "spirituality" as I understand it - the reality of the interconnectedness of everything that exists with everything else that exists. It makes the point that science is increasingly discovering the wisdom of ancient spiritual texts that spoke of and celebrated community and connectedness. Most provocatively, perhaps, it critiques modern society's "me first" mentality with the emphasis being on acquiring more and more of whatever we value - suggesting that acquiring more than what we actually need is a form of mental illness, especially when we're well aware of people living in need at the same time. I was taken by the note that in "The Origin Of Species," Darwin mentioned "survival of the fittest" only twice, but used the word "love" 95 times - noting that it was those who came after Darwin (especially Huxley) who emphasized survival of the fittest and never-ending competition and conquest; the drive to be the best rather than one of the group. It also holds up the ideal of non-violence (using as examples Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela) as one of the best ways of engaging oppressors.I have to admit that some of the scientific discussions contained in this were a bit over my non-scientific head, and this certainly won't appeal to those who are convinced that life is a competition and that the only way to survive and get ahead is to achieve and acquire more than anyone else. In fact, it won't appeal to those who are convinced that the whole point of life is simply to get ahead. Such folk will likely find this too challenging to their worldview; too "liberal" and naive. If you can approach it with an open mind, though, this is very inspiring. It seems a bit cliché as it approaches the end, using imagery like "when a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil it affects everything else" and other familiar sayings - which perhaps lose their power a bit because they are so familiar. Still, I felt uplifted and hopeful as this came to an end. (8/10)

Does Shadyac want a medal for moving into a (rather nice, upscale) mobile home lot in Malibu?This movie has no point. It is 90 minutes of some rich Hollywood guy who almost dies, has an epiphany that "Hey, maybe I've been a greedy bastard these past 20 years and maybe there's more to life than private jets, luxury cars and fancy homes," and makes a movie about it. In which he shows picture after picture after picture of his luxury homes and himself standing in front of a private jet and a luxury car. Three times we see the same photo of him standing on the tarmac. The thesis of his movie is something along the lines of Nature is holistic, all Living Things are of One, Man is by his own nature Good and full of Empathy and the Heart is more powerful than the brain. He takes sound bites from interviews with some popular academics such as Noam Chomsky and David Suzuki (neither of whom I think actually buy into his hippy Gaia hypothesis full scale). We are programmed by society, by competitive sports and spelling bees, to go against our Nature of Cooperation. Everyone is nice if just given the chance!He argues that Man can have revolution through peaceful means and that one person CAN make difference. And then he uses Gandhi as his example. Wow, one example out of thousands of years of war. He also gives a nod to Mandela, the Dali Lama, Martin Luther King. But he doesn't delve any deeper than that. He does not ask why Man can be Bad. But he is ecstatic that he can make yogurt smile.He really does not SAY ANYTHING in this winding, melancholic ramble. He does not offer The Answers. Which is kind of important seeing as he begins the movie asking his Two Questions. It is basically 90 minutes of being privy to some guy wonder about stuff. Wonder about Life as he stares up at the clouds and out at the rolling waves of the ocean from the private beach in his gated (mobile home) community.