IMDb >
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)
Watch It
Buy it at Amazon
Rent it at blockbuster.com
Discuss in Boards More at IMDb Pro Add to My Movies Update Data
BETA
Discuss in Boards More at IMDb Pro Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsWhat the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) More at IMDbPro »
| Photos (see all 12 | slideshow) | Videos |
Overview
User Rating:
Release Date:
27 November 2004 (Japan) moreTagline:
a quantum fable morePlot:
"WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown... more | full synopsisUser Comments:
Unenlightening and Highly Flawed Film that Attempts to Connect Quantum Physics to "Spirituality" moreCast
(Cast overview, first billed only)| 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 |
Additional Details
Also Known As:
What the Bleep Do We Know!? (International: English title) (informal title) (USA)Sacred Science (USA) (working title)
more
Parents Guide:
Add content advisory for parentsRuntime:
109 min | Germany:113 minCountry:
USAAspect Ratio:
1.85 : 1 moreSound Mix:
Dolby DigitalCertification:
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:MFun Stuff
Trivia:
The movie that Amanda is watching is _Chasing Destiny (2001)_, which was originally called "Romantic Moritz" as shown on the marquee. moreGoofs:
Continuity: In the wedding, Elliot hands over a drink to Amanda. She accidentally blows off the yellow mini-umbrella of her drink. Elliot licks the stick of his pink mini-umbrella and puts it in Amanda's drink. The next scene shows Amanda still has the yellow mini-umbrella on her drink, and Elliot still has his pink mini-umbrella on his drink. Although, in a film about how perception effects reality...maybe the umbrella was blue! moreQuotes:
Older Man: Makes you wonder, doesn't it? If thoughts can do that to water, imagine what our thoughts can do to us. moreSoundtrack:
Forever Yours moreFAQ
This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.more
Message Boards
Discuss this movie with other users on IMDb message board for What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) moreRecommendations
If you enjoyed this title, our database also recommends:
Show more recommendations
|
|
|
|
|
| Big Fish | Frida | Bee Season | Charlie and the Chocolate Factory | Romeo + Juliet |
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
Related Links
| Full cast and crew | Company credits | External reviews |
| IMDb Documentary section | IMDb USA section | Add this title to MyMovies |













I had numerous problems with this film.
It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.
The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.
It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.
Avoid this film.
Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.