I love this movie so much

Thanks for the memories!

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

I like the moral premise and idea that all life is connected and happiness is not directly related to money once basic needs are met, but when the filmmaker resorts to pseudoscience trickery he alienates me . Somethings can't or don't need to be proved.The filmmaker shows yogurt with meter probes "reading" his feelings.The next one that got me was the"random number generators that all stopped when there was a major catastrophe. What they are used for anyway? Why they stopped did not impress me.What does a computer care about a tsunami? Is it alive? If you want to prove something with science you have to show more data. So if you want a show that starts with a nice warm cooperative premise and ends with trickery this is a good "bait and switch" for you. PS:Happiness is living in a Malibu beach mobile home with 10 million in the bank and a career in Hollywood film directing.Does that compare to the the average struggling person in a mobile home park with no other options? Now I must stop myself.

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)

It started out OK just long enough to suck me in, then it went down the path of pseudo-scientific new age idiocy (aka woo) as bad or worse than "The Secret." Real science is not going to lend legitimacy to your pet beliefs. Non scientists need to refrain from trying to make their unscientific beliefs sound scientific, because they always come off as naive, ignorant and stupid to anyone with more than a high-school understanding of science.How do I know it's woo? Here are some selected quotes:"Studies show that ..." Were these studies performed under controlled test conditions and were appropriate tests of significance used? They don't say, so the answer likely is "no.""The science tells us that ..." No, it doesn't, unless you can show exactly how it does. Prefacing an unproven assertion with the word science only fools the naive and ignorant."Quantum entanglement ..." If you aren't showing me the math, you obviously do not understand quantum physics, stop bringing it up."The human heart can predict the future." Really? How exactly does the heart violate causality?

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.