I Am - Du hast die Kraft, die Welt zu verändern!

While another review described this movie as "liberal," I must say that while it may be, it still had a lot of interesting information in it. At one point in my life, I thought Rush Limbaugh was too liberal, but yet I still enjoyed this movie and have watched it several times.

There were several turn offs, yes. The New Age vibe the movie gives off is one of them. However, this is also a plus, because New Agers must be one of the last groups in America that have an upbeat outlook for the future. I may not agree with them, yet it is totally refreshing to see what is an unusual stance in this day of "doomsday preppers."

The other negative of the film is the kind of glowing nostalgic view of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Yes, both of them may have really done some good in some way, but there were a lot of dark things about Mandela that were pushed under the carpet, and making him look like he could walk on water really does a disservice to history. The same with King, who in some ways did help move America to the "left" politically, but yes, he did accomplish some things that were needed in America.

That being said, there are some really positive things about the movie. The look at America as a consumer-based society. The look at community versus individualism is interesting. Really, all of the interviews in the film are pretty interesting and the movie is worth watching just for this reason.

Lynne Mctaggart, the author of one of my favorite books, "The Field," is interviewed in the film. For anyone wanting to look more at the scientific side of "I Am," I highly recommend getting a copy of "The Field."

I will add as a side note, that while it isn't totally fitting to "I Am," I recommend the book, "The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom," by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt expands on some of the same issues, discussing community versus individualism, consumerism, etc., and even discusses some of the political views that affect these topics.

Rather than it being one or the other, Haidt points out that both Left and Right have some truth to them, and that America is better off because both sides exist.

I think that is how "I Am" should be viewed. There is some truth in it, and it should be watched even if you don't agree with every single minute of the movie.

In fact, I think people can grow from hearing different viewpoints even if they don't agree with them. In that respect, "I Am," offers a lot to think about, again, even if you don't agree with all of it.

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".

Right up front, I'm a political/social conservative who is okay with marijuana and gay marriage. This may have prejudiced this review a bit.

First, this is a beautiful movie of self-discovery. And, I do mean self- discovery. There really wasn't a single concept discussed that hasn't been discussed since I was in high school and I'm 70 years old. Actually, these concepts have probably been discussed for the past 5,000 years or more.

However, if you want to experience a man living through his moment of "enlightenment," this movie will give you that. Essentially, he discovers that happiness doesn't come from material things, but from being involved in something bigger than himself, something that makes a difference.

He's very careful to state that you don't need to make a big difference to gain a sense of worth and happiness, even the small, little things make a difference. He supports these concepts with some relatively recent scientific research, that points to the power of matters of the heart and the impact our negative and positive thoughts can have on ourselves as well as others; in fact, the environment around us. As I said earlier, toss out the research and you're left with what philosophers and mystics have been telling us for ages.

One of the major themes sounded very socialistic (this was the political part) , pretty much: From those who have too much, to those who have too little. This is, of course, a common theme amongst progressives (redistribution of wealth). However, something he hinted at was a bit different. He seemed to say that this had to come from the heart, from a personal commitment to help others, to help the community. I would agree and add, that this means that it can't be instigated by any government, you can't order people to love their neighbor. Nothing good comes from trying to do that.

The big disappointment for me, was the lack of any discussion concerning what I consider to be the two most important questions that this line of thought must deal with.

1) What do you do about those who decide to take full advantage of the situation and choose only to take and not to give? In other words, live off of the efforts of others.

2) What do you do about those who decide to manipulate the system to their own personal advantage, both from the financial and the position of power perspectives?

This type of society leaves itself wide open to that, without a very strong central government that makes sure that things stay fair. However, usually those in the government are the ones to take advantage, and no real gains are achieved by the vast majority of the population.

I really wish, someday, someone with these Utopian thoughts would honestly approach the tough questions. ... and yes, this is a movie about Utopia ... but, alas, I'm afraid the tough questions will remain unanswered, utopias will continue to fail and humanity will still be having this dream 5,000 years from now.

I had the pleasure of seeing this movie last evening at my daughters high school. Tom & his team brought a unique perspective to the kids of our world. The film asks some interesting questions, but does not presume so much as to provide answers to something so unanswerable. Instead, it challenges the viewer to look inside themselves a bit & to consider how they interact with the world around them. To be open minded to a world of possibilities and more importantly; to not take your role in this world nor the size of your act as insignificant.

To often we adults layered with our cynicism, skepticism & selfishness forget that the world is still brand new to our children. The film reaches out to empower the young & reminds them they have the power to create the world they wish to live in.

Do yourself and your children a favor, take a moment to see this film when it comes out!

Director Tom Shadyac speaks with intellectual and spiritual leaders about what is wrong with our world and how we can improve both this world and the way we live in it.

I appreciate that Shadyac decided to look beyond the world of comedy and try to find a deeper truth in the world. He is an intelligent man and it is good to be able to see this side of him, because "Ace Ventura" does not necessarily suggest a man craving wisdom.

I also like some of the folks he sought out. There is clearly a liberal bias with Chomsky, Hartman and Zinn being the models, but it was still good to hear from these thinkers. What would the right-wing think tank members say on what is wrong with the world?

In the end, though, I give it a moderate rating because it never really gets in any depth. The question is vague, and without looking for specific answers, you cannot get the best advice. We all know the world is better if we love one another and pass on a smile, but what is the fundamental problem?