What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole

Although it claimed a great deal more than should be accepted by any reasonably thinking person, I quite liked the first BLEEP movie. It was refreshing and offered an interesting view on reality that was presented in an entertaining way.

Alas, I can't say the same is true for the sequel: it further builds on the concepts that were already outlined in #1, which brings us well within the realm where fairy tales and other fantasies dwell.

As such I would have given it another star or two, *but* for the effort that has gone into convincing the viewer that it is actually *we* who are living in a fantasy instead.

The 'proof' for this relies on extrapolations of solid scientific facts far beyond the borders where they can be applied with any degree of dignity, quasi-scientific claims for which no support is presented whatsoever, and self-important statements by expert with impressive but meaningless CV's. This is done in such a chaotic manner that the only entanglement that results will be your own trying to make a coherent picture of it all.

All-in-all this sequel left me feeling only lectured, not entertained.

But if you're already into this kind of stuff I suppose I could recommend it: chances are you will feel pretty good about yourself after-wards.

"What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole" is not quite a sequel, and not quite a director's cut of the original "What the Bleep Do We Know!?". "Down the Rabbit Hole" features new commentary and narration from its panel of interviewees, and new animations featuring Dr. Quantum (who was briefly mentioned in the first movie). However, it is hard to call this a sequel, since an only slightly abbreviated version of the Marlee Matlin storyline from the first version is shown again here. This film would have been fantastic had it introduced new narrative footage and left the old footage in the first film. (Thus a 6 out of 10, and not 8 or 9.)

"Down the Rabbit Hole" elaborates on a few of the quantum theories mentioned in the first film, namely the role of the observer in reality, our limits of perception, the influence of intention, and the connectivity of matter. If the ideas from the first film piqued your interest, "Down the Rabbit Hole" will make a wonderful addendum.

I would recommend seeing "What the Bleep Do We Know!?", and then watching "Down the Rabbit Hole" a few weeks later. The commentary is engaging throughout the movie (no small task at 2.5 hours long), but sitting through the scenes carried over from the first film gets tedious. I think one would easily be lost without seeing the first version, though. The commentary in "Down the Rabbit Hole" is 90% new, and hits the ground running.

Overall, both "Bleep" movies are wonderful and thought provoking, and I enjoyed the ideas presented in the commentary.

The point of this film is not the science nor the philosophy but really that science IS philosophy. Mankind will never be able to explain all the why's of human existence. When it thinks that it has it will have to contend with the "why" of it all. To me, science deepens the mystery of life. There is no certitude. You don't have to believe their answers only the questions. I would like to refer you the great physicist, Stephen Hawking who said, and I paraphrase what is it that breathes life into the universe? What is it causes the universe to bother in creating itself, whether it is done by its nature or by an external influence? Indeed what is the meaning of life itself. This film doesn't tell you, but it sure entertains you in its attempt to try.

This movie is a blend of new age thinking and what we know about quantum physics. This is basically an expanded version of the previous "What the Bleep?" movie but it provides a lot more depth.

The most compelling aspect of this movie is not the specific examples they use, but the overall message that we create our own reality, we shape our own reality and we change reality.

This movie uses both sound and questionable science to convey it's message. It is up to the user to come to their own conclusion about the implications.

This movie is worthwhile for the simple fact it makes you think. It could be classified as it's own genre in that it blends the format of documentary and drama yet it is not a true example of either. You would not watch this for the drama, and the science is based on theory and speculation more so than hard fact.

The added portions in this 2006 release make it better than the original. The editing is not as smooth, but the extra information allows you walk around with more things to ponder afterward.

With the polarization of the human race between Religion and Science, this movie (so I thought) did a good job in expressing a view that, if nothing else, opens some minds on both sides. To my horror, by reading some of these posts, it seems that the science community is becoming more and more close minded by totally disproving topics that don't align with their beliefs. I do not know how this movie was advertised, but I wasn't anticipating a science class. I will admit there were at least one self-serving unnecessary opinion in this movie that kind of turned me off, but overall I thought it did a good job of making the average person think in a way they never have and that is always a good thing.