I Am

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 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".

"Love is all we need." John Lennon

Director of goofy comedies like Ace Ventura, Tom Shaydac had an epiphany after a life-threatening bicycle accident and did this sweet documentary, I Am, to answer two simple questions: What's wrong with our world? What can we do about it? Enlisting the brain power of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, among others (some more celebrity than brainy), he gets a surprising unanimity.

With its liberal leaning threatening to capsize the project, scholars and Shaydac agree that community rather than individualism (watch out Ayn Rand) is the answer, love rather that selfishness. It has been popular of late to attack the American dream of individual achievement in order to glamorize the Christian philosophy of loving your brother and helping your neighbor.

Disagreeing with this notion is akin to being a grumpy capitalist, so no one in this soft documentary disagrees by arguing, as anyone might, that American individualism is what built the USA into a superpower, starting as it might with the exhortation to "go West, young man (woman)" or believe in "self reliance." I contend that both charity and individualism can work together for a better world, but Shaydac seems in no mood to compromise, or more appropriately, collaborate.

Pretty images, Rumi recitations, and new-age music are the background the curly-coiffed Shaydac employs to keep a glow on the message, which is consistent and suspiciously pat. For instance, shots of loving animal and human families don't necessarily make his case because most will naturally love and nurture their own regardless of charitable pieties.

I have to give Shaydac credit for shucking his material gain like his Hollywood mansion and moving into a Malibu trailer park with his utility bicycle. Unlike Michael Moore, he walks the walk (or rides the ride in the case of that bike).

I Am is a comfortable tome on the effectiveness of love, a concept difficult to denigrate.

"In your light I learn how to love. In your beauty, how to make poems. You dance inside my chest, where no one sees you, but sometimes I do, and that sight becomes this art."

Rumi, Art as Flirtation and Surrender

This is a complete change of pace from the man who brought us Ace Ventura and Liar, Liar. Here Tom looks at the deeper questions of what is wrong with our world and what can we do to change it. Unfortunately, that makes it sound like homework and it is anything but. Tom uses his skill as a filmmaker and his humor to bring us on a journey of enlightenment with him. He has thoughtful conversations with many of the worlds best thinkers and puts the question "what's wrong with our world" to them. Are aggression and competition really the natural order? Is there a better way? This movie asks the questions and gives some possible answers in an entertaining and non-preachy way. The world is what we make of it, and our experience of life is ours to control.

See this movie!!

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.