User reviews

This film is a philosophical conversation between three intelligent people coming from vastly different backgrounds, each being experts in their respective fields of politics, physics and poetry. The three discuss the dominant paradigm of modern culture and how it is limiting when trying to solve the world's problems. When I saw it I was so excited about it that I told all of my friends to watch it, I also added that they would need to watch it when they are alert enough to grasp what is being said. In other words watch it after drinking coffee not after having dinner. The film doesn't evoke adrenaline surges or erotic fantasy; rather it nourishes the mind by forcing you to think. If you don't know what a paradigm is then this film is not for you. It may be too intellectual for the average movie watcher and perhaps is its own unique genre of film.

IMHO: I stumbled across the work by chance; it happens that the subject matter has everything to do with exactly that. Then I decided it was worth further review, and behold, couldn't locate it for months. Figures. Finding it only recently, I'll skip the storyline that others have analyzed to death or something like that, and merely emphasize that it has its' points --- and I was surprised to find Sam Waterston and Liv Ullman at work in such manner. It's a strange movie that doesn't fit most of "the rules", indeed cerebral yet not really to preach an aspect but to instill wonderment. Joe 6-packs might not easily relate up front at first but if they would just try and ponder ---

I'm inherently biased being a scientist though that's exactly NOT what the theme is truly about despite the honest bent: perspective, practicality, necessity, and compromise.

Nice camera work on location, too. Give it more than a once-over if you can, time not wasted.

Mindwalk is a synthesis of physics, politics and poetry. I use the film when I teach about atoms, and the history of science. It is an excellent tool for teaching scientific debate. I have never heard a negative from my students. I have had a lot of questions generated. This coming spring my science club is going to tackle two Capra books, the Tao of Physics and The Turning Point.

ANY film that causes students to ask questions is of value.

The film is as interesting in the What the Bleep film. My major love for Mindwalk is that it does not change in currency, it is as new today as it was when I began using it 6 years ago.

The actors are wonderful. The scenery is beautiful, and the dialog is divine.

I was channel surfing - late at night, and paused to look at the stunning scenery at Mont St. Michel - and was hooked.

I found this movie to be so profound, and so original - that I missed half of it because I kept reflecting on what had just been said, and missed the next 5 minutes of dialog. I couldn't pause or rewind to listen to what I'd missed.

It's a three way conversation between an isolated former scientist, a poet/political speech writer and a failed presidential candidate. They walk around the island talking about life, politics and science.

It is not hyperbole to say this movie changed my life as well. It did. I've never watched a movie quite like this one... and I can't remember a movie that felt like an entire philosophy course in 2 hours.

I went to netflix to find the rental and it doesn't exist. I can't get it from Blockbuster, and nobody else has ever even heard of it!!

THIS - while Americans rush out to see Ocean's Twelve and Mr & Mrs Smith - both are banal and offensive -

This little known gem fades into obscurity.

Not entertainment in the usual sense, but three individuals discuss the world in erudite and thought-provoking ways. But if you're looking for mindless entertainment, this isn't the picture. If you're looking for understanding of our world, this is a good place to start. The scenery isn't bad, either. The three actors are very good, indeed. Liv Ullman is a physicist on sabbatical, Sam Waterston lost his primary bid for the Presidency, and John Heard is a poet.

The day-long conversation is an ebb and flow between the three of them, touching on politics, physics, and poetry. The author, Capra, sounds as if he is liberal. He's not happy with our society. (Who is?)

Don't watch this if you're tired (you may fall asleep), or don't want to think.

A film set in a beautiful French castle, about three people discussing the fate of the world, peppering their topics with politics, altruism and existentialism.

No, not something that would be a box office blockbuster, nor a film that would attract "Rambo" fans, but this film grabs you by the frontal lobes and makes you THINK! Something that many Americans are apparently afraid to do. Those who panned this film are apparently those who would have difficulty sitting through an opera or any film with subtitles.

Listening to people talk and express their innermost beliefs is akin to voyeurism. This film seemingly does WITH words what "Koyaanisqatsi (1983)" and "Powaqqatsi (1988)" did WITHOUT words (Irony: Philip Glass composed music for all three films).

If you prefer putting your brain on hold when watching a film, this isn't for you. But if you want your philosophy to be put through it's paces, watch this!

Jack, having failed to get the nomination as the Democratic candidate for U.S. President, decides to visit his friend and former speech writer Thomas who is now a poet living in France. While touring Mont Saint-Michel they encounter Sonia, a physicist who has withdrawn from her field of laser research because her results were being used by the military. In short order the three are engaged in a conversation about the meaning of life and the salvation of the world.

Sonia does most of the talking, harping on the interconnectedness of all living things, arguing that a paradigm shift is needed if we are to address the world's problems. She rails against the mechanistic thinking of the past as being obsolete. As an example she cites how using the oscillations of a quartz crystal to tell time shows how far modern science has left mechanistic thinking behind. I didn't get this, since it seems to me that the behavior and analysis of a quartz crystal is just as subject to mechanistic laws as a pendulum clock. But that is just one thing I didn't get in this ponderous gabfest.

Many topics of current relevance are broached: the influence of money on politics, the degradation of the earth's environment, the unknowability of many things, the mysteries propounded by modern physics, the moral responsibilities of scientists, the disregard for preventive medicine, and so forth. This interaction between a visionary, a pragmatist, and a romantic could have been stimulating if it had been realized as a passionate conversation rather than a sequence of pontifications. I felt that I was being lectured to rather than eavesdropping on an engaging conversation.

The scenery around and on Mont Saint-Michel is nicely filmed.

I suppose you have to admire this for its good intentions, but I found myself frequently checking my (mechanical) watch.

Some 22+ years later, "Mindwalk" remains a fascinating & provocative film, one that seems to change as I do, always revealing something new whenever I watch it again. Yet for some, it's one of the most awful things ever put to celluloid. Why such virulently different opinions? I won't insult those who didn't like it by saying they just don't get it, or that they're not intelligent enough to understand it. Clearly its point of view and/or presentation simply don't resonate with them. In fact, the sheer outrage of some (not all) negative responses makes the film sound like a deeply personal affront to those viewers.

I'd suggest that any film capable of evoking such strong responses, either negative or positive, is worth consideration. If nothing else, it asks viewers to stop & reconsider their view of the world, of life, and of themselves -- something that not everyone is always so eager to do, let's be honest.

My own response? To me, this film is one version of my ideal getaway from the mundane world: a place where one can pause, reflect, converse, struggle to come to grips with the Big Questions. The timeless setting of Mont Saint-Michel alone adds to that ambiance, with its sense of being on the edge of eternity while walking beside the sea, with that majestic monument to the soul looming overhead. That alone is a magical, liminal place for me, one that always takes me outside of the everyday.

Then, too, there's the classic form of the philosophical dialog. The three characters are more archetypal & allegorical than traditional movie characters: The Scientist, the Politician, the Poet. They're not supposed to have complicated back-stories, although enough is given by the script & even more by the actors to create the sense of individual lives; these are people as well as philosophical positions as they walk & talk.

And what talk it is! For some, this is the antithesis of what a movie should be ... and certainly it's not your typical entertainment. But I was immensely entertained & enthralled by it. You don't necessarily have to agree with every single point to enjoy it, either; one of the film's great pleasures for me is how it makes me want to join in the conversation, because that conversation constantly sparks new thoughts & possibilities. As I change & grow over the years, the film does as well, in that it always pokes & prods & encourages me to stop & think about things I've taken for granted. As Andre points out to Wally in "My Dinner With Andre", it's important not to fall into a robotic way of thinking & living, even though our culture encourages exactly that. For me, revisiting this film always does shake me out of that automatic pilot through life. Because even when you're aware of it, and striving to live a more meaningful life, it's all too easy to let the robot take over without even realizing you've let that happen.

As for the concept of a new vision of life? That remains vitally relevant, as do so many of the ideas explored in the film. Yes, it has a specific viewpoint & agenda -- what film doesn't, in the end? But it's always pleased me that the final scenes really belong to the Poet, and that it's his voice uttering the last words we hear over the wonderfully hypnotic score by Philip Glass.

Not for every taste, to be sure! But for me, a film that can draw me back time & time again. How I would love to see a sequel, following up on the characters decades later, seeing how their views have changed & grown in the intervening years! Meanwhile, let's hope for that overdue DVD release, preferably with plenty of extras -- Criterion, how about it?

This is a truly great film for viewers interested in ideas. If you didn't like "My Dinner with Andre" take a pass on this one. If you did like you may still find it not to your taste. It is a pic about the environment. I am not a eco-freak or a "Green" but I love ideas, even those I don't agree with. If you too are a Voltaire type, you MUST see - and hear - this tremendous conversational flick. It is a 10 for lovers of conversation and ideas.

Perhaps, if 1990 the 'Introduction to PostModernism 101' flick could be greater appreciated - but sadly the movie is dating itself as the irrelevance and integrity-lacking movement hurls itself toward its end.

Using St. Michel as the background was a brilliant move and carried forth very skillfully for such a low-budget film. Unfortunately, the dialog which is supposed to carry the flick is one-sided and inconsistent when one tries to draw out to ultimate conclusions.

If the script would have been more honest and less interested in propaganda, it could have been a movie that gets better with age. Instead, the brilliant physicist (who we are told is her background but really never proved) enlightens the other two as to the pitfalls of the Enlightenment and Modernism. Only she seems ignorant and oblivious that her proposals are the same mere closed system solutions that she is criticizing, and perhaps more dangerous –especially as to her proud monologue of not voting (not engaging in the political process) yet advocating radical public policy change for the good of the people and earth. If her point was carried to its conclusion what she would be asking for is an Adoria Hitler or Ivana Stalin to enforce her points for the good of the people, who she so advocates as unable to fend for themselves. I thought the politician was going to bring this point home and for our dear Confucius to reply, but instead the scene leaves us hanging. Thus her arguments and the movie fall empty and shallow.

So in the end, the film will pose as one of brilliance for the somewhat ignorant freshman or sophomore philosopher but otherwise a very empty movie.

Still the St Michel scenes are wonderful.

It might be a little hyperbolic for me to say this movie changed my life, but it has certainly been a mainstay since a friend and I discovered it quite by accident several years ago. We knew Fritjof Capra as an author and knew that one of his books is what brother Bernt used as a skeleton for the movie. I find it HIGHLY ENTERTAINING over and over to this very day, because I understand that GOOD CONVERSATION is a lost and discounted art. This movie captures, in a breath-takingly beautiful and dynamic setting, one of the best dialogues in the history of thought. It communicates in relatively simple terms some of the most important and expansive issues of today, but it does not spoon-feed the viewer. It includes discourse on politics, scientific concepts, influences on perspective, as well as having some great lines, interesting quotes, and memorable, well-presented poetry. Its theme is to communicate through dialogue, monologue, descriptive prose, music, guided visual imagery, constant changes in setting (all in one locale, VERY IMPRESSIVE cinematographical work) and (yes) even drama and antagonism between the characters. The theme is borne of a new school of thought, and understanding and assimilating the message is something a person can actually do to make the a world better place.

Beautiful, poetic film....artfully combining & contrasting the seeming solidity and eternal nature of Mount St. Michael with the sweeping and ethereal conversations of a poet, a physicist, and a politician as they each (and together) explore the question of existence (oranges & cherries, oh my!)

Rarely does a film inspire me to take notes. I filled nearly a page of my sketchbook with notes and sketches. I watched the film on recommendation from a teacher for a project I'm developing. I started by paying close attention to 'relevant' details and was quickly caught up in the conversation entirely.

The plot is simple. A politician (presidential candidate) calls his brother, the poet, because he's disillusioned and needs a break. The politician visits his brother in France and they visit an amazing castle-island in northern France, where they meet the scientist (and her daughter), and have a long philosophical discussion about the structure or system of reality and mankind's (especially Americans) role in nature.

I recommend this to anyone that has philosophical thoughts. Highly recommend it to politicians, scientists, artists, ministers (religious leaders), and designers - it should be required viewing for us. It's a good discussion and I wish we all had conversations like this more often.

As an avid reader, including most all of Capra's work, this is an excellent adaptation of The Turning Point. If you appreciate academic theory and it's realistic application to the world, then take a walk with these three intelligent characters as they do this very thing. Pay attention to the Art Direction and camera framing of the scenes. This film is for people who easily engage with intellectual discussion of applied theoretical observation of the universe and our world. Simply put, this is a wonderful film, a powerful film based on the work of one of the greatest writers ever!

I will say at the outset that I'm a fan of Liv Ullmann and "the guy from "Home Alone"" whose name is, I believe, John Hurt. After reading the vitriolic diatribes I admit to being surprised that a movie like "Mindwalk" could ever elicit such responses. I thought the movie was nicely filmed and had an excellent pace. I happen to agree that the relationship between mother and daughter was a bit thin in parts but when you look at the movie as a whole (ok everybody, keep breathing) or as say a system it worked rather nicely. I didn't find the Liv Ullmann character to be a hypocrite at all. Events in our lives help to change our minds and ways of thinking. Clearly this is where she found herself with Sam Waterson (the Law and Order guy) and John Hurt (the Home alone guy) falling somewhere behind her a bit. I didn't find her "man hating" either. Actually I found it refreshing that characters were being portrayed as complex beings rather than thumbnail sketches of stereotypes. I could also listen to Liv Ullmann recite the NYC phone book( but not,for instance, the Dayton phone book) and probably enjoy myself. So, relax a little bit, have a nice sandwich and watch the movie again and remember that when you read all the threads about this movie it's really like that tree in Liv's monologue.....everything influencing everything else....heh. I did enjoy the comment about going to church though...well done angry dude!

Mindwalk comes across more as a documentary that a movie, from my perspective. It feels like a treatise of thought that isnt being hinted at, but rather being worshipped. As one poster already mentioned, it really is propoganda. We have the scientist, the politican, the poet, but the businessman or entreprenuer is lacking. Given the underlying themes, this isnt surprising; the disregard of the individual is amazing, and the standard green policies are bandied about like gospel from an unlikely acolyte. To be fair, there are a few good things about this; the cinematography is brilliant at times, and it isnt formulaic. It is an interesting movie to watch for the perspective, despite the heavy doses of insipid social commentary that overwhelm it at times.

The world has become warmer, more polluted, more war like and in a larger state of mass confusion since the movie first hit the big screen in 1990. The movie's original content and the latest 'living facts' of 2006, simply prove that scientific denial and radical religions appear to loom as the overall death knell for human existence. That the human race is slowly moving toward eventual extinction. Science, religion and humanity are more divided than ever today. This incredible movie should be run on prime time TV, over the Internet and be required in all classrooms 8th grade and up, once a year. It should be re-made every 3-5 years with updated dialog gleaned from current events. This was the most thought provoking movie I've ever seen. Bud Biddle-CA.

An interesting film which manipulates three distinctly different characters by a fairly simple physics lesson. I don't say this to demean the film, quite the contrary, it is just this principal that the story emphasizes - if you isolate any one subject (science, politics, art) from any other part of life, then it really serves no purpose. The dark side of me would have written quite a different ending. As the three hunkered down looking at the sand, I would have had a nuclear mushroom cloud appear on the horizon. A good movie, watch it with some of your more open-minded friends, with a good bottle of wine - and see what sort of sociological improvements YOU come up with!

While the intent of this film is noble enough, and there's certainly no lack of theories and discourse here, I can't go so far as to call it a good movie. I have trouble, at times, putting the image of a writer at his word processor, and barely concealing his philosophical monologue by using three non-characters.

The characters have some backstory; they mention their lives and loves, but are as real and emotive as your average documentary narrators. This is their real function, and while you're with them, you are in a science and philosophy classroom.

Mindwalk reminds me more of a filmstrip than a movie. Plot, characters, story... these mean nothing to Mindwalk. It is a film based on characters waxing scientific and philosophical, using a remarkably dense and simple everyman as a foil. Using this device, they tackle several worthwhile issues, thought processes, and mindsets.

Information and opinions are abundant here, but they don't make a good movie. The delivery is a little condescending, an a little pretentious: its one-sided spearing as the philosophical scientist and the thoughtful poet out maneuver the politician (thus, proving that they are right!) and would have been more honest if they would have packaged the information evenly, instead of spoon-feeding it in the form of fiction.

This film made me want to read. I'd rather read William Blake than have two lines at a time quoted at me (and if I want to have William Blake quoted ad nauseum in a film, I'll just rent Dead Man again). I'd rather read A Brief History of Time-- which is very accessible and easy to read, even for a middlebrow like me-- than have the cliff notes recited to me from the screen.

I suppose I had no idea what to expect, but I was hoping for some sort of a movie. As it stands, Mindwalk will only reach an audience too unmotivated to take in any sort of knowledge beyond the shelves of Blockbuster.