Happy

This is a movie where the subject matter is far more important than the quality of the movie itself (which is good). Had I received messages like this when I was young, I am sure I would have made fewer mistakes.

Young persons understand that happiness is a life goal but they are often confused among conflicting messages on how to get there. By illustrating those who have achieved happiness as well as those who have not, the movie could potentially be very useful in helping young people make responsible and fulfilling life choices.

So hopefully this little movie will be recognized as a motivational tool for the young and used in our classrooms and in other venues where teens might be receptive to its message.

Great movie. When I watched this movie it made me feel that happiness is obtainable. Through religion, and doing the right thing. I believe this movie taught a very valuable lesson as in if you do good things, it can make you feel good. People think scientific facts would matter but science doesn't define emotions. Some things are unexplainable in life for a reason. I think this is great, and enjoyable to watch. I have seen this movie multiple times when I was upset and it always brought me out of my funk and helped me feel positive again. I showed this movie to many members of my family and it made them not only get emotional, but they felt this was a great guide to become a happy person.

While I enjoyed some of this film, a couple of things bothered me. Judging from the narrator speaking English, the audience of this film was primarily people who speak English. It is inexcusable in 2011 to not have interpretation either with voice over or subtitles of the non-English portions. Glad the people from India, Okinawa, and other non-English speaking people spoke to the cameras. It might have been useful to know what you were talking about.

The other thing that concerned me was the likelihood of the ultra rich to say "we don't need to pay you a living wage. It won't make you any happier anyway." They only briefly mention "once basic needs are met". So I can see this film joining the fake theory of trickle down economics to become part of the "arguments of justification: used by that group to explain to themselves why it's OK to holding on to more and more of the wealth.

Tom Shadyac, the director of the Nutty Professor read in a NY times article that although the US was one of the richest countries it was nowhere near the happiest and also noted from his own experience materially successful people he knew were often less happy than their gardeners. Intrigued he funded director Roko Belic to make this movie investigating what makes people happy. He goes to Denmark, Namibia, Scotland, China, Kenya, Brazil, Japan, Bhutan and India and interviews a bunch of people and the result is quite an interesting movie on how things play out. They start with a guy in India living in poverty in one of the worse slums but he's about as happy as the average American partly because there is a lot of community involvement. In Japan he meets the Okinawa islanders who generally have a cheery simple life and live to about 100 and also the family of a pressured salary man who dropped dead in his thirties from stress and overwork. It's interesting to see the contrasts and it may well give some inspiration for your own life.

Loved the topic but don't be fooled by the clear bias that just gets stronger and stronger with this movie. (Opinions are like derrieres, everyone has one) but to present this as a documentary and not own the fact that it promotes certain things and dismisses others is to lower it's credibility.

Here's my bias: Liberty is a moral imperative. -and it's not for the government to decide for people what will or will not make them happy because eventually, they will use their power to impose it on everyone. This is what is so wrong with Marxism, Socialism et al. The collective notion that if it's good for one person, it must be good for all. (That's a lie too, because it's usually only good for the people who are trying to subjugate and enslave others.) It takes a while for this movie to show it's bias but show it, it does: Religion, bad. Communes, good. And many more. For any film to ignore the matter of free will, individual choice and the ability to make those personal decisions about what one choosed to pursue and how he will spend his time, is to ignore an essential quality for happiness.

Not that part of this film weren't moving. The woman who surmounted getting run over by a car was incredibly moving, but the ingredients for happiness are not the same for everyone, yet this film has a collectivist bias. Being free enough to discover what is important in one's life is part of the joy of living. This movie may either intentionally or unintentionally promote the notion that the recipe is the same for everyone. Just do as I say!