What tнe #$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!? Review

By: Michael Lee

Starring: Marlee Matlin, John Ross Bowie, Elaine Hendrix
Year: 2004

First off, that screen cap up there has nothing to do with the movie, other then being used for five seconds to segway into a scientist talking about how even the slightest thought of sex can give a man an erection, and such logic can be used to prove that thinking about things can affect what's around you... or some sh*t like that. Wikipedia states it better by saying: "The plot follows the story of a deaf female photographer; as she encounters emotional and existential obstacles in her life, she comes to consider the idea that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world." and it's not as lame as you might think. If you couldn't tell by the first two sentences, this movie, released in 2004 in maybe 2% of all the theaters in the US, is a thinking man's movie, one I was forced to watch in 11th grade Theory of Knowledge class, which questions everything I know and believe. Sometimes it's entertaining, sometimes it's boring, and most times it's confusing. Think of any documentary you might see on the Discovery Channel or the Health Channel. Now take that and mix it up with a ton of CGI and a story about a depressed deaf woman. Is this the formula for Hollywood magic? Hell no, but does that mean you shouldn't give it a gander? Well, that all depends.

It depends if you want to "step down the Rabbit Hole", a phrase which in the movie essentially means: "question everything you know". The movie is divided up into five main themes:

1)The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance.
2) "Empty space" is not empty.
3) Matter is not solid. Electrons pop in and out of existence and it is unknown where they disappear to.
4) Beliefs about who one is and what is real form oneself and one's realities.
5) Peptides manufactured in the brain can cause a bodily reaction to an emotion.

And it explains all these themes with the help of neuroscience and quantum physics, which doesn't really help the fact that the themes are already confusing. Scientists are shown throughout the movie expressing their ideas, all of which are summarized by the character's in the movie, such as a basketball playing boy who learned quantum mechanics from a comic book, and some crazy old guy in a subway I like to think is actually a sharply dressed hobo. This, along with CGI visuals that range from really cool looking to just plain bad, tries to dumb it down so that everyone can understand, while also providing entertainment. At moments this works, at other moments they fail. The documentary parts of this movie also range, as certain scientists add personality to the movie, where as others are boring and uninspiring. The actual movie part of this movie has its moments, like the beginning of the wedding scene, where Amanda (our deaf main character) is driven mad by intense flashbacks of her husband cheating on her, then she gets totally wasted. However, certain scenes are dumb and pretty unnecessary, like the end of the wedding scene, that involves a polka-dance-a-thon and a overdose of Flubber-like CGI characters.

The views of the people in this movie vary also. Certain scientists try to use quantum theories to prove there is a divine creator and that you can go backward in time, which is awesome. Theories along the line of "The Indians were unable to see the ships of the English colonists since they had never been exposed to such and thus their brain could not process what they were seeing" were nicely explained, but still too far-fetched to be believable. The aspect which the whole movie was about (beliefs about who one is and what is real form oneself and one's realities) is also something that seems too haphazard to really be true, but it does get you to thinking, how do you know that everything around you isn't just a product of you or someone else's imagination?

I'd give this movie a 6 out of 10. It's a step up to your average Discovery Channel documentary, but that step up can also weigh it down. I'm against using drugs and Nerdism in no way endorses them, but this seems like a movie that would drive you insane if you watched it high. I'm sure the part where the comic book boy splits into three and plays basketball with himself is enough to weird you out sober, I can't imagine what that would be like to watch high.

 

6 out of 10 Nerdism Nerds.