Jeremy Ward It shows that people don't see reality, but only see what someone else wants them to see or in the case of many of the reviewers what they want to see. It's a self defeating ego. That is what Tom Shadyac does in this crappy adolescent film. I think he should stick to what he does horribly well. Making crappy B rated comedies. There is a lot being said, but no proof or science, just pure opinionated speculation. He even puts down science in the film, yet tries to use science to prove his wild assumptions horribly. Make up your mind. If science is bad then why try to use science to justify your claims? If living in a primitive tribe was so great then how come he doesn't live as one, or how about we all do? At times I get tired of many using primitive tribes as if we have evolved backwards. There is a reason why most of us don't live as primitives anymore, because there are many negatives to being primitive. They weren't the loving peaceful primates that some people make them out to be. That's the problem with this film is that it does what most Facebook Meme Crack does. Makes you feel good, but only tells one side of the story. It's not reality, and people become addicted to its short lived message. Many of these films have been produced, and in what way have they contributed to the evolution of people? They haven't. If anything I'm surprised anyone even goes tot he doctor anymore. They are synonymous to snake handlers. Its very dangerous and irresponsible. They believe faith will cure them. They never tell you the negative consequences. They hide them, and cover them up. They are not very transparent. They are very opaque. They give the impression they are open and honest, but in ALL things there are negatives, consequences etc, but they show none of it, or the other side of their argument. Debbie Ford plagiarized and misrepresented Carl Jung's work on the shadow self in her book, "The Dark Side of the Light Chasers". She basically says the same thing as many of the New Age movement does. She claimed miraculous healing by following what she instructed yet the reality is she could not save herself from dyeing from cancer. Yet people still read and buy her book? Because people want to believe even if it harms them. This is the problem with the New Age moment and why it is not very scientific. It is taken from personal experiences that have no way of proving or disproving. It's the same reason why eyewitnesses make the worse kind of witnesses. Its perception, which is not based in over all reality, but only personal reality which is skewed. Tom Shadyac had the obsession to reach out and give a message of love and hope because of his accident, but this happens all of the time. We don't suddenly become spiritual gurus because of near death experiences. It's a false sense of reality due to that traumatic or near life act. It more complicated then that. The movie description explained about renowned philosophers and intellectuals, yet I have found none! There was very little science and the science they did show was extremely skewed, and taken out of context. He picks and chooses who he interviews making sure they go along with what he wants. He even puts down science in the film equating it with communism. That's horrendous and irresponsible. In his review of "Life's Operating Manual" for the New York Journal of Books, Martin A. David states:"Many, if not most, of Mr. Shadyac's elucidations are mundane truisms. But this absolutely does not discredit them ... Books like his are frequently read by people who already understand the messages contained but desire booster shots of energizing inspirations. Preaching to the choir is not a bad thing, but the preacher has to do something more to keep the choir awake ... Tom Shadyac's view of what we need to keep our world from continuing on its downward spiral would have carried more gravitas he had said it better and with more convincing clarity. It would, indeed, be helpful if a how-to book for existence were available."Enough said.

dreaesparza Why Excellent?because it is thought provoking and that is what documentaries doI Personally share and have read many ideas and scientific studies that were shown in the film, so i found it to be friggin awesome that it was all stitched together. of course he can't give you all the depth behind the science that would take 2 more films He is here to give his hopeful opinion to the belief that We Are All One This topic can be explored in a 20 hour film if you would like but he made it personable and fun with showing clips that illustrated some ideas comically and with provoking emotions. this is an opinion piece so be open to his ideas even if you disagreeif you like to smile to feel and to watch the self discovery of others than i will say that you will enjoy this most docs explore one topic examples Why We Fight - military industrial complex Black Fish - the horrors of captivity on intelligent mammals Food Inc- this one is in the title I am - the exploration of self-discovery after accepting death and then trying to make a creative/fun piece with the the details that the exploration gave him using animations , video clips, scientist, authors, history , its a little bit of everything and thats why personally i loved it

atlasmb 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".

Michael McAleer Fully recommend this film. Warning: if watched with an open heart could change your life forever and make you happier than you've been since you were a child. Big business better watch out .... we're waking up and we'll be coming for you soon ...... Parents show your teenagers this film, the utmost education you could provide for them.My only question is why does this film feel like the complete truth make such total sense to me and yet a couple of days after watching it I feel like I'm losing my mind - supporting a simple experiment that has mutated into an evil society making us all sick? I should feel healthy but society tells me I'm mad .... Guess I'll find out whose right soon enough.