I Am (2011)

Turned it off after the douche nugget gives the analogy of taking apart a car and cutting up a dog, putting them back together and seeing that only a car will work. An analogy against "science" claiming we're simply mechanical (never even heard that one before). Problem is, we f***ing built cars and not dogs. Could have been a documentary on spirituality and what it is to be good but bastardising science doesn't help their cause. Science isn't the enemy of spirituality, science is benign and seeks truth. The guy's comedies actually do a better job of promoting what it is to be good than this selfish nonsense. Recently watched the documentary "Happy" which was uplifting and showed you real people in the real world and how they reconcile their comparatively meager lifestyle with being satisfied and content in their life.

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

As a pastor I often try to make the point that faith and science are not opposed to each other. Rather, they're complimentary. They approach many of the same questions, but they do so from different perspectives. It's difficult to convince a lot of people of that. Hard core atheists will deny it; hard core religious extremists will deny it. But I believe it's true. And that's one of the reasons that I was so delighted to stumble across this documentary.It was made by director Tom Shadyac - who's perhaps best known for directing some of Jim Carrey's comedies. This, however, is not a comedy. Shadyac made this after a life altering experience that had him facing mortality. It's not a "religious" documentary. It doesn't promote any particular religion or faith. It's more of an exploration of "spirituality" as I understand it - the reality of the interconnectedness of everything that exists with everything else that exists. It makes the point that science is increasingly discovering the wisdom of ancient spiritual texts that spoke of and celebrated community and connectedness. Most provocatively, perhaps, it critiques modern society's "me first" mentality with the emphasis being on acquiring more and more of whatever we value - suggesting that acquiring more than what we actually need is a form of mental illness, especially when we're well aware of people living in need at the same time. I was taken by the note that in "The Origin Of Species," Darwin mentioned "survival of the fittest" only twice, but used the word "love" 95 times - noting that it was those who came after Darwin (especially Huxley) who emphasized survival of the fittest and never-ending competition and conquest; the drive to be the best rather than one of the group. It also holds up the ideal of non-violence (using as examples Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela) as one of the best ways of engaging oppressors.I have to admit that some of the scientific discussions contained in this were a bit over my non-scientific head, and this certainly won't appeal to those who are convinced that life is a competition and that the only way to survive and get ahead is to achieve and acquire more than anyone else. In fact, it won't appeal to those who are convinced that the whole point of life is simply to get ahead. Such folk will likely find this too challenging to their worldview; too "liberal" and naive. If you can approach it with an open mind, though, this is very inspiring. It seems a bit cliché as it approaches the end, using imagery like "when a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil it affects everything else" and other familiar sayings - which perhaps lose their power a bit because they are so familiar. Still, I felt uplifted and hopeful as this came to an end. (8/10)

I AM reminds me of the Vietnam-era general's quote: We had to destroy the village to save it. I AM has a correct message, but destroys its effectiveness with a lot of new-agey cow pies. (Not sure what the lingo standards are on IMDb.) Lets begin with the big lies. In 1500, the scientists DID NOT say the earth was flat. In fact, 1500 was well into the enlightenment. Even during the Middle Ages the scholars (not "scientists" in the modern sense of the term) knew and said the earth was round. Even during the Dark Ages they knew – and said – the earth was curved. Hemisphere? Globe? They were uncertain, but they definitely knew it was not flat. Yes, they said it was at the center of the cosmos, but it was scientists who proved that wrong. Also, the movie constantly reiterates that scientists have depicted man as separate from the rest of nature, and even parts of nature separate from each other. The statement is true but ignores the science of the last hundred years, which has increasingly changed that view. It was scientists with mathematicians who discovered quantum entanglement (mentioned in I AM), along with quantum physics. And it was a scientists who decades ago stated that the universe resembles less a clock than mind.It is true, as another commenter writes, that love and cooperation are in our genes. But so is aggression and violence – just read Jane Goodall's account of chimps, or her statements given in interviews. She wrote of seeing one chimpanzee clan literally wipe out another whose members had previously been part of the first clan.As carlupq points out, the references in the movie (to trees and lions only taking what they need) is ridiculous. Carrier pigeons were once so plentiful in America, that their flocks would destroy a forest by merely occupying it for a month. And biological die-offs are common in nature, the result of natural imbalances building up to collapses.And yet, clearly, Tom Shadyac is not entirely off-base. We HAVE developed an obsession with money and stuff, and it IS destroying our nation and the world. We are as off-balance as populations prior to die-offs. Worse, we've lost our way spiritually. Commenter carlupq goes a bit too far in his rah-rah for the free market, but we – our society and the world's advanced nations, and advancing ones too – need a new vision. Poverty is not the answer, nor is a mythical touchy-feely view of man as this inherently kind and caring creature – who coincidently happens to have been slaughtering his fellow man and despoiling his environment since the earliest large groupings arose.No, I AM correctly points to the need for change, a fundamental change in our thinking and our subsequent doings. Unfortunately, it plays off of, and spreads, too many silly ideas to be taken seriously by any except those already in the new-age fold. We need to convince the average Joe and Jane who live in the city and suburbia, and who recognize both the good and the evil in man, that we have to change, and that their children and grandchildren will ultimately be happier by our doing so. We will not convince them with unrealistic views of nature and mankind, but only by the real dangers of continuing on our current paths.