Q: What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.

The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.

It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.

There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on.
A: negative
Q: Somewhere between the Food Court and Zip's, the mall in this film

has an explosives store. This is the only place the title character

can purchase the bomb he plants in the mall in the dull finale.

A fictional town has a new mall, built on some land that was

condemned. Cute Girl (I didn't catch her name) gets a job as a

waitress there. She lost her boyfriend in a fire at the site where the

mall stands. The villainous mall owner hires the arsonist

responsible for the fire as a security guard after his first security

guard ends up dead. Rob Estes, eons before "Silk Stalkings," is a

photog/reporter trying to find a story. He hooks up with Cute Girl,

and their mutual "funny" friend Pauly Shore, and try to find out if Eric

is still alive. He is, living in the mall basement (?) and traveling

through the air ducts and offing different people who upset his

former girlfriend, including the arsonist. Eventually, he kidnaps her

and the finale involves the bomb and everyone running from the

scene before the big kablooey. Morgan Fairchild is along for the

ride as the mayor...yes, she's the mayor.

Of course, you probably did not need a plot sketch since the entire

story is in the title. Someone named Eric is taking revenge against

people as a phantom of a mall. This also means there is no

suspense. We know Eric is behind this, but we still have to see

Estes and Cute Girl go through the motions of a silly investigation.

Watch as Fairchild, who we know has been in cahoots with the

mall owner all along, pull a gun on our heroic duo in the middle of

a crowded party, yet no one says a word as she leads them to her

office, and her eventual death. The fictional town is huge, yet nary a

policeman is ever called, everyone relies on mall security for order.

Eric has been hiding since the mall was built, but I am not sure

where. He seems to live in a basement area, but you would think

some construction worker would have found him. He also has

furnished his love pad quite well, and found a few outlets, since he

has electricity. It might be nicer than your own apartment!

Pauly Shore fans, both of you, take note. He tricks a security guard

out of his booth by mooning the camera. Yes, stop scanning

Celebrity Skin and Playgirl, this is where you get to see a grainy

black and white shot of Pauly's south shore, although no weezil.

This is just junk, and proof positive that I am down to renting just

about anything at the video store to stay in the horror section. This

film is not Eric's revenge, it is the film maker's revenge for me

being dumb enough to watch it. Here is my revenge: I do not

recommend it. That'll show 'em!

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, gore,

some profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, and some

sexual content.
A: negative
Q: This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.

If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.

I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.
A: negative
Q: This film could have been a silent movie; it certainly has the feel of one. I was extremely, extremely lucky to see this very rare version of this film. Extase, is a 'symphony of love', and transcends all language versions. French, which is the ultimate romantic language, seems quite suitable for this very sensual and lyrical version.A young Hedy Lamarr lights up the screen, in this film which, in a way is almost like a sex fantasy; but definitely far from being pornographic.Tech qualities may have been a little crude; but that does not detract from the magical spell this film exudes.Many lovers of early cinema, would absolutely adore this film.
A: positive