This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

the audience applauded

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Can documentary films be presented any more beautiful than this ? With Morgan as the narrator, and with the most astonishing facts, the greatest pacing and also philosophy, it's like everything was represented on a silver platter. There is no way you won't like this. It is when science becomes fun, I loved it, and I bought it, and I finished it, and I will definitely recommend it to my friends, despite being 7 years late.10/10

Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole is an insidiously dishonest video that purports to dispassionately discuss the fascinating question "Is there a creator".It LOOKS like a typical professionally made science video for the general public. It avoids the usual creationist wackiness and biblical quotations in turgid tones and heavenly choirs.But instead, it lies subtly. In its opening lines it gives the impression that science is evenly divided on the question of a creator god.Then they credit a surfer with inventing String theory single-handedly, and that his speculative math is tantamount to proving the existence of God and revealing the mathematics God used in his creation. This is blithering nonsense if you check any other source.The video explains the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design, in quite a bit of detail. This is by far the best creationist argument. However, though they don't even mention Stephen Hawking's opposing interpretations of it. Fair and balanced? Only in the FOX News sense.The video pulls the usual creationist stunt of claiming that adaptation necessarily implies intelligent design with planning and forethought, completely forgetting to mention evolutionary theory's explanation.It fails to point out that adaptation never shows any sign of planning or forethought. The video never talks about the ineptitude of adaptation. These are both key arguments against intelligent design.The video talks about the "God Spot" -- a spot in the brain, that when stimulated generates a "sense presence" a strange experience of being in the presence of something you cannot see that Christians typically interpret as being in the presence of Jehovah (the first thing that comes to their minds when you say "invisible presence"). The inventor of the device to stimulate these experiences calls his yellow helmet the "God Helmet" which likely helps trigger this delusion of grandeur by suggestion. Freeman lies outrageously that the inventor of this helmet believes his device shows that god lives in the brain. I read more scholarly accounts of his work elsewhere.The video never shows you the spelling of any of the experts' names. It thus makes it harder to Google them to find out what they really had to say. That is a very odd thing to do in a science video.Most of the "experts" were unknown to me. I suspect the director scoured the world for cranks and people desperate for attention willing to let Freeman put words in their mouth that they would never dream of saying themselves.Freeman has such a pleasant hypnotic voice, if you don't stay alert to the inconsistencies, you naturally trust his summary assertions of what the various "eminent scientists" told him off camera.Some big money was behind this carefully-crafted set of subtle lies. You cannot ascribe this to simple error or naivety. This is cunning malice.

I started watching this show expecting to find something along the lines of Sagan's Cosmos, or other documentaries by Brian Cox, Neil Tyson.Instead, I was treated to wildly hyperbolic interpretations of scientific theories, constant religious references, and a general mind- so-open-your-brain-falls-out mentality.For instance, the show seems to imply that the LHC was built in order to find God, and that all scientists are motivated by religious reasons.It also presents hypothesis after hypothesis, without questioning any of the claims being made. It is the least skeptical 'science' documentary I've ever seen.The visuals are good, but excessively cheesy. I feel like this show is all flash but no substance.

I love science shows and watch them whenever my wife isn't around (she'll allow me Mythbusters, so I'm good). I also love Morgan Freeman, and wanted to love this show, but no dice.I found myself yelling back at the TV during the episode I watched and when this happens with a science show there's got to be something wrong.What I saw was an uncritical eye allowing often questionable cutting edge hypotheses to pass without applying appropriate skepticism. I had to change the channel as I was getting so annoyed, the first time this has ever happened to me with a science show.I'd go into detail, but I've apparently scrubbed my mind of the all too painful memory.I'll stick with Neil deGrasse Tyson, thanks. I just want to give that guy a hug every time he's on TV.