arniepo I do love this movie/documentary. There was a lot of truth in it, and it is very awakening, but to say that what will free us is technology and totally discount spiritual awakening as a force or change is very short sighted . This deny's the spiritual power within us to heal the planet and bring about a more humane and loving society. Otherwise I would have given it a ten. But the atheistic scientific view, which is not uncommon, prevents us from going beyond seeing life from a purely mechanical, material perspective. I do think this movie is a must see for everyone and glad it is out there. There are many great scientists that do now deny the divine power available to us fro change and the common good.

denvergrown303 !Warning, some spoilers contained!I didn't really care for this documentary because it's format is not very academic. Jacque Fresco seeks to educate and inform, but his method is not very professional. He simply asserts an idea as truth, and then moves on the next idea, to build his case against the practice of fractional-reserve banking. I don't entirely disagree with all of his ideas (I would even support banking reform based off of this documentary), I just wish he would go about it in a more professional and academic method.The foundation for the modern form of education, debate, and critical viewing of ideas goes back to Socrates, Plato, and earlier philosophers. One of the most important maxims that has evolved is the idea of "citing your sources." I have watched Zeitgeist and Zeitgest Addendum and Mr. Jacque Fresco is terrible at citing sources. If I lived in 1200 A.D./C.E. and someone simply stated the world was round, it would be really easy to dismiss them. If someone told me that they had done research, and based on their calculations, which were based on the calculations of other respected mathematicians that they believed the world was round, it would be a lot harder to dismiss.. That's because now I'm not just dismissing the idea, I'm dismissing the persons work, their research, other respected mathematicians, and quite possibly scientific thought up until this point. That's a much larger hurdle than just dismissing a statement. Mr. Fresco's ideas are fairly easy to dismiss because he doesn't cite his sources well. Mr. Fresco does occasionally use references to academic journals, magazines, quotes, and even cites a court case, but he uses them as they suit his argument, sometimes out of context, and ignores evidence that doesn't concur. For example, he uses the First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly case to highlight that making money out of thin air is illegal and unconstitutional. He fails to highlight that the court case was later nullified by a higher court. That's a pretty important aspect for someone who is going to use that as evidence for building an argument, but it's inconvenient so he fails to mention it.Mr. Fresco's ideas are definitely intriguing and cause pause for thought, but they just do not hold up to the bombardment of critical thinking.

Edgar Soberon Torchia For someone who comes from a country (Panama) that has also contributed to US comfort with its resources for decades (as this film states... and yes, it's true), this is the first time in my life that I've heard (and seen) someone admit that Gen. Omar Torrijos was killed by the CIA. Back in 1981 I had read the so-called "Santa Fe Document" (which I believe was a report created for Ronald Reagan, who had already been chosen as the next US president by the plutocrats, a text that also gave "solutions", as killing leaders, attracting talents via scholarships, or overthrowing governments), so I was not much surprised whenever a Latin American leader died. They were being killed like flies. I remember quite vividly the day Torrijos died, and how I thought, "They did it!" So this documentary was very revealing in that sense, and touching indeed. It does give enough information for one to make personal conclusions, based on what we already knew (in case one reads alternative info, instead of listening to news from CNN, Fox, etc.), with Jacque Fresco adding a funny dimension, John Perkins playing the prodigal "s.o.b", and J. Krishnamurti as the prototypical guru (even when he claims that there are no gurus, but our own reasoning). The documentary adheres to a movement, and that is its main short coming, but in the end that is what inspired the previous exposition. One may believe or not on the Venus Project, but that does not matter: what lies beneath, the reasoning behind many of its proposals are true more often than not. Cynic rejection without further analysis, without admitting that in the end what we do is to protect our little privileges, will not last forever. Recommended.

stephane_decker First of all I want to make up for some false information provided by other reviewers by making two things absolutely clear: - the movie is not an advert for anything. there is no book to buy. believe it or not, the so called "book" is a PDF File available on www.thezeitgeistmovement.com and is absolutely free, just as are the Zeitgeist Movies.Zeitgeist Addendum never suggests that technology replacing human labour (automation) would be a bad thing, the movie only points out that businesses use this progress to save costs and therefore increase profit. Remember: Revenues - (minus) Costs = Profit (roughly).(I have no intention of reviewing it, it is not a movie like another, its purpose is not to entertain or to transpose messages through known cinematic patters.The movie is free, meant to be spread and the messages in it are clear, there are no metaphors, comparisons or anything alike) To the point then of my movie comment:This movie clearly intents to reshape the thinking process of intelligent human beings. Instead of absorbing the education and the values we are given as real, trustworthy and natural, and then merely registering them we should start to question the education, question the values of society, doubt them, check on them and only then decide if information is trustworthy or not; reject what is in doubt until there is absolute certainty about the trustworthiness.In my opinion this movie should also be questioned, doubted. This is exactly why I said that the movie is for intelligent people; after watching this movie they change their thinking process and immediately start to doubt the monetary system but also the movie and the Venus Project.It takes intelligent people to understand what this movie wants and about what it is and it is crucial to understand first. With watching the movie, the job is still not done, one should start researching on their own with any tools given if things are really that bad in and with the monetary system. We need to ask ourselves a thing or two: were the obvious long term consequences of the monetary system intended? Is the Venus Project socially possible? Haven't we gone too far already? There is no correct answer to such questions, the answers are arbitrary, the solutions are created by everyone. This tears us apart.I personally find the Venus Project very appealing but I see many problems already.First of all, it is very idealistic since the values we're given from the monetary system are so strongly inherent in our nature. Could you possibly imagine a world without money? Doing work to live on a good standard that everyone has. Maybe so. Maybe not.There would be no competition then, would there? The technologies presented in the movie to harvest clean energy from natural inexhaustible sources are brilliant but I don't think for any second that the one who comes up with it would not ask for money. For profit. To distinguish himself from the others. to compete.This leads me to the second point: the Venus Project asks us to lay down competition. However, isn't it competition and the thrive for profit that makes us evolute? Are newer and better Computers really produced to make us evolute, or is evolution just a side effect of the rush for profit? The latter I would say.It is competition that makes some of us study in the best universities, to get better jobs, to earn more money and the side effect might really be some evolution. I don't think humanity and its instinctual nature would ever be ready to work to evolute instead to compete. As long as the human being is instinctively driven by competition, there will never be a Venus Project.Reason on the highest scale and depth is what could bring the Venus Project to life: refusing to compete, refusing to get profits at any cost, refusing a strong elite position; refusing to value money.We would need to value life. Compassion. Solidarity. Impossible? No.But it needs time and work, some processing, too. The human mind needs to be reshaped, education needs to change, societal values need dramatic change as well. Just as the movie points out, tradition values need to be flushed away but this cannot happen over days or years.I am sure that it will be reality someday. I am also sure that this process of changing values will take a lot of time, I'm thinking about hundreds of years; or when we run out of oil. We need to be forced to changed, preferably by nature.Until that happens, a world where there is no money, no unemployment, no competition, no differentiation between a Ferrari and a Ford, and technology for everybody, such a world will remain a kids fantasy. I had that fantasy, too, this "idea".But what would be a world where everybody has everything for nothing? It would be a world where the new values are love, family, fun. Which raises new competition (who gets the better family, the prettier wife/husband...)... right now, as intelligent as I might be I say: We live in a vicious circle of competition. Money is not the problem, competition is. As a conclusion I think that a world without competition would free us all, and yet leave us with nothing. I hope that hundreds of years after me there will be a near perfect world.Probably without us, we are not made for such a world.Thanks if you read this to the end :-)