Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

rgcustomer My comments refer to the "Special Edition Director's Cut" which runs about 70 minutes, and appears to be absent from the "alternate versions" page.This is a fun introductory look at the topic of stupidity. As the film itself notes, stupidity isn't a subject that has been looked at seriously by very many researchers. Books on the subject can't even fill a shelf, and this is the first and only film with this title (as far as IMDb knows).The film opens with a look at the definitions of stupidity, as well as former psychological terms that have become insults: idiot, imbecile, and moron.It the moves into the subject of dumbed-down media (apparently the original idea of this film, and something from which it suffers although it doesn't admit it).Other topics include fallacies of smart people (or at least successful people) who over-estimate their abilities, "super-stupidity" -- the promotion of stupid behaviour and ignorance, and widespread human stupidity (climate change, religion, war).Former president Bush is shown as a prime example of stupidity, and using the appearance of stupidity to accomplish goals.It ends with the idea that being stupid in today's world is actually quite hard work for most people, and that stupidity may be a desirable state, at least at the individual level.I'm not sure what all the differences are, but this version apparently includes a Fox News interview, and a David Suzuki interview, not in the original version.If there had been more films on the subject of stupidity, I'd have rated this lower. But this is all there is. It could have taken a more serious tone. It should have included things like the "tragedy of the commons", the Monty Hall problem, and invention versus quality concepts.

chup23 It's a good thing the makers of this film declared themselves "idiots" at the very beginning of the movie. It saved me from making the comment myself. It would be easy to brand this film "stupid", but I think it goes way beyond that label. It is lazy, inept and insulting. I actually hated this film enough to write this review. I didn't feel this insulted after watching "Transformers," that's how bad I'm annoyed at this movie. Can I just say how tired I am of "documentaries" using canned footage from old propaganda films from the '40s and '50s. You know the footage I'm talking about: scenes in black and white where they show you how things worked in the good old days, when things were simple, and the American dream was a smiling paradise. Women frolicked in their dresses and men wore suits and fedoras. Am I the only one tired of filmmakers splicing this stuff into their movies to show us a foil to their insipid points? To show us that our grandparent's generation was ruled in naivety and now these new filmmakers can show us the truth on how the really real world works? This stuff was okay when Mike Moore did it in "Roger & Me", but just because its public domain (meaning "free footage") shouldn't mean you're hip or ironic when you use it. The filmmakers spend a lot of time explaining the definition of several words -- like "moron" and "idiot" (they seem to take great delight in asking people on the street about these words' origins) -- but seem to have failed to figure out what the word "documentary" is. In most definitions of the word, it contains the word "factual" or "non-fiction." You're supposed to making your thesis by presenting us your audience with non-biased facts or imagery to support your claim. Thus, editing in footage of your colleagues staring moronically at a camera with bad haircuts and fake snaggleteeth to support the claim may be against the tradition. Doing it over and over and over and over again is just tiring. Doing it twelve more times after that is just trying to fill time to make it past the feature film mark. And here's the bad part. In a section where the filmmakers decide to go off on how dumbed down our media has become, instead of getting snippets of actual TV shows to support their claim, they include self-made footage parodying these shows in the lowest common denominator, using the aforementioned fake snaggleteeth. Thanks for letting us make up our own minds, guys. Thanks for speaking down to us. And while I'm talking about the media bashing part of the film, the filmmakers inform us that the world of news has just become an onslaught of 30 second sound bites with no real conversation about the subject matter that's being discussed. Can't argue with that, but guess what? This entire movie is an onslaught of 10 - 30 second sound bites from all of their experts with no real dialogue or discussion on what stupidity is or what its real effects are. I could go on for another hour counting the ways this movie sucks (footage of people tripping isn't stupidity, those are called accidents, guys; showing some guy running naked on an ice-rink is not that interesting to repeat seven times sporadically throughout 90 minutes; placing shitty lightning effects over a guy talking about special effects movies isn't funny or ironic -- its a waste of human spirit) but I think I'm about done here. Fellow filmgoers, just avoid this thing. It's not clever or funny. It's a waste of Canadian tax incentives. And Donald Sutherland (who narrated this mess). And electricity. To those who green-lit "Stupidity," try to find a subject that actually has a subject next time. Or filmmakers that actually have a clue to what they are doing.

marblexyz This movie is stuffed with quick edits full of useless archival footage. Are any of the clips in the movie longer than 10 seconds? The filmmakers clearly think we need constant visual stimulation to keep us engaged. This movie is 95% style, 5% content. It does more to glamorize idiocy than repudiate it.Please, we can pay attention without thousands of edits.The actual content delivered by this movie are surrounded by footage that is related to the movie, but does not contribute actual content.

SigmaEcho OK, so "stupid" isn't the right word, "cheap" is more like it. A film with a fascinating subject, that has been neglected in the media (which the film makes a big point of), is ruined by shoddy production values. The film has poor quality cameras and even poorer sound. During the interviews, you will strain to hear what the person's saying. The filmmakers could have fixed this with a little bit of good sound mixing, but decided not to. The film also suffers due to a lack of clips from the material that they are talking about. The filmmakers would have been wise to not worry about copyright issues and instead make a good film, especially with the budget they were working with. And as mentioned by others, the film does indeed have no real focus. And what little structure that is offered is...well...stupid. Instead the film uses an inordinate amount of old Trailer Vision material, and old stock footage. This film needed a major rewrite. This subject needs more attention from the public, and this film in the end is simply a wasted opportunity, especially with the great list of interviewees.