This movie is amazing. Like all good movies it makes you think and question. Even if you don't agree with any of the points made you cannot rubbish it because that's exactly the point. To question, to think to be ourselves and not blind.

If you prefer a simplified, nearsighted view of money, politics, and religion. It may cause one to go online and fact check conspiracy theories they hadn't previously known much about, which could be a plus.

The more I think about Zeitgeist, the more I realize how ironic it is; Zeitgeist is more a symptom (and a fairly malignant one) of its subject matter than an antidote. The entire documentary purports to be inviting you to open your mind and educate yourself, yet when you do so all you find out is how hypocritical Zeitgeist is. So... we don't want to be unkind or cause hurt feelings, but we want to be academically correct. Yes, sir.Here are just a few factual errors; this is by no means extensive.The Crux was indeed visible from the Mediterranean 2000 years ago (in modern day it is only visible from the southern hemisphere), but it was not called the Southern Cross. It was referred to as Centaurus and was part of a larger constellation. Only the Australians referred to it as Southern Cross, and it's impossible that Australia's indigenous peoples were in contact with the people of the Mediterranean at this point in history.Egyptian mythology simply cannot be distilled down to a bulleted list of character traits about two of its myriad of Gods. If you bother to educate yourself about Egyptian mythology, you will quickly realize that all of their gods traded roles and changed from dynasty to dynasty, pharaoh to pharaoh. Throughout Egypt's existence, Set's role was revised repeatedly. In fact, he was occasionally HELPFUL to Horus--he ferried Re through the underworld every night! This is among the most basic and simple facts about ancient Egypt and it blows my mind that Zeitgeist got it THAT wrong.The Egyptians did not have a concept of good and evil as you & I understand it. The good and evil that we commonly understand were introduced to the world by the Judean philosophy. Applying modern ideas of good and evil to ancient pre- Judean cultures is folly.But even more fundamentally, you simply can't use Egyptian history as a factual litmus test for ANYTHING, let alone Christianity. All their records dissolved when the papyrus disintegrated. Those hieroglyphs that represent what we know of their history are all spun political speech--you might think of it as the Fox News of the ancient Egyptian world. Egypt's legacy is its architecture and art, NOT its facts! Archaeologists have long since recognized this shortcoming and that we will never know the day-to-day common stories of Egypt and thus a "true" or "real" representation of its culture and people. Imagine 3000 years from now investigators attempting to piece together our heritage solely from stories on Fox News, and you start to get the picture.Horus was indeed born on December 25th--but Horus dies and is reborn the other 364 days of the year, too. He represents the sun. HELLO? MCFLY? The laundry list of other supposed deities that were all born on December 25th is glazed over pretty fast. Why, pray tell, have I never heard this anywhere but Zeitgeist, even as a curiosity? It's... questionable, to put it politely... that this is the only source of this information. Its justification--it was stricken from the record by people who didn't want you to know about it. (I.e.... "The devil did it.")The whole conspiratorial assumptions the film makes about Christianity inheriting the traits of Egyptian religion is pretty uneducated, and is a typical attitude of non- Christians/non-Jews. This was not a conspiracy. It was a deliberate, visible, calculated PR war between Judaism and ancient Egypt. When God blotted out the sun, for instance, it didn't just happen to be a random attempt to scare Egyptians. It was a direct, overt refutation of Ra himself. Any traits that first-gen Judaism took from Egypt was an overt assertion of its superiority. The same can idea can be applied to the pagan astrological attributes that Christianity inherited. It's not a conspiracy. For example, Easter and Christmas both occur on Pagan holidays, something the ancient Roman Catholic church did to appease pagans and make the conversion to Christianity a bit smoother (it is most likely that Jesus was actually born in April.)Zeitgeist's portrayal of Christians burning their wallets (?) because of their interpretation of Revelation is not representative of the whole picture; those individuals are in the minority--but yeah it's out there. It is also personally offensive.Feel free to look up my review on Loose Change, and all that business applies to the second portion of the film. I have no comments on the third portion of the film, which may or may not be accurate for all I know. I do not consider myself educated in that subject matter.Additionally, I feel confident in saying Carl Sagan would not have approved of being included in this documentary, considering how wrong its astronomy was. And it's disrespectful to do so after he's no longer around to have any say about it.But outside of the nitpicks, this film is a bad faith film. It's inviting us, the audience, into this world of privileged information that nobody else in the world has. If Zeitgeist does what it sets out to do in spirit, you should be able to see through this film.Taking this film strictly as entertainment, it's actually quite amusing and a worthy watch. It is well crafted and nicely produced. The narrator (who I'm going to assume is also the editor) does not sound like a pimply-faced 14 year old, unlike Loose Change. But it should not be interpreted as documentary. Conspiracy documentaries are really coming out of the woodwork these days as a voice of their own, and while I encourage criticism and questioning, I encourage knowing what the hell you're talking about even more. I give this film a few dubious points for being among the first of its kind and amusing--but that's all I can bring myself to award it with.

While it's full of conspiracy thinkers, it's better to listen and take in what they're saying rather than keeping yourself out in the dark. You don't have to agree with what they are saying, but at less give yourself an open mind when watching this film. The more you know, the better. Having watch, both right wing and left wing documentaries, these movies does have more standards of journalistic integrity than the others. Directed by Peter Joseph, the Zeitgeist documentary style films (2007's Zeitgeist the Movie, 2008's Zeitgeist: Addendum & 2011's Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) are all pretty well-made films, that does give light into a lot of things that hasn't been talk about, much. Most of things talk about in the films, I found interesting and agree often on, but sadly, the first film is in the series, is by far, the weakest one of them, all. It felt too out there to be taken serious. It's also badly put-together. Zeitgeist: The Movie is split into 3 parts with showcase how Western Civilization is control. The first part talks about how the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the Bahá'í Faith) control people, using Christianity as an example. Yes, historic, it's true that many of the modern day religions do hold some control over people, but it has little differents if paganism or an atheism society came into control. In such a society, control would still be manual for society to exist. Is giving control to a higher power, a bad thing? Not always. Having faith in something doesn't make it, all bad. Without it, we wouldn't have the wonders of cultures. Does civilization need to more from religion like beliefs to a science like belief to achieve greater means? It's really up in air. About Christian religion specifically is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical assertions, astrological myths and traditions. Yes, part of the Jesus myth does, but it also derived to those events that Jesus went through. Peter Joseph forget to mention that. Indeed, there were some historical proves that Jesus might have live. Is he a deity? That's for another debate. However, some of the parts that director Peter Joseph bring up is either distorted, out of context, or completely made up. Some of his sources are also either non-existent or heavily biased. Still, this sequence was pretty alright. The next sequence is the one that really bogged me down. The movie lost so much credit, when it talks about the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It states that it was orchestrated by the US government in order to generate mass fear, initiate and justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil liberties, and produce economic gain. Let me break this illusion, down. This film has no credible information because the film didn't add anything new to already well-spoken conspiracy theories that been surrounding 9/11 since that day. It didn't go to Washington D.C, Pittsburgh, or New York crash sites to search for clues, and it damn didn't go to Afghanistan. Let's note that this film is created in 2007, so it's a bit outdated. There are a lot of documentaries that came after this, that pretty much show that there is no way, the US government could had done an attack like that. It would first be costly. Let's remember the years after 2001 had an economic bust than a boom. Second off, war isn't as profitable as it was in the old days due to technology grown in the private fields. Third, if the government did do it, do you really think that all those people would cover up a horrible act for so long? NO—somebody will come out. I do think there are honestly some good people in the government. I don't think our government planned 9/11, but perhaps they knew, some information of the terrorist attack ahead and couldn't stop it happening. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying trust your government! I might be against the idea that the government did 9/11, but no way, believe everything they say. I do know about the government covering up events in the past before, such as the 1964's Gulf of Tonkin incident, the whole Operation Northwoods, the whole pre-knowing of Pearl Harbor, and even the Remember the Maine incident. The film asserts that such wars serve to sustain conflict in general and force the U.S. government to borrow money, thereby increasing the profits of the international bankers. I do think the banks do have too much power, and need to be review badly. Still, if an secretive power elite like the Rothschild's family had a globalist agenda conspiring to eventually rule the world, then why do the Rothschild wealth have subsequently declined. They lose more money than gain. That's why I don't think all bankers are evil like the film says. Even, if the banks have control, why are we able to watch film like this? It would be total George Orwell's 1984 state by now. While, I'm not against Globalization, and capitalism, I don't think it's as evil as the documentary state it is. We do enjoy some freedoms under a capitalism system. I'm not the biggest fan of it, or socialism, personally. I do have to believe that some kind of order is better world than total chaos like the film wish to have. Capitalism is no different than religion. It works because people believe it works. If the people in charge didn't believe in it, it would quickly show its flaws and fall apart. At some point I dream people can abolish the monetary system completely, instead use automatic systems which would monitor all the useable resources on the planet like the Venus Project, but it will take years of economic evolution for such ideas to be successful. With that, go see these films. Can we believe in absolutely everything that these films say? Obviously not. But it's worth looking at and do your own research.