GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Console best movie i've ever seen.

joeldavidkilgore This show aired an episode that tried to say that our bodies were 'self cleaning'. I seriously beg to differ.As a youth of about 16 or 16 years of age I traveled with church tent preachers in the summertime. I specifically recall not being able to shower or bathe for several days at a location as we were setting up the tent. During that time no wanted down wind of any of us as we literally stank so bad that it would take your breath away. Not so self cleaning... In later years I was in the USAF and the same type conditions occurred while being involved in field exercises. If not for baby wipes at the time we all would have had to endure a much worse smell.No,our bodies are not self-cleaning. Depending on what we eat, the smell can be kept to a minimum, but after a few days of not bathing, just about anyone will realize the importance of soap and water.

thefischers-19933 Education and humor is a good mix and that's what this TV show offers. It's good for all ages. I appreciate the delivery but my issue is the host is a little to confident in his research and so called facts. I can't help but question his interpretation, although he claims to have solid supporting evidence. For instance, he did a segment in which he provides information about the birth of America and Christopher Columbus that goes against what many were taught to believe. That's fine and dandy, however he delivers the message as if he was alive and witnessed the events himself which is obviously untrue. So why should I take his word for it over say a textbook. He speaks of facts but really we just have his own interpretation of these events. Why should I just take his word for it

MartinHafer My daughter suggested I give "Adam Ruins Everything" because I am already a huge fan of "Penn & Teller: Bullsh@t"...as both shows have many similarities. Both set out to contradict commonly held assumptions and both are well made and entertaining. The only big differences I see are that "Adam Ruins Everything" has no gratuitous nudity, is more liberal in political bent and is a bit more hip. Both will challenge your assumptions and will definitely make you think. Plus, even when I am not in complete agreement with what the show asserts, you can't help but like the host, Adam Conover, and his on-screen friends.UPDATE: While I still enjoy the show quite a bit, I have noticed that sometimes the show uses opinion and makes it sound like fact. This is not generally the case, but for example, the show about the evils of cars is based on the assumption that European-style transportation systems are superior to those in the States AND that subways and buses and trains would work the same here in the States. That is debatable...especially since many transportation alternatives in the States (such as the subway in LA and AMTRAK) are huge money-losers.

atlasmb "Adam Ruins Everything" is a comedy show that seeks to be educational. Like "Mythbusters", it dispels commonly believed falsehoods, but it doesn't conduct experiments, it cites scientific studies. Dr. Oz does much of the same thing, but his show focuses only on issues of health and medicine. "Adam Rules" provides guidance on broader cultural issues that could include almost any subject.If you remember the show "Intelligence For Your Life" (which starred John Tesh and Connie Sellecca), this show is similar, but it features skits that are very funny, as well as excellent graphics and special effects.The problem is that studies often contradict each other. But "Adam Ruins" tries to explain why one study's results are probably more reliable (like the fact that one study was based solely upon a sample group consisting of 17th century milkmaids in France).This show is highly recommended for viewers who like to be informed but don't appreciate the sermonizing of most advice shows. Or you can watch it only for the humor, but be warned--you will still learn a lot in the process. A deduction of one point for the common and simplistic mistake of calling the motivations of all companies, no matter their intentions or methods, "capitalistic".And one more deduction because its presentation excludes debate. Because it provides evidence and reasoning in presenting its positions, it is not asking the viewer to accept its teachings as rote learning. But the lack of opposing viewpoints means that it fails to teach to value of comparing competing ideas. For example, in the episode that minimized the value of grammatical rules, it would have been beneficial to hear the opinion of someone who believes there are costs in such a position. The ability to evaluate differing views is important in learning.