People generally understand things by analogy. A is like B but with C. A motorcycle is like a bicycle with an engine. Perhaps not a perfect description; but it gets you close enough that you can then work on the details with a comfortable foundation. The problem with Quantum Mechanics is that there is absolutely nothing that people have common experience with that behaves the way Quantum Mechanics describes. There are just no good analogies to use. The best explanations seem like non sequiturs: "It is like a purple fish and a transistor radio".

There have however been many attempts to develop explanation of what Quantum Mechanics means, and one of the earliest and still most popular is the "Copenhagen Interpretation". Their explanation actually works rather well if you ignore one problem - they had to add a new concept not found in or explained by the equations to make it work: "the observer". Without going into details, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that quantum mechanics works like "A" as long as there is no one looking at what is happening; but then starts working like "B" if "an observer" is looking. Like an employee who plays solitaire on the computer all day unless their boss is watching. Now that's an analogy which can be understood. (For those who'd like slightly more detail - it says that particles are fuzzy clouds of probability until you try and observe them, when they suddenly snap into sharp clarity at a single place - but only as long as you are looking).

However, as I said the problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it only makes sense if you add the concept of "an observer", and the proceeds to not explain what exactly an observer is. This is a hole large enough that many strange things can be pushed through it, many of which are totally non-scientific, and the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" is a wonderful survey of many of these ideas. The basic thread is that an observer is a mind (not actually stipulated by the Copenhagen Interpretation), and that therefore we create our universe by observing it; and we can in fact choose to create the kind of universe we want (in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the observer does not actually influence the nature of the outcome).

There are explanations of Quantum Mechanics other than the Copenhagen Interpretation (including not trying to explain it at all and just using the equation); and even if you stick with the Copenhagen Interpretation, there are explanations of what an observer is which do not resort to them having to be "minds". If you want to have a good counter-balance to the pseudo science in this movie, I'd suggest reading Where Does the Weirdness Go?: Why Quantum Mechanics Is Strange, but Not As Strange As You Think by David Lindley.