Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Michael_Elliott Grass (1999) *** (out of 4) Woody Harrelson narrates this documentary that takes a look at marijuana laws in America, which have been enforced for one hundred years even though nothing has ever been accomplished by it. The documentary uses stock footage from those in charge, President speeches and interviews as well as "warning" films such as Reefer Madness, Marijuana and Up in Smoke among others. Seeing the actual history of these laws makes for one funny documentary because of how stupid some of the things trying to be passed off were. I've reviewed Reefer Madness countless times but might have to give it more credit since it was the government passing most of the trash seen in the film. Throughout the film we see various speeches from government people and their opinions on the drug including that of Richard Nixon who ordered a report on the drug and when that report came back not showing the drug to be bad, Nixon simply threw the report away. The documentary never takes itself too serious nor does it ever try to be political but instead just show some facts, which some might want to overlook on purpose.

Ryan Meyer One of the better documentaries I have seen in recent times. Well researched and with many entertaining and enlightening clips of films, press conferences, et al.Although there is an apparent bias, the film actually doesn't form an argument, per se. The film is really nothing more than a documented history of government sponsored propaganda.The drawback of such an approach, however, is that one is limited to using facts which are inherently non-controversial. This provides us with an intriguing look into the war on drugs, but not necessarily an all inclusive one.

gftbiloxi The United States of America has spent untold billions to search out, arrest, prosecute, and imprison people who use marijuana; all the time, money, and effort that has gone into this has had very little effect; and it does seem odd, particularly given evidence that alcohol and nicotine are much deadlier, that we put so much emphasis on the clearly futile effort to eradicate its use. It is a situation ripe for a documentary that combines hard fact with witty satire, and this is precisely what GRASS attempts to do.But "attempts" is the operative word here. While the film is accurate re the facts it presents, it tends to ignore facts it doesn't like--chief among them that any drug, all the way from cough syrup to heroin, can be abused, and marijuana is no exception to the rule. Ron Mann's failure to acknowledge this tends to undercut his own argument, and what ultimately emerges is a film that argues FOR the legalization of marijuana TO people who are already in favor of it.That said, while the film presents plenty of amusing graphics and often hilarious snips of vintage films such as the notorious REEFER MADNESS, the pace is just a shade too laid back to hold the narrative together. When all is said and done, it lacks both the informational and visual spark of a truly first rate documentary. Worth watching once, but only if you don't expect too much from it.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

bob the moo The story of the US Government's war on marijuana over 100 years showing key figures, events and periods in the war. This is a genuinely fascinating documentary that looks at the century broken down into periods of several years or several decades. The periods are mainly connected by the `official truth' of the drug that the US put out to try and put off users.The film is fascinating not in the way it looks at the drug but at the look at the war - in fact it has nothing about grass that shows it's safe or anything to convince us that it should be legal. Rather the film looks at the tactics used to fight the war - mostly it's media spin, with the head of the FDN (now DEA) at one time having power over the content of all films shown in the US that mention the drug - anything that didn't put a negative spin on it were banned. The story down the years is captivating, and the money spent is astounding.However the film has a major weakness. As I said it doesn't try to make any points about the drug - there's nothing to convince a fence sitter that the drug is good or that it should be legalised. However it's obvious that the director is pro-grass and he makes his point by having a very light hearted tone to the film. At first this is refreshing as it makes it feel very relaxed and less historical and dusty. However this tone continues as the director basically makes fun of everyone who fought the drug - he does this by using outtakes of detractors rather than just the interviews etc. TV reporters are shown making mistakes, Nixon is shown preparing for a TV statement - basically the film doesn't try to make any points in defence of the drug but rather just tries to make any detractors look stupid.The final line from Mayor La Guardia (actually referring to Prohibition) is a great touch and gets the message across but the lazy bias that runs throughout takes a lot away from the film.