Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

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

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Emil Bakkum The film The Anarchist Cookbook tells an intriguing tale and deserves our attention. Therefore I was pleasantly surprised to find that Amazon sells secondhand copies almost for free. The fundamental theme addresses by the film is the extent of violence that can be employed in order to attain ones political goals. Since anarchists reject the violence monopoly of the state, an anarchist setting was the obvious choice for the film makers. Note however that every person is confronted with this question, also the loyal elector in the democratic state. Do you support breaches of privacy? Long prison sentences? The death penalty? So actually the choice of the anarchist backcloth is more or less arbitrary, or perhaps an intended move in order to appease law-abiding citizens. Consequently the film did not evolve into an in-depth study of anarchist ways of life. If you want to delve into this theme, I would recommend the Swedish film Tillsammans (Together) instead. Nevertheless, The anarchist Cookbook gives a reasonable impression of the diversity in the anarchist ways of living. The story unfolds in a commune of squatters. It harbors a free socialist (who conducts a book shop), an advocate of free sex, and several libertarians. Of course the group embraces the vegan menu, and rather surprisingly, drugs are prohibited. The average group member in this commune is devoid of ideology, but simply loathes authority. This holds in particular for the main character Peter, or Puck, his anarchist alias. One day a man called Johnny Black joins the group. He wants to bolster the level of violence used by the group. Of course minor infringements are already common: shop lifting, vandalism, obstruction. But Johnny wants to step up the scale of destruction, and employ sabotage, explosives and physical assaults. Anyone who has spent some time in observing the extreme left, will confirm that such tactics do exist. Personally I have always had difficulty in understanding the sense in attacking common laborers and constables. Is it an expression of contempt? There have been times when some streets in Amsterdam were completely controlled by communities of squatters. They used reinforcements in order to turn the buildings into fortresses. Police raids were countered with the throwing of bricks and bottles, and sometimes the dumping of heavy appliances from the roof tops. Indeed these pockets of anarchy or autonomy were ruled by violent sections, who used repression to discipline the other group members. Johnny Black represents precisely this type, and manages to gradually seize power by means of the usual turnover and the introduction of his own comrades. Since Peter is a nihilist, he willingly adapts to the new leader. Others follow, including the socialist - which seems rather incredible, considering his principles. Under Johnny the commune starts to increase its means by the trading of drugs, and gets a criminal character. When Johnny forges an opportunist alliance with fascists, racists and nationalists, Peter decides to rebel. He betrays his former comrades to the FBI, and accepts a significant bounty in return (how far are you willing to go?). In the end we see him continuing his journey, traveling on a long straight road in the wilderness, towards the sunset. In conclusion I find the film satisfactory: the characters are steady (except for the socialist), the events seem possible, and dilemmas are elaborated on. For instance, after a police raid one of the group members is sent to jail, another to a mental institution, and Peter gets an ankle bracelet and is again brought under parental care. Although The anarchist cookbook does not evoke feelings of empathy, it is food for thought. If it is to your liking, consider also seeing Strawberry Statement.

zzz05 I agree, this was a deeper film than, say, Fight Club, but not as "fun". It also was not particularly favorable to anarchists or nihilists or hippies or leftites or dropouts or republicans or leather/sadists.... I don't really agree with the characters self-assessments as anarchists and nihilists, but i guess they can call themselves what they want to. It does display the primary problem facing anybody wanting to change the world today; how do you change it without becoming part of it? How do you fight violence without becoming violent? Can you change the system from within? If you do change it, will you then be the system?

snauth So, you are tempted by anarchists? Be aware that "Johnny Black" is just waiting to spoil everything. Suddenly Nazis will be your best friends and you will loose your real friends, because those "anarchists" use drugs to control their followers. On "archive.orgy" funny clips from long ago can be downloaded, like the one that warns you not to get aroused by your boyfriend, because you will be pregnant at once and loose every hope. This movie is the 1990s version of such educational propaganda. Funny that these things persist in times of post-modernity, might be related to who's got the means to make movies? Difficult to imagine, for whom this movie is made.

sammyjohnson71 This is a film that caught me totally by surprise in so many ways. It was easily the finest film I've seen in a long time -- and therefore I'm not surprised by the polarized opinions regarding it.First: I never expected to find a movie called "The Anarchist Cookbook" at my local video store.Second: It is not what I expected from a movie of that title.Third: After defying my expectations, it then turned out to be something better than I imagined it could / would be.What is NOT surprising is the stupidity of the people who have written about it. I guess my missive is directed at the other people who have seen it and at the other people who DARE TO WATCH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND (a cardinal sin in this day and age.)What made Anarchist stand out for me is its unrelenting intelligence. It doesn't just quote Wittgenstein -- it MISQUOTES Wittgenstein! When I first heard that, I was shocked and I wondered, "What does this film think it is?" But as I started to absorb the rhythms of Puck, I started to understand what a poseur he is. That him (mis)quoting Wittgenstein was perfectly in character. That is something I have never seen in a film. (Yes, I've seen dumb characters. And I've seen characters who were dumb who thought they were smart. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN it done in a way that does not draw attention to itself!)That whole Wittgenstein-thing made me reexamine the enitre film and made me worry that Mr. Susman is not just smart -- but he might be too smart for today's dumb audiences.(more about this later.)As Puck goes down the rabbit-hole, and the film turned from comedy to drama, I got a sneaking suspicion that I had seen something like this before. And then I realized: IT'S HAMLET!!!Puck is the Danish Prince who needs to get off his existentially lazy ass and do something. Like Hamlet, he blows every opportunity. It would be too much of a stretch to call Double D his Ophelia, but you get the point. And unlike Hamlet, Puck ends up doing the right thing, and we the audience root for him -- and laugh as well at sweet fortune that comes his way.In an era of irony upon irony, Susman has created an uber-irony: the subject of its wrath (and there is wrath amongst the mirth)is not just ideology, but platitudes. Of course the film is going to tick off anarchists -- because, please, there are no real anarchists. Anyone who says they're a genuine anarchist is either a liar, an idiot or both. What there does seem to be alot of though, are ignorant movie-watchers who cannot bear that their little PC shibboleths would be the object of scorn and satire. Yes this film makes fun of anarchists and hippies. But it also makes fun of Republicans and cops and everyone else who comes onto the screem. It uses humor, wit and dramatic narrative to kick every ideology in the nuts.Now as for the boneheads who think Fight Club is art...This movie is not Fight Club pt2. Fight Club is (sorry to say) a frightfully stupid film. What was it even about? Brad Pitt's abs? Yes, this film has voiceover and a bad apple character who takes over the life of a ennui-plagued young man -- yeah so? Unlike Fight Club, this film had the cajones to be about something. To make you actually think. And the twist at the end of this film was genuine, real, and funny as hell. The twist in Fight Club was probably the dumbest twist on celluloid -- ever. (Brad Pitt IS Ed Norton...Give me a break!)And as for those who compare it to SLC Punk...I see some similarities there as well. But that film was so poorly executed, so solipsistic and narrow in its focus, and so one-dimensional in its story that it left you wondering, "Who cares?"That said. Rent this movie. While not a shocking piece of cinema, it is a brilliant piece of filmmaking. It's the type of movie that studios don't make (because of the title), that film festivals don't like (because it's not PC enough to be at Sundance).This movie is for people with hearts, brains and balls. If you got that, then you should give this movie a try. But if you're a weak-willed PC automaton who thinks that independnet film must always laud all things PC, then you will be sorely disappointed.As En Vogue said years ago: Free your mind and the rest will follow.