Home
search
more | tips
IMDb > The Anarchist Cookbook (2002) > IMDb user comments
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 45 comments in total 

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A typical hollywood teen movie that tries to look original but in the end fails kinda like "Porn and Chicken", 11 July 2003
3/10
Author: alex692 from Tacoma, Washington

Anarchist's Cookbook is better categorized as a coming of age teen movie then drama or comedy. In fact, this movie is exactly like "SLC Punk" mixed with "Porn and Chicken". In the end, as with the other movies, I felt like the story was force fed and the ending was classic Hollywood ride off into the sunset finish with all lose ends tied up nicely. It's watch able, maybe once... but easily forgettable.

Most of my problems with the plot of the movie revolve around the "bad guy" Johnny Black character. He is presented as a nihilist who is on a mission to save the environment with guerilla activism. So really Johnny is not a nihilist, but a radical. This point alone makes most of the philosophical discussions that take place in the movie insulting to anyone who has bothered to look up the words nihilism and anarchy in the dictionary (they even do it for you). Another thing that bothered me about the movie is the typical good guy hero Puck. This is the same guy from every teen movie ever made; you can interchange them and not notice a difference. The narration throughout the movie was another bad point, I felt like I was watching growing pains. And I love how they stole the only emotionally meaningful moment in the film from SLC Punk. I could bitch for hours, but the bottom line is that this is an average teen movie. Not as original as SLC Punk and about as provocative as moldy meat. But if you have nothing else to do, it can't hurt to rent it once as long as you know what you're getting upfront: a s****y way to kill two hours.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Not worth the admission price to watch, or even the bandwidth to download., 11 January 2004
4/10
Author: JJ (Timescrew@hotmail.com) from Laptop... I could be anywhere!

What can I say about The Anarchist's Cookbook? As other reviewers of this movie have noted, it is like a cross between Fight Club and SLC Punk. I also felt a familiarity with 25th Hour and this film. The acting was good, and even commendable in a few cases, but the movie in general was a let down.

I did not expect the movie to be based on the book, or even to have any references to it. I have read it myself ten years ago. However, I do not think that the Anarchist's Cookbook was the right title for the film. They should have called it something else, but I am no good at coming up with title names, so I will spare you my own lame version.

To be honest, I was expecting to see something like Fight Club, but with more indie characteristics. Instead, I got a dry witted impersonation of a few guys at my old high school that did nothing but skip class and smoke pot. It was full of stereotypes and proud arguments but held no meaning for me at all. I feel I could have used the time I spent more wisely doing something more constructive, like maybe relieving myself.

It is a funny movie though, as long as you are keeping in mind that this is only the director's second film and everyone has to start somewhere. Not everyone explodes in some prodigal genius; some have to learn the mistakes the hard way. I may recommend this movie to other indie lovers I know, but I would not watch it again. Rating: 4/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Horrible, 31 August 2005
Author: rachelblack from United States

This movie... I really don't have much to say about it. This movie was a waste of my time, and will surely be a waste of yours. The title is unbelievably misleading, and doesn't portray Anarchism in any way, shape or form. I nearly cried with frustration at how horribly wrong the entire concept was. I encourage you to throw this movie away if you own it, for it's nothing but a piece of right-wing propaganda that honestly portrays nothing other than the classic American troublemaker, which any true anarchist is far from. The only reason it really made it as far as it did- that is to say, the only reason people actually watched it- is because for once we anarchists thought that we would see a movie that showed Anarchy in all of it's potential glory. Boy, were we wrong.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Extremism mis-portrayed, 24 July 2008
5/10
Author: mario10zeus from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Let's see, we have Anarchists, Nihilists, anti-government right-wingers, wealthy Republicans, Neo-Nazis, but no Democrats at all. Being a moderate Democrat which at times veers towards Centrism, I found this movie lacking a bit. While some scenes were smart, others came off as stupid, un-original, un-realistic and improvised. Puck lives with his friends in a Anarchist commune somewhere in Texas. These are Anarchist that resemble more flower children. One day, a Nihilist called Johnny Black shows up, offer everyone drugs and violence as a weapon and somehow becomes the leader. Later on, the Anrchist forge an alliance wit other anti-establishment groups such as Neo-Nazis. First of all, not all Anarchists are peace loving intellectuals. Many are upper-class spoiled brats that simply want to vandalize anything (Yes I know plenty of these, they do exist). Many do follow Anarchist theory but fail to realize it's utopianism. Johnny Red the early leader,constantly lionizes Sweden as an exemplary society but somehow Social Democrats are missing from the film's universe. Anarchists tend to be socially liberal and would NEVER form an alliance with Neo-Nazis. If Puck didn't agree with the system, he could of found ways to subvert it by integrating himself into alternative cultures and political movements (YES, lobbying does work). Other reviewers are correct in pointing out the similarities between this movie and SLC Punk and Trainspotting. Despite its plot's weakness, Anarchist Cookbook has a witty script and at moments stylish direction. Gina Phillips as the commune temptress, steals most of her scenes.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
pretty bad I have to say, 1 July 2008
3/10
Author: z_howland from New Hampshire

I brought this movie over to my friends, thinking that we would both enjoy it, seeing as SLC Punk wasn't that bad. Ha, this was nothing MORE than a rip off of SLC Punk, and to my knowledge, portrays anarchism in a very...fantastic way, if not childish way. If this movie were the real world, I'd have swung myself in the very OPPOSITE political direction from these...anarchists. Not much to it, seriously, and I would not recommend this to anyone who wants an inside to the anarchist lifestyle. SLC Punk at least made the lifestyle look a little real, whereas this movie makes it look a little ridiculous. I think the only good part of the movie was the hippie camp; Double D (I think that's his name) was pretty much the shallowest portion of the movie. I don't believe I've ever seen ANYONE fail to act like an idiot. And whoever he was...he accomplished just that. I usually don't crack down on movies like this, but this one had it coming. Please, even the first house party scene was a complete remake of SLC. This movie was bad; sorry to all those who are dearly in love with it, but my taste buds have been burnt.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Nice attempt but, doesn't quite hit the mark..., 3 February 2006
5/10
Author: bootscootin from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Anarchist Cookbook is a well produced film. The style of the film is excellent and it fits the subject matter well. All of the actors put on a passable performance. And as another reviewer noted, the film made mention of political things not often mentioned in a film of this kind.

Even though I enjoyed the film, I don't think it accomplished what the director intended too. Unless the director was trying to preach to the choir with this film, this film missed the mark. I can't imagine any real anarchist being convinced by this film and it has nothing to do with them being "close minded" or anything like that.

I you are to effectively argue against an anarchist, you need to show them WHY things are the way they are and WHY it needs to be done that way. You can't JUST say that this is the way it is and you have to go a long with it. The anarchists have arguments for why things shouldn't be. Anyone who is to challenge them needs to show why things have to be the way they are. Saying "JUST BECAUSE!" is not only predictable to an anarchist, it also isn't very convincing to anyone who doesn't all ready hold your view point.

Anyone who thinks the film defeats anarchists should definitely do a double take. Look at this page for instance, the anarchists are still standing and it's because of what I explained in the above paragraph. This is what this film does and that's why it fails.

Also, I'd like to note that people like Johnny Black are not exclusive to anarchism and nihilism. There is a Johnny Black in every political movement. Left and Right. Anyone could use violence to advance their political ambitions. It's a universal thing in politics.

To sum things up, the presentation of the film was good. Though, the film won't convince anyone to change their views and will only empower people who wouldn't agree with anarchism all ready.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Poorly contrived GOP propaganda - reminded me of Reefer Madness, 25 July 2003
2/10
Author: blockh34d from Ohio

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

First off let me just say two things. One, I thought all the actors did a good job in this film and that the rant that follows should not detract from the excellent job they did. Also the production values were excellent, nice camera work, good lighting, set design, etc. Secondly, let me say that any anarchist will find this movie an insulting sack of crap. Nor do I presume to be a card-carrying 'anarchist' myself, but I know enough of them and enough about them to say that this movie would absolutely p*** off every single one of them. Here's a few reasons why:

Every anarchist in the movie is some degenerate, idiotic, codependant, politically insignifigant drugged out sexual deviant. It did everything but show the "anarchists" feasting on live squeeling babies in terms of villification and demonization of anarchists and political activists in general.

Not that animal rights or corporate clearcutting are insignifigant political agendas, but this film portrays all anarchists as more interested in trees and minks than say, pre-emptive aggressive (resource) wars, media manipulation, rascism and classism, police brutality, government oppression, corporate / political coruption, or water rights. In fact at no point do any of the very real and very serious issues just mentioned get any attention at all. It seems to me that Jordan Susman went out of his way to pick the two most trivial items on the activists schedule today and focussed exclusively on them for the sake of portraying anarchists and activists in a negative light. Again, the people protesting for animal rights and trying to save our redwoods get all my sympathies and I hope for the best in those issues but it is my opinion that these issues got way too much attention in light of the complete absence of other political messages in the film.

I guess I should warn of '*SPOILERS*' but this film is such a piece of crap you won't care, so don't bother not reading the following lines because the 'plot' they expose is thin and contrived at best.

Some of the 'messages' in this film are disturbing.

Consider that the only 'decent' characters in this film are young republicans, police, and the fbi. Seriously, I'm not kidding.

Also, note that the lead character very rarely gets any sex until he gets in bed with a hot young republican, who happens to live in a household full of hot and horny young female republicans. At no point do any of them ever say anything ignorant or insulting about activists or anarchists, and they never show a single young male republican (my guess would be that this is because even this blatant propaganda film would have a hard time displaying well off young white republicans in a positive fashion). The message here is that when decent people become anarchists, they do not get laid. Apparently, only evil anarchists get any sex.

For example, the old hippy. After a brief period of 'developing' this character into a fullblown cliche of someone with an ineptly designed political agenda, poorly chosen social issues, and a wide array of tiedied t-shirts, the film reveals that he is a pedophile. And he is considered one of the "good" guys (by the end of the flick anyways). The only restraint that the producer showed in weakly portraying this character was that he did not have him 'ohmming'. I kept expecting it but never saw it in the film, thankfully.

The many ways the 'johnny black' character is villified is disgraceful. First he is shown as the only activist present with a plan and/or any motivation towards actual change at all... And then he leads the rest of the characters in a wildly rebelious spurt of ... slapping bumper stickers on stop signs... Ohhhhh. Then he is portrayed as this hacker-come-stalker as he regroups his 'troops' for a wild romp of... spiking redwoods. Apparently spiking redwoods was not quite villianous enough so they had him recruiting a bunch of whitepower nazi @$$holes to help him *BLOW UP THE CAMPUS MALCOMN X STUDENT BUILDING*. I'm sorry but that is the *last* place any anarchist I know is going to blow up. After numerous demonstrations of his sociopathic insecurity, he eventually succeeds in hooking all his troops on various hard drugs as he sets up a heroin (or cocaine, couldn't tell) distribution ring as he and his newly acquired whitepower chums make a bunch of bombs that wouldn't be as powerful as the Simtex this guy apparently has tons of anyways. Disgraceful, utterly disgraceful how poorly this character was portrayed.

Or the female anarchist, i forget her name. Message with her is, all female anarchists are home-wrecking whores who hold up their self esteem by manipulating men sexually.

Or "Double-D"... Codependant raver/skater boy. Has absolutely nothing in common with anything to do with anarchism. Was shown at one point skateboarding inside, in a crowded room, as he and his anarchist buddies played with turntables and bongs. Hard to see past all the cliches in that one scene.

Or consider the 'happy ending' of this film... Puck sells out his cohorts to the FBI for fun and profit, 200k in profit actually. Wow, who knew being a narc could be so fun and rewarding.

I could go on but thinking about this POS but it just p****s me off. This movie plays like it was funded by the GOP and filmed by COINTELPRO government spooks on location at an army base. If you watch this, and believe me, you shouldnt, I think anyone who has ever seen Reefer Madness and thought it was the most absurd piece of crap ever filmed will find there is a new film to fill those shoes.

To put in perspective how crappy and insulting this movie is, consider that I have been a frequent user of IMDB for years now, frequently visiting this site several times a day. I have never disliked a movie so strongly that I felt compelled to sign up for a user account and bitch about it online but I was willing to do that to set the record straight on this piece of crap. Jordan Susman I will never, ever force myself to sit through another of your "films" ever again under any circumstances.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Not too good., 18 December 2005
Author: chmnig from United States

The Anarchist Cookbook is about the a college dropout who joins some sort of naturalist cult like team who join together thinking they are at war with society and the government. Though they are rebellious in nature they do not go over the boundaries of stepping out of line especially when it comes to the law. Everything seems to be well and doubt. A group of friends,living together in harmony discussing peaceful tactics against a government they disagree with entirely. Thats until a strange rebellion named Johnny Black enters into their lives and then their peaceful revolt and their world spirals out of control. It was a pretty OK movie. A bunch of 2000 hippie peacemakers who believe they can change the world for the better. But it wasn't anything big. I give a D+.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Bleh..., 1 July 2009
1/10
Author: alucardzybell from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. I had pretty high expectations of this film, but they were quickly crushed.

First of all, there is almost no plot to this movie until the end. I sat through it twice to try to figure out what was going on. In the beginning, it shows a bunch of whinny brats crying about how the government controls everything and that we need Anarchy.

When the movie starts to develop a plot, it is pretty horrid. Johnny Black is the main villain. I know what most people are thinking, "Wow, they got real creative with character names!" Anyways, the lead character hooks up with Johnny Black in order to spread Anarchism, but Puck (the lead character) quickly realizes how "bad" Johnny Black really is and kills him and all of his terrorist buddies.

The only good part of this movie, was at one point the "anarchists" were questioning people some religious people at a seminar.

Watching paint dry is more interesting than this piece of garbage. Don't buy the DVD or VHS, it will decrease the value of the dust that it collects. Don't download it, there are better things for you can use hard drive space for such as viruses. If someone gives you a copy of this movie, immediately destroy it. This movie has scarred me for life!

Was the above comment useful to you?

Anachy vs. Nihilism, 6 April 2009
8/10
Author: shadowshavefallen from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie is a great representation of how nihilism is often confused with anarchism. People like to confuse the two of them and consider them to be the same. The Anarchist Cookbook demonstrates the differences between the two of them and manifests the ideals between two of the main characters: Puck and Johnny Black. Puck represents anarchy which can be nihilistic but does not have to be as it is often unstable. Puck is a fantastic representation of anarchist ideals used in good and bad ways from when he works with johnny to when he is working sixty hours a week and throwing surprise birthday parties for his co-workers. One of the biggest things he does is when he kills johnny black and all the skinheads that were working with him. The reason that this was so significant was that he was showing the distinction between governmental law abiding and vigilante good deeds. While murder is not a typical good deed he showed that there is clearly a grey area to kill a few to save many. In the end he was no better off than he had been but had learned and incredible amount from his experiences.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Ratings Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history