Excellent but underrated film

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

..........................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA...and ORLANDO, FLDefined as a documentary, this seems, to me at least, closer to a reality TV show in its focus, execution and style. Certainly, for a project conceived and initiated about half a century ago, it was, undoubtedly, way ahead of its time.The basic premise, in a nutshell, was to select a small group of kids that represented a cross-section of British society in the early 60's. The children were all to be the same age: 7. All of them would be interviewed and filmed answering the same set of questions and participating in the same activities every seven years. This every seven year "snapshot" would continue until the subjects were well into middle age.At the beginning, the producers state their primary intention as "thusly allowing the viewer to watch the development of a group of children from varied backgrounds and distinct social "classes", and draw their own conclusions"....Is it just me, or does anyone else hear strains of John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" faintly in the background? All in all, I must admit this UK doc really brings out the latent voyeur in you...(or at least in me, perhaps!) Directed by Michael Apted, what I found to be of most interest, to be brutally honest, were the inherent biases and preconceptions of the interviewers/producers/director as evidenced by both their choice of questions and subtle differences in the handling/presentation of the screen dynamic of the interviews themselves...Or perhaps the inherent biases and preconceptions are really mine?!? My suggestion: Watch Seven Up/Seven Plus Seven and decide for yourself. 9*.....ENJOY/DISFRUTELA!

I've heard about this series for ages, but I've been reluctant to dive in. Partly because of the time investment, but also because I fear the concept as a whole is more interesting than the individual parts. And although I expect the later installments to improve, the first film really doesn't stand well on its own. I'm not that interested in children to begin with, especially not such precocious ones. The subjects were all chosen as the brightest of their respective classrooms, so they're all trying to talk like adults, which gets on my nerves. Particularly the three prissy upper-class boys. The film is too short and has too many players to get very in-depth, but some of the observations about class differences are fairly intriguing, and I'm curious to see how those develop. But as a stand-alone movie, there's not much meat here.

"Seven Up!" is the forty minute documentary from 1964 that stands as a prologue for the most forward thinking documentary series of all-time. The film brings together a group of surprisingly articulate seven-year-olds from a variety of backgrounds in England. Through a number of questions posed to each of the children, the audience gets the opportunity to get to know the world through these children's eyes, and often presumably through the parent's eyes and therefore only quoted through these children. Personalities more than perspectives ring through the strongest in this first film, and the glimpse at the education system circa 1964 is intriguing. Unfortunately, as "characters" that will ultimately be seen for another forty years to come, the thick accents of some of them make for a rough start. All in all this is important cinema regardless.

The filmmaker's ideological argument is one that is pervasive throughout the film: "Give me the child until he is 7 and I will give you the man." Set in London England, the director exposes this argument by interviewing an average group of elementary school children. His questions include a variety of topics that allow the viewer to become better acquainted with the thoughts and desires of what these children hope to become. The mere fact that his subject is elementary school children demonstrates his ability to fulfill one of the rules of documentary film-making: giving a voice to the voiceless. These children under normal circumstances would not have a voice in the world at such a young age. They are not celebrities; they are just like any other child—ingenuously funny, naïve, and inquisitive. Most of them aspire to become great things (i.e. astronauts, teachers); however, the director seems to implicitly suggest that given the immaturity of their present beliefs as seven-year-old children, those dreams they wish to fulfill are idealistically unattainable. How? Because given his argument, he suggests that because these particular children are "fully developed" and still immature at the age of seven, he presupposes that the nation of England ought to greatly fear the rising generation and what skills they will lack in the world. The last line of the film implicitly demonstrates this, "We have now seen a look at what the nation of England is in store for and what potential there lies within." Observing how the audience and myself was laughing at the naivety of these children (as I'm sure was intended to show how ignorant they are) I personally felt it was unfair for the director to cast such judgment on them because I don't believe a child is fully developed at the age of seven. One cannot presuppose such a threat to a nation based off what a child's inclinations and aspirations are at such a young age. Why? Because there are many factors that can and do contribute in refining a child's behavior into something better through a space of time and development. The director seemed to suggest that such a space for developing would not be necessary to determine who they would become in the future, namely, bums.There are several filmic techniques that the director used to support his argument. First, he asked specific questions that he knew would exploit the children through their own responses: "What do you do after you get home from school?" to which most of the children responded, "Watch TV!" The implication here of course suggests that their lack of diligence and acquiescence to passivity and mind-numbing entertainment would cause them to become slaves inside of Plato's cave—something not fit for a future nation to thrive on. Second, he captures on film moments of the children fighting with each other. This is more of an explicit ideology of showing that violence and aggression reign supreme amongst such a young crowd as this. The implicit ideology seems to suggest that if these children are fighting with their hands and feet now, how will they fight in the future?—with guns, knives? Overall, I felt this documentary was promoting activism on behalf of the parents—how to discipline your children better! I felt this was rather ridiculous because they are only children—there's still plenty of time for them to grow and develop into more responsible beings.