Very best movie i ever watch

Thanks for the memories!

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

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.

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.

This film represents what excellent movie-making is all about: the journey of a character to self-discovery. I can think of few films with so extreme of journey.In the beginning there is Puck. He is a self-proclaimed anarchist who thinks he knows it all. And the film wittily begins as an anarchist romp. The scenes have a disjointed feel to them, as it ping-pongs around from a satire of the Freddie Prinz Jr. oevre, to examinations of characters and their ideas of freedom.This wolrd is shaken up by the arrival of Johnny Black, the first person to arrive on the screen who actually knows what he wants. While the others talk, J Black does. And in the process, he earns the respect (no matter how begrudging) of the rest.And Puck is caught in between. The kid who acted like he knew everything, must now confront his complete lack of knowledge: about the world, about his friends, and about himself.Without revealing the brilliant twists at the end, allow me to say that this film explores trust, ideology, and friendship in a way that is funny and poignant. It's a shame more people did not see this minor masterpiece.