The Anarchist Cookbook

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

I think that this is an entertaining film and all but I think it's nothing but the anarchist versions of SLC Punk and Trainspotting (however I am one of the few who didn't see similarities to Fight Club) It is an ok movie...maybe has too much annoying techno music on the soundtrack...also with goofy camera techniques and film changes but it's a low budget indie film so thats to be expected however the message of the movie is off...it doesnt spark much debate in the film on the ideas of anarchism and the only character who actually is believable is Puck because he is what most people wanting to believe in something and be a part of something...undecided and only it it for the clique. I can't really get into the deep aspects of the movie so I'm just going to say its a 7/10

I had my doubts upon first renting 'Anarchist Cookbook'. The first review I had read was on this IMDB page and it was not complimentary. I agree that this movie is part 'Fight Club' part 'SLC Punk', but it has to be viewed as its own entity. If you care to listen to the commentary on the DVD, then you will realize a lot of time and cunning was used to make each scene and each shot that you have to watch it a second time to really appreciate it. This is captivating cinema done with a very slim budget. Once the "indieness" is established, we have a worth while film.

For IMDB standards, I would give it a 7/9.

~Nioze

This film is very, very loosely connected with the book "The Anarchist Cookbook," a collection of do-it-yourself explosives, weapons and other violent tools which has since been disavowed by its author. Aside from featuring the book, the movie has absolutely no connection to it.

The movie does connect to the life of college dropout Puck (Devon Gummersall), an intelligent anarchist who spends his days living in a commune of like-minded folks among them: Karla (Gina Philips), a man hating feminist, Johnny Red (John Savage) a peaceful old hippie and Double-D (Steve Van Wormer), Puck's dimwitted best friend. Aside from protesting "oppressive" government actions, everything is relatively calm on the commune as they wait for the revolution, that is until the appearance of Johnny Black (Dylan Bruno) a violent nihilist who dismisses their peaceful ways. Things start to spiral out of control as Johnny Black convinces the collective to take a more severe approach to anarchy.

For a movie about questioning conventions, the script is pretty conventional. In fact, it's wholly unoriginal. Puck starts out as a lethargic, idealistic layabout who after facing the folly of his lifestyle alters his flaws and somewhat adjusts to adult life. This exact story seems to be lifted from 1998's "SLC Punk!" and while "SLC" delivered scathing satire, "Cookbook" only gives an occasional wink to entrenched hypocrisies. Additionally the pace of the story is very schizophrenic with some scenes being unbearably slow and others whizzing by. Maddening director choices like this completely fumbles the central point. Once the film closes by condemning violence in all its forms, it feels like putting a bandaid on a tumor.

A movie that involves such a predictable character arch needs to be supplied with decent acting on the part of the lead, and though Devon Gummersall tries his best, he never seems to get his footing on the character. The supporting cast doesn't fair any better. Karla becomes obnoxious, John Savage seems to phone it in and the character of Double-D is nothing more than a caricature out of place with the presumably "developing characters".

Jordan Susman made a lukewarm entrance into the movie industry winning a second place prize in 1997 for his short film "Sitting in Limbo" at the Montreal Film Festival. "The Anarchist Cookbook," released five years later has shown little improvement. Some scenes seem to have been shot by different types of cameras and lighting for no stylistic reason other than clear budget restraints. The editing is sloppy and everything seems to just not mesh at all.

There is one bright light in the form of Dylan Bruno. Bruno manages to portray menace with such understated glee that he balances intelligence, cunning and meat-headed violence pretty well. Unfortunately even his character is a shadow of what could have been.

"The Anarchist Cookbook" is an ill-conceived mess. Neither funny or dramatically engrossing, it serves as a toothless and forgetful expose on a subculture that deserves more credit. Neither emotionally striking or politically resonant this film about anarchy simply lacks anarchistic spirit.

http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/

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.