The Anarchist Cookbook

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 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/

Have you seen Fight Club and SLC Punk? Well if you have, you are qualified to write and direct movies. All in all it was not too bad. I give it like 3 stars or something. The main fascination of the film for me was the location. It is shot it Dallas TX and surrounding suburbs. I'm stuck in Dallas so it was cool to see others coping with this same problem as well. The story seemed to change directions more times than a hobo in a dance hall. It looked like it was trying to be revolutionary or something of the sorts. It was definately not as good as SLC Punk but hey... few movies are. I recommend it to people who have to watch everything that comes out.

This movie is an independent film, which is one of the reasons I rented it. Independent films usually seem to focus more on the plot and the characters, rather than big name actors and special effects. The movie started out slowly, and never picked up much speed. I dont feel the movie did any justice to the idea of anarchy. All the main characters were very good looking, this would have been a better Abercrombie ad than a movie. This movie was supposed to be about normal, real people, and the appearance of the actors seemed to go against this.

I have seen this film compared to Trainspotting and SLC Punk. If you enjoyed these two movies, I would NOT recommend you see the Anarchist Cookbook, unless you really have nothing better to do with two hours of your life.

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?