The Anarchist Cookbook (2002) User Reviews (48)

Not worth the admission price to watch, or even the bandwidth to download.

[Timescrew · 4/10 · 11 January 2004]

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

Nice attempt but, doesn't quite hit the mark...

[bootscootin · 5/10 · 3 February 2006]

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.

DO REAL ANARCHISTS MAKE FILMS?

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 13 December 2018]

The movie is largely a first person narration by a man who calls himself "puck." He is part of a lame group of people who call themselves "anarchists." They have no rules except, no smoking, no violence, no hurting animals etc. They are lead by an old hippy named Johnny Red. They do protests in hope to generate awareness and media coverage. Puck speaks mostly in clichés, bumper sticker slogans, and quotes lines at random from cult movies.

Then one day enters Johnny Black. Johnny Black uses the popular "Anarchist Cookbook" (which the group outside of Johnny Red have never heard of it) to generate bombs, drugs etc. in order to bring down the man. He also uses cyberspace attacks. Johnny Black takes over the group.

Meanwhile Puck gets involved with a young Christian Republican woman who is everything he is not, but ironically seem to have the same core values. Puck struggles between saving the planet from governments and corporations against rescuing his friends and pursuing love and normalcy.

The Revolution will not be...Watched

[bkrauser-81-311064 · 2/10 · 26 October 2011]

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/

Horrible

[rachelblack · 31 August 2005]

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.

A typical hollywood teen movie that tries to look original but in the end fails kinda like "Porn and Chicken"

[alex692 · 3/10 · 11 July 2003]

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.

It's like a made for TV version of Fight Club

[Sortyxt · 1/10 · 19 September 2003]

Anarchist Cookbook is a teen friendly version of Fight Club, with a few dashes of SLC Punk for effect. The one word that seems to describe this movie best is simply, Stupid.

The plot is stupid. A bunch of new age hippies who call themselves anarchists find a new leader, Johnny Black aka Tyler Durden. Using the "Anarchist Cookbook" as their guide, they make plans to do some real gnarly stuff like saving trees along side the Arian brother hood. Anyone who knows anything about that book, knows it just a bunch of b.s. It contains almost no REAL information at all, just alotta hearsay and outrageous theories. Don't believe me? Try making LSD in your kitchen using banana peels. The characters in this movie call it "the bible" and follow it word for word.

The dialogue is stupid. It's written as if the writer watched Fight Club and said "how can I say what he said, only without people knowing where I got it from." It's almost uncomfortable at some points cuz it's so frickin' cheesy.

The characters are stupid. Especially "Johnny Black." He's basically just impersonating Brad Pitt, only without any of the Charisma. The main character, Puck, is just a knock off of Steve-O from SLC Punk. The voice over track from that movie could have been dubbed over this one and no one would have known the difference.

Bottom line, this is just a bad movie. If you feel the need to watch it, go ahead, but you'd be better off just renting Fight Club.

A masterpiece of work covering two totally disagreeing subcultures filled with belief.

[scobbah · 7/10 · 27 August 2003]

A masterpiece of work covering two totally disagreeing subcultures filled with belief. It was a long time since I saw a movie showing how it could be for real by being a member of a subculture and actually I think the last time I was really OK with it's coverage must have been "Romper stomper" from 1994.

All though the plot is a bit miss-guiding, this movie was great. The main characters are well played by it's actors and with a such unique story, this couldn't go better than this.

Bad 1950s style propaganda

[snauth · 2/10 · 4 June 2005]

So, you are tempted by anarchists? Be aware that "Johnny Black" is just waiting to spoil everything. Suddenly Nazis will be your best friends and you will loose your real friends, because those "anarchists" use drugs to control their followers. On "archive.orgy" funny clips from long ago can be downloaded, like the one that warns you not to get aroused by your boyfriend, because you will be pregnant at once and loose every hope. This movie is the 1990s version of such educational propaganda. Funny that these things persist in times of post-modernity, might be related to who's got the means to make movies? Difficult to imagine, for whom this movie is made.

POOR MANS FIGHT CLUB

[skip-49 · 7/10 · 18 July 2002]

saw this last night. it was an ambitious topic to put on film and they did a pretty good job. however it did not quite do it for me. the characters outside of the lead were shallow and caracatures of real people. i agreed with the anti corporate message wholeheartedly but was disapointed that the message was being given by people who could easily be discounted as stoners,losers,slackers or any like monikers. as a film it was uneven yet interesting. it felt almost like slacker...a string of scenes,some funny,some dark,some worked really well,some not so well. i really wanted to like it but it didnt quite hold up for me. nice try though!

Poorly contrived GOP propaganda - reminded me of Reefer Madness

[blockh34d · 2/10 · 25 July 2003]

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.

Too smart for today's dumb audiences

[sammyjohnson71 · 10/10 · 4 March 2004]

This is a film that caught me totally by surprise in so many ways. It was easily the finest film I've seen in a long time -- and therefore I'm not surprised by the polarized opinions regarding it.

First: I never expected to find a movie called "The Anarchist Cookbook" at my local video store.

Second: It is not what I expected from a movie of that title.

Third: After defying my expectations, it then turned out to be something better than I imagined it could / would be.

What is NOT surprising is the stupidity of the people who have written about it. I guess my missive is directed at the other people who have seen it and at the other people who DARE TO WATCH IT WITH AN OPEN MIND (a cardinal sin in this day and age.)

What made Anarchist stand out for me is its unrelenting intelligence. It doesn't just quote Wittgenstein -- it MISQUOTES Wittgenstein! When I first heard that, I was shocked and I wondered, "What does this film think it is?" But as I started to absorb the rhythms of Puck, I started to understand what a poseur he is. That him (mis)quoting Wittgenstein was perfectly in character. That is something I have never seen in a film. (Yes, I've seen dumb characters. And I've seen characters who were dumb who thought they were smart. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN it done in a way that does not draw attention to itself!)

That whole Wittgenstein-thing made me reexamine the enitre film and made me worry that Mr. Susman is not just smart -- but he might be too smart for today's dumb audiences.(more about this later.)

As Puck goes down the rabbit-hole, and the film turned from comedy to drama, I got a sneaking suspicion that I had seen something like this before. And then I realized: IT'S HAMLET!!!

Puck is the Danish Prince who needs to get off his existentially lazy ass and do something. Like Hamlet, he blows every opportunity. It would be too much of a stretch to call Double D his Ophelia, but you get the point. And unlike Hamlet, Puck ends up doing the right thing, and we the audience root for him -- and laugh as well at sweet fortune that comes his way.

In an era of irony upon irony, Susman has created an uber-irony: the subject of its wrath (and there is wrath amongst the mirth)is not just ideology, but platitudes. Of course the film is going to tick off anarchists -- because, please, there are no real anarchists. Anyone who says they're a genuine anarchist is either a liar, an idiot or both. What there does seem to be alot of though, are ignorant movie-watchers who cannot bear that their little PC shibboleths would be the object of scorn and satire. Yes this film makes fun of anarchists and hippies. But it also makes fun of Republicans and cops and everyone else who comes onto the screem. It uses humor, wit and dramatic narrative to kick every ideology in the nuts.

Now as for the boneheads who think Fight Club is art...

This movie is not Fight Club pt2. Fight Club is (sorry to say) a frightfully stupid film. What was it even about? Brad Pitt's abs? Yes, this film has voiceover and a bad apple character who takes over the life of a ennui-plagued young man -- yeah so? Unlike Fight Club, this film had the cajones to be about something. To make you actually think. And the twist at the end of this film was genuine, real, and funny as hell. The twist in Fight Club was probably the dumbest twist on celluloid -- ever. (Brad Pitt IS Ed Norton...Give me a break!)

And as for those who compare it to SLC Punk...I see some similarities there as well. But that film was so poorly executed, so solipsistic and narrow in its focus, and so one-dimensional in its story that it left you wondering, "Who cares?"

That said. Rent this movie. While not a shocking piece of cinema, it is a brilliant piece of filmmaking. It's the type of movie that studios don't make (because of the title), that film festivals don't like (because it's not PC enough to be at Sundance).

This movie is for people with hearts, brains and balls. If you got that, then you should give this movie a try. But if you're a weak-willed PC automaton who thinks that independnet film must always laud all things PC, then you will be sorely disappointed.

As En Vogue said years ago: Free your mind and the rest will follow.

*sigh* misleading title.

[dgailey-1 · 3/10 · 6 February 2005]

Turn back! Avert your eyes! You have the wrong idea! This movie is just an hour-and-a-half long after school special. They should never have given this movie this title. They only did so to lure unsuspecting youth into concerning themselves with its content, only to disappoint you into watching a hammy story with no real plot twists and pseudo-Christian morals galore. I'm almost positive this movie's production was sponsored by some right-wing-mothers-against-some-thing type of organization. Poor quality and poor story only compounds the fact that it is a total lie. Thank god I pirated it. I give this a big 10 on the Delete Factor. rm -f /The.Anarchist.Cookbook.Movie.avi or Drag and drop it directly to the trash bin of your choice.

Not about anarchism, Not about cooking....

[LittleBlackStar · 10 January 2004]

Well.. if anarchism needed an SLC Punk, we certainly have it. Here is the plot of this crap of a film:

Puck and a bunch of his friends live with this old anarchist/hippy in this communal house. everything is peachy and wonderful and they do small actions here and there, but mostly are just living a nice little anti-authoritarian lifestyle.

along comes this guy who calls himself "Johnny Black" (ohhhhhh punk rock!). he has different ideas for this little group. first he introduces them to (you guessed it) the Anarchist Cookbook. You know, that book you all read when you were in middle school. It "teaches" you how to make bombs and drugs. mostly it's a bunch of crap.

well, they're all against it at first. and everyone really dislikes johnny black. but they can't tell him to leave because they're anarchists and, i guess, according to this movie, anarchists can't tell people to leave. hm.. if that were really the case, you think there'd be WAY more anarchists. anyway, it turns out the older hippy anarchist likes little boys (????) and his girlfriend finds out and leaves him. and then they're raided by the cops.

they go to jail for various things. johnny black gets 3 years, but is going to be out in 4months. puck moves into his parent's house and spends more time with his girlfriend. they met at a punk show, she is a dominatrix by night and a member of the young republicans at a christian school by day (i thought that was cute).

puck also gets a real job at a starbucks like place. there's a neat sequence of making espressos that's supposed to look like requiem for a dream. pretty cool.

so johnny black gets out of jail and finds puck and starts to live with him. but puck is afraid to tell him to leave because johnny black is a hardcore mofo and would bust a cap in his ass. so then puck and johnny find a new place and everyone agrees that johnny black is in charge. i'm not sure how that happened though. even the hippy guy is kissing johnny black's ass. makes no sense. i was lost.

and then all of a sudden, johnny black holds a gun party and invites neo-nazis and militia guys and puck freaks out because everyone is cool with this. during the freak out, he delivers the only good line in the movie.

"There are only a few things worse than the US federal government and right now they're ALL sitting in my living room!" pretty nice.

so puck has this friend (who's been in the movie.. if you're confused, puck = Steve-O and his friend = the bob guy, both from SLC Punk). anyway, puck's friend ODs on johnny black's pills and puck + the hippy guy and this other guy and some girl who was arrested for going down on another girl either in the movie get together and formulate a plan to get rid of johnny black.

the night before a big action that includes the "anarchists", the nazis and the militia guys, puck and the others cook up a bunch of "puckcakes" which look like pancakes, but have drugs in them to put the nazis, etc to sleep. or to kill them , it's not very clear. well, johnny black finds out and there is a confrontation that's somewhat humorous, because at this point, you hate everyone in the film, and anyone getting beat up with an iron pan from the stove is just wonderful.

so everyone except for puck, the hippy guy, that girl and one other guy are unconscious. they all talk about what they're going to do and then puck does what any anarchist would do. he goes to the FBI. the FBI raids the house, arrests everyone and puck goes.. no, not jail time, but $200,000 dollars for the arrest of johnny black and one of the nazis.

so at the end of the movie, puck changes his name back to peter (his given name) and goes to work at the ronald reagon library in california with his republican girlfriend.

ok... so that's the movie.

anyway, they blew a GREAT opportunity here. they could have made a movie about how the FBI infiltrates activist groups and tries to get them to do illegal & violent things (FBI used to do this a lot more.. it's been made illegal now, so they have to be a LOT better at hiding it). basically, they made a crap movie that combined Fight Club and SLC Punk. johnny black was a horrible brat pitt.

it's not even fun to watch. just a horrid movie that, like SLC Punk, basically says, "what you believe doesn't matter, just be a good kid and stop all that punk rock stuff."

the only extras on the disc are the director's commentary where he apologizes over and over for making such a crap film. ok.. he doesn't do that. well, i figured he doesn't, i've not actually had the guts to listen to the commentary track.

wow, what a crap film. very crap indeed.

Extremism mis-portrayed

[mario10zeus · 5/10 · 24 July 2008]

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.

Bleh...

[alucardzybell · 1/10 · 1 July 2009]

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!

Anarchists Cookbook?

[TDNovak · 1/10 · 8 January 2009]

The "Anarchists Cookbook"? I downloaded the real Anarchist Cookbook from a BBS, bulletin board system (Pre-internet "websites") when I was in my teens; and let me tell you one thing - there is nothing anarchistic in this script, he rips off a "Chic-filet" style joint in the beginning - like that takes a lack of authoritarian fear. Okay, so I only watched the first nine minutes while making something to eat - but it did the trick; I turned it off.

I don't even have the words. I don't claim to be an anarchist in any sense of the word. I just implore anyone out there looking into the "modern" anarchist lifestyle to fore go this piece of trash and pick up a little book known as "Days Of War, Nights Of Love" - it's the closest thing to a "cookbook" on the lifestyle anyone will ever need.

Essentially, it's like saying that "Empire Records" was an accurate representation of mid-90's sub-culture - though in its defense it had decent acting and a fairly believable script.

P.S. To all those who relate this to SLC punk - PLEASE!!! At least that was a period piece with relative social constructs.

Teens dabble in group thought.

[drawings_Of_Ott · 3/10 · 16 November 2005]

If anyones ever compared this film to SLC punk, Id have to agree.

If I ignored the manipulative horrible ending, Id recommend it for Kids under 20 yrs old.

Through the first half I found myself droning along with a bunch of perfect skin, conditioned hair Sh*ts fresh out of a teen hunk magazine, supposedly living in a punk squat. (though I enjoyed seeing John Savage from 'Hair' ...ect)

The second half I guess there were a couple giggles.

Do show it to your 14 Yr old Kid who's getting into politics.

If Your Kid is getting into punk, show him 'Dogs In Space' instead. (this is coming from a 26 yr old)

I wont give away the ending, but it could make you sick in the way that makes you wish you hadn't wasted your time.

Joke It Up and Dumb It Down

[valis1949 · 4/10 · 12 January 2012]

SO CONFOUNDED BAD, IT'S KINDA GOOD.......The aims and messages of any political theory contrary to Capitalism are always dumbed down and joked up, and this is certainly the case with THE ANARCHIST COOKBOOK (dir. Jordan Susman). Opposing views pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of our political reality are always portrayed as the feeble musings of, 'American troublemakers'. If, "Get a haircut, ya Commie hippie!", works for you, you might just like this film. If your political outlook is a bit more sophisticated, I would recommend any film by Noam Chomsky as a cinematic antidote to the cracked Hollywood styling of THE ANARCHIST COOKBOOK.

solid movie with much talent on display

[moviebuff247365 · 10/10 · 15 July 2003]

First things first: I know the anarchist cookbook. I grew up with the anarchist cookbook. And this film is definitely NOT based on the anarchist cookbook. I must admit, that threw me. But then again, any movie that begins w/ a quote from GW Bush throws me for a loop. Unlike the original cookbook that starts with a bang, this one is a slow burn. A good simmer. The story took a little while to start cooking (to continue with a lame metaphor), but when it did, I couldn't stop watching. Or laughing. Or scratching my head and thinking. But somehow it all makes sense in the end. Little details that appeared random at the time popped out of the woodwork towards the end to make it a cohesive whole. I see alot of indy movies (in fact, that's about all I see nowadays.) And this movie beat the pants off everything else I've seen so far this year. Having IMDB'ed the crew, I was surprised to see that they were on a movie like this. But judging by the talent on the screen, I wasn't surprised at all. A note on the movie's politix: No one comes away clean. Not anarchists, nihilists, realists, dreamers, repos or dems. And that's something I haven't seen in a long time.

pretty bad I have to say

[z_howland · 3/10 · 1 July 2008]

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.

what fight club should have been

[alang999 · 9/10 · 5 January 2005]

There is a trend in American movies of late to try to make the audience feel superior to the people on the screen, or to just make them feel superior to everyone in society in general. It's a Nietzsche thing, and you're either on the bus or not.

The brilliance of this film (and I do mean brilliant), is that it dares to ridicule the very people that should be its core audience. Unsuspecting viewers who think they are oh-so-cool because they're watching the Anarchist Cookbook (oooh...scary...hide it from the parents), must be aghast to find out that the film is an indictment of their childish mischief.

Fight Club was all about making the viewer feel cool. This film deconstructs that feeling of cool. And it paid the price for it (judging by the ratings it has received.) This is a movie for thinking people. Not people who just think they're cool. In fact, that's what the movie is about: the difference between wanting to be cool and wanting to think for oneself. Brilliant.

Not too good.

[chmnig · 18 December 2005]

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+.

Well thought out, and thought provoking

[krend01 · 8/10 · 7 March 2003]

I worry about movies that use narration over the film once it's started, and The Anarchist Cookbook did just that. However, once it established the setting and helped the audience come up to speed, the film flowed along nicely (meandering at points but puntucated in the "right spots" with flurries of activity) all the while making good use of real-sounding dialog (in parts it echoed actual conversations I've had). I'm not convinced this film is that impressively written, but it presents situations which challenge the characters and the audience to weigh their feelings on some pretty difficult issues in life: not just Anarchy and Nihilism, but friendship, responsiblity and developing as a person.

While most characters as archetypes are joyfully over the top, Johnny Red: the hippie throw-back, Karla: the earnest slut, and Double D: the loveable doofus, you can identify with them because of the situations they find themselves in. In many of the scenes you end up wondering, "Oh crap, what would I do then?"

This Anarchist Cookbook is a well thought out film. All too often you'll find films which leave something hanging, resolve it, then find something new to leave hanging only to resolve later and repeat the process. Then there's films which leave everything hanging and tie (or attempt to tie) it all together at the end. Watching the Anarchist's Cookbook I saw things left hanging all the time, I had to wonder if something mattered at all, and the movie tied up loose ends at it's own pace all throughout. It started out simple (with narration is about as simple as you can start - they even employ the dictionary a couple times) and braided itself together, occasionally ripping itself apart a bit, only to weave back together later. Throughout the whole film, things are being resolved, left open, and brought back up. There are revelations of varying degrees in every scene that left me wondering, where are they going to go after this - like life, this film is quite willing to keep moving, with or without you coming along. Not that you can't catch up later.

There's an incredibly fun scene in a coffee shop: the pacing of this particular scene is one of the flurry moments I mentioned. It's a well filmed scene (you didn't think the mess on a coffee bar could make for some interesting footage?), it's well timed, and the actors really show their chemistry. At that point the main character, Puck, his best friend Double D, and the audience could use a jovial moment - what's more jovial then running amuck behind the espresso bar?

The movie can't really be called a comedy (though it is very funny) and it can't really be called a drama (but there is plenty of that). Even in the serious moments, as the characters make choices that would, in many other films be the "one big choice" of the film. The Anarchist's Cookbook seems doesn't seem terribly concerned about making one big statement, instead, after establishing the characters, pushes them into a situation and tests their reaction. Sometimes it's their lack of reaction that makes the point

Go see this film. You'll leave wondering why it can be so easy to follow, so hard to lead, so easy to lose sight of what you believe in, and so worth it to find it again.

pretty good movie, THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS! read after viewing

[stirfrey_08 · 8/10 · 18 March 2009]

I've been reading trough the comments on this movie, and i don't think that many people really got it... it was showing that anarchy and nihilism are not the same thing, they may have slightly similar goals, but they are definitely not the same thing! Johnny Black is a nihilist, and he turns the anarchists into his toys, he uses them and destroys something beautiful (SAM) when doing it. I'm not saying that johnny Red was right in all the things he did, but he had a better view of how to take down the man than Johnny black. but the one who really knows what he stands for is Puck, he is the hero in this story, in a certain way... he knows that Johnny black is leading them all a-stray. If you think after watching this that anarchy is about violence you are wrong, please re watch the movie up until Johnny black shows up. thats what its all about