Hippies (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews (7)

Hippies, a very respectable documentary

[jsmith612-934-649739 · 9/10 · 26 December 2010]

A very good and accurate documentary of the era. Reading some of the flaming critical "reviews" makes me laugh because they are so wildly inaccurate. This documentary is very good, a synopsis of what it was like back in the '60's and '70's. There was very little good that came from the "movement" or lifestyle known as hippies. But apparently some are still fighting the fight by condemning what they feel is inaccurate to their "free" society desires. Some never grow up. But those who did, provide a realistic view of life back then.

But if you are interested in seeing a good documentary that paints a very fair portrayal, watch this film. Excellently put together, and very good interviews with many who were there, front and center.

Mis titled, unbalanced, biased and propagandistic about the 60ts era.

[bored-20 · 1/10 · 11 June 2009]

One dimensional showcase on how seemingly bad the "hippie movement" was, giving the era credit for breeding Charles Manson, - a religious cult mass murderer that has nothing to do with what we see as "hippie values" (Peace and Love). The documentary also raise sharp critique on the use of LCD and the acid parties and makes arguments it was intended to get the whole world on acid. It fails however to critique the CIA intention of the drug, and ends up almost praising their attempt on making "super soldiers" with it.

The music, which might be the most important cultural impact the era had is hardly mentioned, until they had to, -arriving to the obligatory Woodstock part. Which again, might be the most balanced part of the film, even if trying hard not to.

This is by far the worst documentary i have seen, claiming to show how the "hippies" lived and who they were. It ends up being a documentary your 60 year old bitter and grumpy conservative dad could have done to show how he saw the 60ts. It is certainly not about hippies.

A fascist piece of disinformation.

[eander2 · 20 April 2013]

This "documentary" had a definite agenda that distorts the actual impetus of the hippie movement. As in any group there were negative aspects and people who took advantage of the circumstances and dynamics. To suggest that the movement attracted mostly criminals is ridiculous. There were good and bad people. People did drugs but it wasn't the driving force behind the movement as claimed by the producers of this piece of crap. The documentary claims that John Lennon had a 1000 acid trips but makes no documentation of this.Lennon never claimed that he was Jesus Christ. He did offend christians by claimin the Beatles were more popular than Christ. That is the main problem that this film has. It makes ridiculous claims and offers no proof that they are true. The makers did get one thing right and that is the perverse clandestine efforts of the federal government to suppress political dissent against the war in Vietnam, the aggressive arms industry and the promotion of racial equality. As in present times, the resistance to and fear of meaningful change was the key motivation of those in power.

History channel documentary of hippies 1960/70s

[ksf-2 · 8/10 · 16 January 2009]

(Showing in January 2009 on the history channel). I'm glad to see that they actually dug deeper than most newsreels of the time to research the individuals and groups that were an active part of the "hippie" rebellion movement. Most clips of the time just show lots of flower-power children of the time smoking dope and dancing, then we're off to Woodstock, for the freaks and problems of drugs, violence, and overcrowding. In this show, they research the individuals and groups that were involved, which is more than most reports did. Sure, drugs were involved, but also there was the rebellion factor; so many of the children watched their fathers work Mon-Fri, nine to five, and this ten years after the McCarthy hearings, the children were determined not to let a big government be completely in charge of their lives. Probably also some anger over the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam war, and later, the Kent State shootings (see Wikipedia.org for info). The show also points out that by the time the Beatles and more run-away hippies arrived, the original goal had disappeared, and now it WAS just a bunch of hippy wanna-be's. Just my opinion. i welcome input... ksf-2

History Channel/Establishment Hogwash

[berniewentboom · 1/10 · 25 December 2007]

Some amazing stock footage from the period is used to paint an ugly and grossly unfair picture of the so-called hippie movement. This commercial for establishment orthodoxy exposes the filmmakers astonishingly poor grasp of the history that fueled and molded the counterculture movements from 1965-72. Typical for History Channel pabulum, the narrative tries desperately to define the movements with drug use, more drug use, sexual perversion, more drug use, and then (in an act of brash and comical audacity) crowning Charles Manson as the prince of the hippies.

This is a story for people who believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Fox News is a serious journalistic entity. And quite honestly, narrator Peter Coyote should know better than to lend his venerable voice to this exercise aimed at the "Leni Riefenstahl Fan Club."

Complete Piece of Unmitigated Crap !

[mariberian · 1/10 · 11 June 2010]

How can they call it the history channel? They should call it the fiction channel. What I can't figure is why every historic association in the country isn't up in arms condemning it. So many misnomers, misstatements, over simplifications and distortions I can't begin to describe here how misguided this unmitigated piece of crap is.

Oh well, what do you expect from the Hitler channel.

To say that Steve Jobs and bill gates were responsible for the computer revolution is complete bull manure.

The microchip was invented in 1959, IBM perfected it. IBM invented the PC, not bill gates. Not to tout IBM as some kind of hero, but that is just the fact. There were so many inventors and others responsible for the computer revolution before Jobs and Gates, this film does a disservice to them.

The film harps on from some puritanical perspective about the excesses of the hippies and their 'selfish' behavior and the stereotypical descriptions of their oh so terrible descent into indulgence of drugs. What simplistic moronic fools that produced this right wing piece of smelly propaganda.

This film seems to have been completed in almost every way from a strictly puritanical standpoint, that the hippies are not the norm, and that when the "norm" was (supposedly) re- established (I think they imply sometime after 1979), all was well with the world again.

I think it was produced by a bunch of right wing biblical fundamentalists trying to look cool and to downplay the most radically positive social revolution of the 20th century, and perhaps since the American revolution.

And I suppose the saddest part to me is that so many young people will watch this drivel and know nothing better than to believe it.

For Accuracy, Skip This Garbage

[gratefulnj · 1/10 · 16 June 2010]

Simply said, a very bad documentary loaded with mistakes. It seems to be propaganda against the hippie movement. I thought Peter Coyote would have thought better than to add to this garbage. I say that because I like the guy. It forgot to mention had the hippie movement not happened, and had LSD not been discovered the same year as atomic fission, the world would have destroyed itself. Where's the balance in this film? There is none. Skip it if you want a more accurate picture. There are better films. Since the History Channel showed a very well written documentary on LSD to Peyote, I really thought this would have been represented better. Try again History Channel. The only good part of Hippies was watching the commercials for Ice Road Truckers.