Pla seems 100 percent real but the voice-over in the story seems 100 percent bull

The film Maker. He seems to have filmed it with a handicam I think the Katoeys and Pla had no idea they were taking part in a money making operation.

He even complains when he has to pay a small "fine" to the local police who could just as easily, put him in the local jail, confiscated his equipment permanently and eventually deported him for working without the correct permits.( i think they should have)but i doubt it happened.

Pla and the other players probably thought he was just a tourist with a camera who, eventually would actually, pay.

Wayne


This is a terribly unprofessional documentary that looks more like a home movie. I can forgive that, though. What I can't forgive is the narrator's VOICE! I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned his tone of voice as a detraction. Throughout the entire film he sounds like a robot, quite obviously reading from a paper. It really sucks any life this film might have possibly had out. The film itself is monumentally bad as well. You don't get any feel for Pla as a person, and it follows no coherent storyline. I've never been to Thailand (I'm planning on studying there in the near future as an exchange student, and was searching for information on the web when this film came to my attention), but I honestly feel like I know more about the country than the filmmaker does. And I know nothing about the country that hasn't been gleaned from Google searches, so that should give you a clue about how much he apparently knows. Sorry, Mr. Clark, but it just didn't work for you. Better luck next time! By the way, if you're looking for a good documentary that's interesting and follows a plot, check out The Great Happiness Space--Tale of an Osaka Love Thief by Jake Clennell.


If u need some back for the claims I will make below, Ill tell u I have lived and studied in Thailand for 4 years, I have a Thai wife and I have known many bar-girls, some of whom do the job for a lack of a better choice BUT STILL OUT OF FREE CHOICE and some who don't even want to consider different choices because they are contempt with what they do. In Thai society prostitution is "illegal" but it has long roots and a strong frame in the history and culture, the job of a prostitute is considered a low one but they are still a completely accepted part of the society. The life some women, like the character "pla" in this document live is NORMAL for these people. Yes, it is not just good or bad but NORMAL here, no matter what we think of it in the west.

I know the girls working in the bars as this one in the document are free to leave any time they want for another job. But they often don't want, because in this job they make 10 times the same money with less efforts. Any other job would decrease their living standards too much so they go for the money.

I have lived and stayed with poor Thai people, who are not and don't want to be prostitutes. Thay are students or factory workers and I have stayed in their in lousy shacks and 8 square rooms eating the street food, and though I am not used to it and cant say I enjoy it, for them it is NORMAL and I know they have been contempt with what they have. The bar-girls are not contempt with that or they want to send more money home for the parents, or save up money so they go and sell themselves or just entertain some foreigners to get more money.

So even if the choice is not good, there IS A CHOICE for everyone of them (in bars like the one featured in this film). Thats just a choice between a hard life with your pride or getting more money with less pride. Now to the point:

This film is very sad indeed.

Not because the "story" is sad but because sadly there is no story. Not because the filmatography or any other artistic feature is so convincing but because of the lack of anything convincing. Like others have pointed out here the director obviously had nothing together before shooting this poor film except average camera and editing skills and his prejudice and stereotypical view of the issue and what he would get together.

And thats exactly what he tries to carry on to the viewer as well: he is asking the girl direct personal questions to get the answers he wants. What is supposed to look like "caring about her problem" or "listening to her" falls apart with his condescending attitude towards the culture and the girls profession and life. With the attitude, style and language the girl is interviewed with, she is not given an option or possibility to explain anything about her real thoughts.

What has happened here is that the girl got annoyed with the film maker (I would have) and the film maker frustrated because the girl didn't answer what he expected. After his few weeks holiday in Thailand money ran out, the director packed his bags and went home with nothing. Thats the obvious reason for the fraud ending and the claimed "murder" of the girl, to get some drama, twist and an end to his story.

If this serves as something, that is as an example of what document is not supposed to be. I can not believe this has actually been aired in full length on some self respecting network or station. A document is supposed to look at the real nature of things and openly present them to the viewer instead of reproducing old ideas and clichés, lying and controlling the subject to impose a wanted effect on them. That is called propaganda, in this case ethnocentric, bandwagon propaganda.


The problem with white boys in the red-light district in any city is that it is dangerous to these girls in more than one way. The really sad thing about this film (although all intentions was good but so naive) was that the girl of course was perceived as "hanging" out with a rich white guy who paid for her services, as girls do in the red light zone. This behavior spells MONEY in that neighborhood. And this guy Jordan Clark is so naive that he doesn't recognize the violence that is there. I get a feeling that he is somewhat superstitious in his way of looking at the world and this environment in particular. Probably religious in some way, because this is so typical with these people trying to impose there moral standards and be morally upset as they've done in Africa and elsewhere. (Spells disaster, just as much prostitution as anywhere else) So what happens after this well meaning young man has left? Well, the pimps controlling her and her neighborhood gets right to it. They "know" of course that a girl like that doing a film and all certainly got more money stashed away for herself from this deal with the tourist guy. So they get right to it, to get their share and that killed her of course. She's just another expendable commodity in that environment and nobody will ever ask for her. Make no mistake, those guys don't care one bit. And there are 1000's more where she came from. So all in all; this film actually tells you more about the western world and its way of dealing with things than exposes the red-light district called Bangkok. I think this guy should just stay at home in his own environment where he probably is less harmful. The real criminals in this episode are of course the Police in Thailand who protects these Pimps and make a good living out of it through corruption/protection and of course in the end the Politicians and the KING who is generally seen as some sort of God.

WAKE UP TO REALITY !

/Z


This is irresponsible film-making. Get a highly sensational subject like sex or violence, travel to a third world or developing country, roll the camera like its a home video and tape then edit against the will and intentions of the participants.

Viewers be aware that Pla, the girl in the film, was KILLED after the film was made. It is believed she was murdered by mafia controlling prostitution (yes most likely Thai and not Farang). Someone lost face and she paid the price - something anyone familiar with Thai culture should know. Whatever good intentions were conceived with this film have quickly faded and her family is in more dire straits without her support.

A couple questions for the filmmaker. Did all subjects in this film knowingly participate? Are you investigating her death and pressuring for answers from the Thai embassy? Are you doing anything to support her family? How much of Canadian taxpayer dollars indirectly contributed to her death through CBC funding?


After watching this film, I must say that I was less than impressed. The tone of the film is misleading. While watching the Pla interview segments it was obvious that she was becoming increasingly annoyed with the film maker. By his own omission, he paid bar for this girl and did not pay her for her time. This tends to anger the bar girls because if they aren't in the bar they can't find another customer. It was also clear that he was making a habit of showing up at her work and interrogating her with questions she did not want to answer. In addition, most Thai bar girls do not wish to appear on camera especially in connection with any kind of prostitution. Thai people are very modest people and would not easily have their faces filmed in this kind of film in order to protect their future. They believe this would be ruined if people saw a film where they were connected with prostitution.

I question the authenticity of the film's ending, where the film maker presents that 1 week after filming Pla was dead. Personally, I don't believe it. I suspect that after annoying the poor girl, she most likely was avoiding him and was thus unavailable for more footage. I suspect that in needing an ending, describing a questionable and potentially fraudulent death of Pla without filmed proof accomplishes nothing more than giving the movie an ending and inciting emotion in the audience.

I would not recommend this film to anyone. You would be better served to visit Bangkok and see it for yourself. Make your own judgement.


It's always interesting to meet people just passing through Thailand doing a documentary. Their conclusions are almost always wrong and their evidence is almost always suspect at best.

As one who has lived and worked in Thailand I can tell you that any documentary that does not include a LONG HARDlook at the role of the Police, the Politicians, and the King is leaving out the primary motivation for Thai prostitution in the first place.

Without the Top-Down Hierarchy in Thailand essentially Stealing the money via the Banking systems (the same way it is now being done in the US)Thai people would be some of the richest in the world.

So any slice of life documentary like this one, fails completely because Thailand is like an onion (or an Ogre), it has many layers, and some of those layers can't be exposed without brining tears to your eyes...


Having been taking photos and videos of the places I travel to (not least Thailand and Bangkok which is one of my favorite cities on earth) I can assure you that anyone who is capable of holding a camera in a hand and can speak and is not an alien from Mars can make a similar 'documentary' about pretty much anything and 'prove' any point or hypothesis. Having observed the sex scene of Thailand (and other countries) from a close-up myself I can express nothing but a sad smile looking at this 'documentary' which is nothing about even a fair attempt to depict the scene and the industry that has taken so many women (men as well) in Thailand. I would suggest the authors of this 'documentary' to get into some books (or Wikipedia at the very least) and have some read about Thai culture and history before putting 'farangs' anywhere near the center of the issue. I could write a lot more but I guess it's just not worth it. My recommendation to those willing to watch this: don't bother. Better buy a ticket to Bangkok and see the amazing city and amazing country for yourself. And there i no need to be afraid to get to the places where those girls are doing their business. They won't bite. Perhaps they could even tell you their own story.

All in all this is a piece of an amateurish documentary film-making which perhaps could not get it any worse.


Hello together,

i was very shocked about the film, because i saw in Bangkok the same like in the film. It makes me very sad. I saw the film a few days ago but now i am thinking about pla, most girls have nothing to change - they must work in bar because they are the money-maker for her family.

Up-to-date: But now there are different statements about pla. Is she dead or alive!? Some people say, she is alive and now outside of thailand, other say she get killed by people of this business and other one told me she get dead by car-accident.

Can someone who really know whats up with her tell me the please.

Thank you very much, catpillar-1


I live in Bangkok and had an extremely difficult time tracking down this film. Our internet connections are not as forgiving as those in the states to permit large downloads. I ended up ordering it from Amazon.com When it arrived I put it in the DVD player. I expected to hate it, although I needed to see it. I admit that I partake in the night scene from time to time and have gotten to know bargirls for what they are, usually nice girls who like to party. Now the majority is not represented in this film, but they are well represented by the misleading nature of the subject. Contrary to a previous review, a bargirl will do most anything for money. If you don't believe me just do a google search for 'nude Thai bargirl' , I think the modesty is a farce. The girls who truly protect their identity last a season or two in the bars, not the 7 years the subject has been there. While the facts in the narration gets a bit preachy, I found myself falling for the girl in the film. By the end I felt what I believe I was supposed to feel. I can see other people disliking the presentation. I can see people not liking the narration. I can't see anyone not liking the main subject Pla. I think this has been said. I wrote an earlier review for "The Good Woman of Bangkok" and I found Bangkok Girl far less contrived and more up to date. Is it better? In my opinion yes, but you should make up your own mind. It might also be that I have heard stories about Dennis O'Rourke (good woman director) and how he is a bit of a prick. I've asked around about this filmmaker and will have to report back about his authenticity. So far he has made a stealthy exit from the country. No slug trail to follow. This film is definitely not for 'one of the boys' prowling the bars. I find they do not take kindly to strangers trying to meddle with their good time. In closing, its a pretty neat film that won't change the world.


I was deeply moved by this thoughtful and sensitive documentary about the life of a young girl in Bangkok. We have become a disposable society and in this story, we manage to dispose of people as well. It made me feel helpless and frustrated especially watching the portrayal of the European low life with his stupid grin. Most other documentaries about the sex trade in Thailand is sensationalized and glamourized. Not this one, it draws us in and shows us what really goes on behind the smile. I was hoping for a happy ending, for some goodness to come through, for some hope. I recommend this documentary to every one, it could even be shown in high schools. Maybe it will shame some people into not going to Bangkok to indulge in the sex trade and exploitations of these poor people.


If the purpose of this documentary was to evoke an emotional response and foster dialogue, it succeeded on both counts. I left a comment to articulate my visceral response to this film, and a few people found it offensive. But what should I say? As a human being, much less a documentarian who has to been to Thailand, I was offended by this film. I don't think "Bangkok Girl" ever really got to tell her story. All I heard was the filmmaker. So I'm going to repost my comment, and preface it with a disclaimer: for any who came surfing here with the intent of posting their tearful heartfelt applause, you might find the following comment to be unpleasantly sardonic.

"I'm a good citizen! That's why I'm going to a bowling alley in Virginia, US. I'll interview the first girl willing to talk to me. Maybe she's been beaten by her husband but remains in her marriage. I'll ask her lots of personal questions: why did she get an abortion when she was 15? Why doesn't she leave her job as an underpaid waitress, quit drinking and go back to school? Then I'll lay in a voice over, wondering if there's really any hope for her, or any remedy for the tragedy of her situation. I'll call it: Richmond Girl. Because everyone has a story. As for the men in the bowling alley, they don't really have a story so I won't ask them personal questions - but together, we can feel better than them. I'll wave goodbye to the first girl in Richmond who talked to me, and feel good - knowing that I could have slept with her if that's what I wanted. Because that's what caring is.

If you're amazed or ashamed that hypocrisy like this still has an audience, try to understand that it's basically a rite-of-passage for lazy film students everywhere. College students love to "investigate" prostitution, but they don't do it at home because they'd have to see and hear from their subjects again and that's too much commitment. So students: ask around the quad and you'll hear about some places you can shoot (coincidentally, your own country's GNP will be higher - go team!). "I hear Paraguay is like, really bad. Like you can buy any girl you want and stuff." You'll come back from vacation feeling better about yourself, as if you've tackled some kind of social problem. And better still, you'll get an "A"!

I challenge you to learn *ONE SINGLE THING* about Thailand from this indulgent film. This comes from a long embarrassing tradition of backward, self-serving, patronizing colonialist-explorer films. Kidlat Tahimik please... let me hold you and cry."


A Truly wonderful film that left you thinking and feeling for hours after walking out of the cinema.

Michelle Pfeiffer is exact in her portrayal of the smart, rich, no-nonsense lawyer who realises how empty her luxurious and successful life is. As always she delivers an outstanding performance and reminds us of just how excellent and beautiful an actress she is.

Sean Penn is so believable that you forget that he doesn't actually have anything wrong with him...he captures every emotion perfectly and instills all of that emotion in the audience. Penn is highly under rated in the world that is movies, as he shows with this Oscar potential performance.

The young actress who plays his daughter is amazingly mature in her acting, whilst always managing to capture the innocence of her youthfullness. On top of all that she is gorgeous. The combination of three excellent main actors combined with the supporting actors and the genuine theme and style of the film makes I am Sam an excellent and must see film. Truly Inspiring.


I know that title isn't very descriptive, but all I could say for awhile after watching I Am Sam was, "Wow!" Although that's a positive endorsement of the film--it's rare that a film has me basically speechless afterward (I usually suffer from logorrhea, which sounds close enough to diarrhea that you could call it (verbal) flatulence instead if you like)--it turned out to be quite a problem, because we went to dinner right afterward and I had to give a lecture. I believe I was served some kind of raw beef, and I have an exorbitant dry cleaning bill from the tomatoes and rotten eggs.

But I won't bill director/co-writer Jessie Nelson, because it's not her fault that her film is so powerful and so stunningly constructed that it made me monosyllabic. I can only blame myself for putting off watching her work for so long.

I Am Sam begins with Sam Dawson (Sean Penn) at his job. He lives in Santa Monica and works at Starbucks. We can see that he's mentally retarded. He appears slightly autistic. Because of this, he's given only menial tasks to do. Suddenly, his boss tells him that he has to go. We see Sam running through the streets, catching buses and so on to end up at a hospital. A woman is in labor and it turns out that he's the father, but she wants nothing to do with him afterward--apparently, it was something like a one night stand. She abandons him with the baby. Aided by a quartet of developmentally disabled friends and his agoraphobic neighbor, Annie Cassell (Dianne Wiest), we see Sam doing his best to raise the girl, Lucy Diamond Dawson (eventually played by Dakota Fanning)--so named because Sam is a big Beatles fan. At least until he is "accidentally arrested". Government officials question his ability to raise his daughter, and I Am Sam becomes the tale of Sam's legal battle to retain custody of Lucy, aided by high profile lawyer Rita Harrison (Michelle Pfeiffer).

I Am Sam will likely make you say, "Wow!" afterward because it is a masterpiece on every artistic and technical level.

All of the major cast members give one of the best performances of their careers, and many of these actors have had a number of artistic triumphs on their résumés. Sean Penn is completely natural and believable as a developmentally disabled man. Two of the men playing his friends really were developmentally disabled, having been found at L.A. Goal, a non-profit agency dedicated to helping such people through a variety of programs, and it's next to impossible to tell them apart from the other actors. Nelson and her co-writer, Kristine Johnson, spent a lot of time at L.A. Goal doing research, as did Penn. Pfeiffer perfectly executes a complex character who has to undergo a number of far reaching transformations and even a breakdown of sorts. As for Fanning, I haven't seen her in a film yet where she didn't threaten to steal the whole thing from her senior, much more experienced colleagues, and during the filming of I Am Sam she was only 6 or 7. Wiest, Richard Schiff, Laura Dern and others also turn in very complex performances that convey characters with deep, multifaceted histories, despite their relatively little screen time.

Nelson approaches the film with a number of unusual artistic and technical angles that all work wonderfully. The cinematography is mostly hand-held work. Unlike similar attempts in films such as Lars Von Trier's Dogville (2003), the hand-held work never feels affected or intrusive here--it's completely "organic". The most common purpose of the unusual cinematography is to give the viewer almost a subjective sense of what it's like to be Sam, to experience the world in the way he does. Cinematographer Elliot Davis moves his camera in a way closely mirrored with Sean Penn's movements. There's an additional emotional symbolism. When Sam is feeling agitated, the camera-work is agitated. Likewise when Sam is confused, pensive, and so on. Davis shoots from a lot of unusual angles. All of them work.

Nelson also has the editing, lighting and production design match the aesthetic of the cinematography. The editing is sometimes very choppy, but always feels "natural", just right for conveying Sam's experience. Sometimes there are odd incongruencies between sound and image, or between temporal sequences. The lighting, camera angles and production design often make some elements appropriately fantastical. The production design and costuming match not only Sam's world, but other characters' worlds, as well. Not one aspect of the film seems to have gone by without close examination and artistic justification.

The music, which largely consists of Beatles tunes performed by other artists, fits the film perfectly. Sam and his friends are all a bit obsessed with the Beatles (and apparently, so were many L.A. Goal members when Nelson visited). The Beatles tunes exquisitely match the various moods of the film, and the lyrics often complement emotions and actions.

But even above all of that, I Am Sam tells a heart-wrenching story that's something of an exciting, emotional roller-coaster. There are many humorous scenes, often centered on Sam and his buddies going about the world with a kind of Winnie the Pooh-like wisdom that seems more honest and admirable than most of the film's "normal" folks. Of course, there are also many scenes that will require tissues for tears. And there's just about every emotion in between the two.

Finally, the film has a great message. Does parenting, or general personal worth, really hinge on intellectual ability and amassed knowledge? I don't think so. Parents who are very smart can have more than their share of flaws, as we see with Pfeiffer's character early on. Plenty of us had parents who were smart enough but couldn't help us with our geometry homework. Love may not be all you need, but it's definitely one of the major prerequisites.


There's only one reason why I don't like this movie right now. Because I have a splitting headache from being emotionally drained!

IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has been the top of my list for all time favorite movies, now I AM SAM has moved in right next to it.

I'm not saying that you have to have kids to understand the true meaning behind this movie, but I must say it certainly helps. I told my wife on the way back home from the movie that she was sooo stuck with me. She knew what I was referring to; our 6 month old little girl and our 5 year old little girl. I guess I'm just a good ole fashion softy. I came home and gave my 5 year old the biggest hug of her life and the tears just started flowing. I felt I had been impatient with her lately and just needed to let her know how much her daddy loves her.

I know this isn't a true rating of a movie. I'm not describing certain scenes that I thought were great or needed improving, I just wanted to express how it made me feel. And though I have a pounding head right now, I feel like I'm the luckiest dad in the world!


Sean Penn as a devoted father (Sam) who despite mental challenges, fights for the right to raise his child is convincing in a complete departure from his usual "bad guy" characters. Michelle Pfeiffer plays his reluctant "pro bono" elite lawyer, who eventually puts 110% into this case.

The love between Sam and his 7 year old daughter is evident in many sweet scenes (got Kleenex?), best described by a reclusive neighbor (wonderfully played by Dianne Wiest), who overcomes her hermit-like condition long enough to testify in Sam's behalf. Even the social workers who insisted on doing everything to "help the child" appear to be fighting emotions over this unusual case. The "support system", which includes several equally challenged "buddies", a very supportive employer, and many other people in the community gives evidence of our changing society, fostering inclusion and tolerance. Eventually even the prospective adoptive parents of Sam's daughter can't go on fighting against this exemplary father.

The girl playing Sam's daughter appears to be "gifted", at age 7 reading middle school material. Perhaps the "difference" between father & daughter's intelligence did not have to be in such an obvious extreme. The implication of a romantic involvement between Sam and his lawyer could have been avoided as well. The former is stretching it, but the latter is going too far. One can suspend her/his disbelief only so much! Since there are no "perfect" movies, I still consider this one pretty darn close! Highly recommended.


I haven't been a fan of Sean Penn's since Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Since that time, nearly all his films have left me flat. In fact, I nearly didn't watch this film since he was in it. What a loss it would have been if I'd missed it! I won't go into the story line since that's been reviewed a lot by others. The story is sort of a cliché'd one and has been done before, though not as well. The story isn't this film's strength anyway - it's the acting. Rarely have I seen a film with this much powerful acting. Penn's performance as Sam is brilliant! He must have studied autistic/mentally challenged people to pull this performance off. I also want to mention how good Michele Pfeiffer was in this. Her character starts out as a hard-hearted witch and ends up being very human, thanks to her exposure to Sam. The change in her is gradual, subtle and fun to watch. Sams friends, very well played by Brad Silverman, Joseph Rosenberg, Stanley DeSantis and Doug Hutchinson are very important support characters. Laura Dern gives a stellar performance as Randy. Dakota Fanning as Lucy very nearly steals the show. This little actress has quite a career ahead of her, I hope! This film is delicately balanced, and has a good bit of humor interspersed with parts that will have even the most insensitive of you reaching for a tissue. The film has a sort of a sappy (and somewhat surprising) outcome, but by this time any other ending would have been pretty much unacceptable to most people. This movie blew me away and I gave it a 9.


I Am Sam is one of, if not the best, motion picture of all time.

I Am Sam is about a retarded man named Sam (Sean Penn) who has a mental capacity of a 7-year old. He works as a server at Starbucks, is obsessed with The Beatles, and loves IHOP. After he accidentally has a daughter (Dakota Fanning) with a homeless woman who he names after the song Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds. The woman leaves him, and Sam is left to care for Lucy by himself. However, when Lucy intentionally begins to hold back in school to prevent becoming smarter from her father, child protective services takes her away and Sam must fight to obtain custody. He befriends a lawyer, Rita (Michelle Pfeiffer) with a bad marriage and a son who she thinks hates her. Together, Sam and Rita fight for Lucy's custody in a heartwrenching roller coaster of tears, laughs, and the overwhelming power of human spirit.

This is all beside some of the most stunning performances I've ever seen in a film. Sean Penn is top of his game and gives an amazingly realistic performance as a disabled man without a single flaw. To this day it makes me furious he didn't win the Oscar. Dakota Fanning's premiere role is by far her greatest ever, and at only six years old opened the eyes of actresses who've been in the business for years and basically screamed into their faces "This is how acting is done." And Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a phenomenal, incredibly realistic performance that will absolutely take your breath away.

As the film progresses, you will find yourself laughing one minute, crying the next (you WILL cry no matter how mature or old you are, so make sure you have tissues), the next moment tapping your foot along to the familiar Beatles tunes found throughout the movie (even though they're covers) and the next moment simply staring at the screen not believing your eyes and ears at how emotionally powerful a film can be.

And after watching, you won't want to ever give the DVD back to Blockbuster. If you don't at least give this movie a chance, you will truly be missing out on one of the shiniest gems of modern cinema ever.


I have to confess off the top that I am not and never have been a particular fan of Sean Penn. I have no specific criticism to make of him; as an actor he simply doesn't appeal to me. Because of that bias I approached this movie with low expectations. The story of a mentally handicapped man fighting for custody of his seven year old daughter sounded intriguing, but it starred Penn. But what a pleasant surprise this movie turned out to be!

Penn is actually very good in this role. He brings a realism to the character of Sam Dawson, and portrays him sensitively and with real emotion. In fact, I thought the only performance that was better than Penn's came not from Michelle Pfeiffer (who disappointed me a bit, actually) but rather from little Dakota Fanning as Sam's daughter Lucy. She seemed so natural in this role, and I would hope that we see more of her in the years to come. Pfeiffer, on the other hand, (as Sam's lawyer Rita Harrison) just didn't carry the role off that well, and even the courtroom scenes to me lacked the tension one would have expected from such an emotionally-laden issue.

The movie weakens in the last little bit, going for the sappy (and highly unrealistic) ending - unrealistic particularly in the way Lucy's foster mother (Laura Dern) ends up handling the situation.

Having said that, I still enjoyed this movie very much. It's raised my assessment of Sean Penn's acting abilities and I would recommend it to others and would watch it again.

7/10


When I saw in television announcing about the story of ''I Am Sam'', I didn't think twice and got the DVD of this movie to watch. First of all, Sean Penn's performance is awesome! He really look a mentally challenged person in all his acts and ways to move and talk! Michelle Pfeiffer also has a great performance and is very beautiful in this movie as Sam's lawyer Rita Harrison.

Sam Dawson is a mentally retarded man, who has the same capacity of a 7 year-old child..He works at a Starbucks, loves the Beatles( his favorite band) and one day has a normal daughter with a homeless woman, who abandons him and her daughter when she has the chance. Sam takes care of his daughter, who he gives the name Lucy Diamond, with the help of his friends, specially Annie.( a piano teacher who is his neighbour) But time is passing, and when Lucy reaches 7 years old she understands her father is not *normal* and intentionally tries not to be smarter than him,what makes her have problems in school. The Social service takes her away to another family, and Sam needs the help of a lawyer to win the case. That's where Rita Harrison enters, and she will not only help Sam, but learn great values with him.

aka "Uma Lição de Amor" - Brazil


This movie is so insulting in its depiction of mentally handicapped people it makes "The Other Sister" look like a lovingly crafted documentary about Down's syndrome. Aren't retarded people cute? Aren't they earnest? Why... they're almost like us real people!

Sean Penn plays a sweet autistic/retarded man who has somehow fathered a child (when and how and with whom? never really explained) and Michelle Pfeiffer plays the cliched overworked, no-time-for-her-family, badly-needs-to-learn-what's-important-in-life-from-a-retarded-person career woman lawyer who is shamed into defending Penn's character in court when he is threatened with having his daughter taken away from him. It goes on forever, for no reason. Top it all off with one of those child actors who speaks as if she's forty-five years old playing the daughter, and you're all set to run at the screen with a machete. Penn and Pfeiffer surely must have thought they were earning their places in Heaven when they signed on to overact in this condescending, absurd, overwrought trash. Or maybe they did it to win prizes. If there is a God, they will be denied anything shiny for their collective hubris.

I don't want to overstate how offensive this thing is, but seeing this movie is tantamount to saying, "I hate retarded people".


"Kramer vs. Kramer" meets "Rain Man" in this abomination passing as a movie; it is indeed one of the worst films I've seen in the last few years. In "I Am Sam," Sean Penn plays a retarded man raising his 'normal' daughter, played by Dakota Fanning. Of course, the government tries to take the child away and cold, big shot lawyer Michelle Pfeiffer unwillingly defends Penn, pro-bono. You know how this is going to end. Nearly every cliché is offensive. Pfeiffer's career woman is a bitch (is there any other kind of powerful woman?), the retarded man is a better person than the nasty, simple minded 'normal' people, the government doesn't know anything about love, etc. And it gets worse before it gets better. Penn's Oscar nomination is an example that Academy voters don't know bait when they see it. The impressive large cast cannot save this piece of maudlin drivel. Avoid!


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. With relentless emotional manipulation piled on top of wooden acting & a dreadful script. See how bad the world treats Sam. See how good this simpleton is to his daughter. How pure his love, how corrupt & selfish the "normal" people are. Blah blah blah. Pass me that empty popcorn bag, I'm gonna hurl.

It isn't that the story hasn't got a point, but that it is horrificaly overplayed, the message being delivered in industrial amounts. It's like expecting a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee & getting 2lbs of sacharrine dumped in it instead.

The clumsy manipulation isn't limited to the script, with wooden, cliched characterization & oh so obvious directorial & cinemagraphic tricks. Notice how the scenes are technicolor when Sam is with his daughter, but have a cold, blue, almost monochrome color during the court scenes. Sublety seems

not to be this film's strong point & wherever there is a chance to drive a point home with a sledgehammer the opportunity is taken to do so with obvious enthusiasm.

Michele Pfiefer is normally watchable, but this has to be her first role where I couldn't bear to look. She does her best with the part, but ultimately the clunking story & dialogue leave her trying to shine while carrying a dead albatross round her neck. God only knows why she agreed to add this turkey to her resume. Maybe it seemed a good idea at the time. Maybe it simply paid well & the rent on her mansion was due.

Sean Penn is simply diabolically bad, unconvincing & puke inducing as Sam. Laura Dearn ambles through looking like she's smelt something bad. The rest of the cast simply wallow around, subsumed by the crushing sentimentality.

This whole film stinks. The one area where there is some very limited relief is the soundtrack, where Beatles tunes are played. Even here this is spoiled, for a start they're all pretty sub standard covers by other bands & even then we only get snatches.

When you consider how many great film ideas never get anywhere you have to wonder just how this pile of poop ever got onto the screen. I gave it a "1" on the IMDB voting, but I would have given it a big, fat zero if I could have.


Well, that was not the greatest movie to spend six-fifty on. In the beginning, I bit my lip with frustration. Toward the middle, I was groaning inwardly. By the end, I sat in my seat filled with shock, ranting to my friends and anyone else who would listen.

Obviously, not enough research went into this film. Sam (Sean Penn) was an unrealistic character. The characters explained that he had autistic tendencies and was retarded. No. I have dealt intimately with autism (living with someone who has it, working at a daycare for children with it, going to preschool in a class with well over half people with disabilities) for over sixteen years, and I can tell you that Sam is well off his marker. He is far too high functioning for some of his low functioning traits. In other words, he becomes incredibly capable when the plotline requires it, then appears to be quite low functioning at other times.

He knows the Beatles like the back of his hand. Okay. I can go for that. But how does he apply the songs and life stories to and draw complex connections from the Beatles to his own life? How can he come up with these life lessons for his daughter and profound statements for just the right time ("Always set your dreams high, Lucy." "You need to leave your husband." "You don't know what it's like when you try and you try and you try, and you never get there!")? So he is high functioning enough to do all that, but he can't make a drink at Starbucks after many years there? He can't understand concepts simpler than the profound exclamations he makes?

Some of the other disabled people in the movie were well done. However, the man who the filmmakers apparently wanted to appear to have autism (the one who kept rattling off movies and their release dates) was a cheap Rain Man rip off but plausible. The largest problem with him however, the thing that made me not believe in him, was that he seemed capable of analyzing the characters in the movies of which he spoke. While this only happened once or twice, it was enough to cause me frustration.

Also, there was very little to no background given. How did Sam have a baby? How did he hook up with a woman, hooker or not? How did he raise a child alone (except for the help of a woman who never leaves home) for seven years? How did he know what diapers to buy? How, how, how? How did all of these plot holes sneak by? This only served to confuse viewers and give an unstable view of Sam's abilities. More "hows" were generated than answers.

The best thing to come out of this movie was Dakota Fanning (Lucy, Sam's daughter). She was the most believable character, and seemed to innately know how to act and react. Laura Dern (Randy, foster mother) was also fantastic. She obviously just wanted the best for little Lucy. Sean Penn did the best he knew how for Sam, but it just wasn't up to par. With a script that had adequate research, a well-defined character with a well-defined disability, and some more research on his part, he would have fared much better.

Many think this is "just a movie" and doesn't deserve harsh criticism, but face it, this is what the general public sees of disabilities. This is what the average person thinks about people with autism. They'll get their education about disabilities from movies like this one. And what they're seeing is a false image. I'm so sick of seeing autism misrepresented in cinema.

If you want to see a good drama that deals with disabilities, Rain Man is the best. Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of autistic savant Raymond is dead on-I believed that he was autistic. The next best is What's Eating Gilbert Grape?. Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job with his autistic character Arnie, a completely unrecognizable change from the DiCaprio in Titanic or Romeo and Juliet. If you do want to watch I Am Sam, knock yourself out. Just don't waste any of your time believing it.


Came across this movie late one night and it captivated me completely. Acting across the board was superb.

Dakota Fanning delivers a wonderfully controlled performance and shows what a raw talent she is.

The movie tackles the issue head on and never came across as if it was being overly dramatic for the sake of it. In some scenes it is really heart rendering and i was fighting back the tears frequently.

Many people knock Sean Penn because of his personal life (myself included) but his performance of the mentally challenged man was inspiring and never came across as corny! How Denzel Washington beat him to the Best Actor Oscar for Training Day ill never know?

A truly wonderful movie that I've made all of my friends sit down and watch with me!


I am Sam is the best movie since "The Other Sister". Mental capacity does not dictate the ability to love. This is a realistic movie, showing the incredible range of acting ability of Sean Penn. The movie made me laugh, cry, angry at those who think people with disAbilities cannot function... not true! 'Sam' has a heart of gold. This is Sean Penn at his best... a must see!


Michelle Pfeiffer wasn't nominated for this movie, and that's a crying shame, because this is easily the best work she's done since "Baker Boys". Like Tom Cruise in "Rain Man", she goes through all the changes while the main character (Sean Penn here in another awesome display) has to remain relatively static throughout the proceedings. And like Tom Cruise, the Oscar voters, in their wisdom, decided to overlook an outstanding performance. Which. if history is any lesson, they will make up for in the future by handing her the award for an inferior movie. (see Paul Newman-"The Color Of Money", Al Pacino-"Scent of A Woman", et al.) Anyway..bottom line is they OWE her one now.

Sean Penn nails it, as does the rest of the supporting cast in "I Am Sam", particularly Dakota Fanning as Penn's precocious daughter in a performance that's sure to put her on the Jodie Foster track in a big hurry. "Sam" is a 5-hankie tear-jerker, but for all the right reasons. And the use of the Beatles' music as a sound track is on target. A compelling film with a clear message about love and family and a happy ending to boot. What more can you ask for?


Sean penn is beautiful as sam.....I can only pray that the close-minded open up for this wonderful view of the life of that guy that you passed on the street. Please Watch if you want to feel how movies can open the hearts of the masses.


Oh my God! This film was incredibly touching. I think i lost a litre of cry water during the whole film. Penn was incredible. I think he really would have deserved an oscar for this. Michelle Pfiffer was great as usual. But the young girl, Dakota Fanning, was the one who stole my attention most of all. So young and yet such a performance, and with such ease it seems! This film is one to watch!


These directors have never let me down: I was addicted to their work when they did Thirtysomething some 15 years ago and since then have always been amazed by their subtle touch.

This film could so easily have been nauseating, but the superb acting made up for the rather predictable character played by Michelle Pfeiffer, while the child was perfectly cast. As for Sean Penn? Amazing.


*possible spoilers* I have a few complaints about this film, and yet I actually somewhat enjoyed it. The acting was very good, especially Sean Penn's performance as a mentally challenged man fighting to keep custody of his daughter. First of all, for the past five years I have worked closely with mentally disabled individuals, and although some of them are very kind, and have a loving nature, I've yet to come across one that would be capable of taking on the responsibility of raising a child. I can also assure you that in real life, the attempt to take the child out of the home by social services would have occurred long before the child ever reached her fifth birthday. So while I think the outcome of the movie was what I consider to be not realistic, I still liked the ending, the way I have enjoyed many endings to films that I consider to be fiction. I also thought the film had some problems from a technical standpoint. Why this filming style was adopted for this type of movie is beyond me. Normal camera angles, with a nice dramatic symphony score would have been much more pleasing to the eyes and ears. The music that was ultimately chosen for this movie was so out of place at times (and I usually love The Beatles) that it became very annoying. Even with all of these problems, I still managed to somewhat enjoy the movie because of a pretty decent script, and some very good acting. But as always, that's just my opinion.


when they gave the Oscar to Denzel? Granted, Denzel is an excellent actor, but man was Sean Penn robbed! Despite a few plot flaws, and the liberal slant (so I'm conservative...part of that "right-winged" conspiracy), this movie is a great watch. I am on the verge of being a parent and the movie allows insight to the struggle we take for granted when it comes to parenthood. Seeing it thru the life of Sam made it all the more challenging. I loved this movie and watch it often (own it on DVD), referring it to others who ask me if I have watched a good movie lately. Granted, it is not for everyone, one does have to think about the issues and there is some deciphering of the story. I'm personally glad this movie was made and just as happy for its critical success. Did Sean get any hardware for his performance?


It would be nice if things worked out as they have in this movie, which is why I liked this movie is because movies are aloud to be unrealistic and it's nice to leave the theater or turn of the DVD off after watching the film and feel good (that is if you're not so critical about movies).

This movie kept me entertained and glued to the plot. I felt the acting was fine and had the best individuals for this film. But, I felt certain parts could have been changed, for example, the ending. I am not sure if the audience is fully aware if Sam got Lucy back or not. All in all, I give this movie a 8/10.


Maybe it was the beautifully redone Beatles songs, or the fact that the film had to do with adoption (which I myself am adopted) Or maybe it had to do with the fact that I could relate to Michelle Pfeiffer's character so much---drinking diet drinks, using that voice activated cell phone or driving and LIVING too fast, but the film hit me...and hit me hard.

I think Sam had a very valuable lesson to teach Michelle Pfeiffer's character Rita...and teach us all.

All you DO need is love.

Whose child had the better existence? Sam's daughter? Or his lawyer Rita's son?

I think I'd rather be with a retarded father than parents who were never home and didn't give a sh^#t.

This movie made me take a hard look at how I act and live and how maybe if we just have a little more love for ourselves and others that perhaps things will be better.....

Great film , score, soundtrack, actors, words, script.

I don't care what the critics say or this bs about it being so easy to play a retarded man with "limited emotions"

Since when do mentally handicapped people have limited EMOTIONS?

I can't believe a leading critic said that.

Whatever.

He's the one with the limited emotions.

I am Sam slightly changed my life and I will never see things quite the same again ;))

I give this film a 10 ...something I don't do too often.


This really is quality film making - you can tell that both the crew and cast have put there all into this film - it's superb. It deals with a subject matter that many steer clear of, but this is done in a sensitive, realistic manner which makes you want to watch more and more of Sam's life. Shame Sean Penn didn't win any nominations, he really deserved them. One of the best films you'll see but remember your box of tissues...yes even the men!


If you take a close look at the scene where Lucy climbs out the window the second time she's wearing pants pajamas but as she's walking across the store it shows her with a gown. You will notice when she puts her leg out the window it quickly shows no pants. I enjoyed the movie numerous times. I recommend it to a soft heart person who cares for the contents of the movie not the actors. It's for anyone who adores the Beatles or Sean Penn as I do.


This was one of most touching movie I have ever seen. I was so close to cry when I saw it. Sean Penn did an excellent performance - maybe his best performance ever?

I got so touched when I watched this movie...A beautiful and a lovely movie. I rate this a 9 and not 10 because there was some little errors that could have been fixed..but it didn't bother me so much.

~C


The movie starts out in good speed but slows down after a while. But only for a short period of time for it becomes one of the best dramas ever. Sean Penn is excelent as a retarded father and the way he tries and tries to get his daughter back..... My girl cried like a baby. Awesome movie, go see it.


I loved this film, it absolutely spoke to me in a way that few films I've seen do.

My biggest fear throughout was that at any moment the next scene would see Sam (sean Penn) and Rita the lawyer (Michelle Pfeiffer) deciding that the best solution to their problems would be if the both united in a marriage / pseudo-marriage, so they could lay happy families and all live happily ever after, blah balh blah ad nauseum. Thank God Nelson had more sense to drop a large hunk of semi-soft cheese into the middle of an outstanding masterpiece. Such a cliched and trite twist would have aboslutely ruined the film for me. Obviously, Nelson did not want to pedestrianise her masterpiece and so consciously steered away from such a soap-opera style conclusion.

Penn's performance is highly commendable - more Rainman than Forest Gump. Indeed, it represents what must surely be a turning point in his career direction. Full credit also to young Dakota Fanning (Lucy) who carried off a superb portrayal of her character and simply stole the movie!

I'll keep this short but suffice to say if you haven't seen this film you're missing something big. Not everyone will go to see this film but those who do will know that they have seen a truely magnificent piece of cinema.


Many reviews here focus on whether you can suspend disbelief on Sean Penn's performance as a retarded/autistic man. Before going into that, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the mental defects were incidental to the plot, the real issue was how much love Sam (Penn's characte) has for his daughter, Lucy (played by Dakota Fanning). These performances are masterful, Penn really departs from his trouble maker persona in so many of his earlier movies and shows depth that I really didn't expect from him. This is a breakthrough movie for him, and shows a range far exceeding my expectations Dakota Fanning gives a remarkable performance (I want to see her in other roles). I'm not very familiar with the behaviors of mildly autistic/retarded people, but I did find the Sam character believable. I think part of the issue is the same phenomena as Forrest Gump, that is the genius of the actor comes through, so you have a "brilliant idiot" As the father of a young daughter, I could relate. Michelle Pfeiffer's character was O.K. but not really central to the plot (her acting was O.K. I guess, but not great). My wife found the intrusive nature of the way the social workers were portrayed compelling. Other review have compared this movie to Rain Man and Kramer vs. Kramer. I thought this movie was more powerful than Rain Man (which was also good) but I have not seek Kramer vs. Kramer so I cannot make that comparison.

I gave the story a 9/10, but if your not a parent or don't like emotional movies you might give it a lower rating.


I can truly say this is one of the greatest movies i have seen in a long time. It made me laugh and cry numerous times. Im not the usual crying type, but this movie really moved me. I recommend it to everyone! This is truly a must see movie for the whole family to enjoy or for a romantic time with your spouse.


Final Score (average of various classical cinematic qualities):

8.5 (out of 10)

I shouldn't have liked this movie. Not at all. There's a part of me that thinks it just had to have been sappy, derivative and manipulative. Yet, from it's opening sequence- in which mentally retarded Sam is left on the street corner to care for his newborn daughter on his own- this thing grabbed me. The whole mentally retarded shtick has been done so to death in movies we sometimes forget what a good performance looks like. Sean Penn plays Sam as a real person, not a caricature, very much disappearing into the role. Surprisingly Michelle Pfeifer is almost equally good in her own. "I am Sam" in many ways becomes about Pfeifer's character, Rita and her feelings of inadequacy as a parent. Pfeifer and Penn are clearly parallels of the same person. It's like Director and co-writer Jessie Nelson is using Sam like a metaphor- he looks and acts how Rita (and many parents) feel most times.

The plot concerns Rita fighting to help Sam keep custody of his daughter because as the state sees it foster care is better than a mentally retarded father. The acting all around is top notch. Richard Schiff also appears to just do what he always does, as does Laura Dern (a fantastic actress who just will not step into the spotlight- continually taking these near-cameo small roles at the peripheral of the stories). Little Dakota Fanning makes a huge impression as intelligent, spunky Lucy. She has some of the most memorable moments in the film.

The Beetles music is perfectly suited, but I'm split on the visuals. On one hand it's nice for Nelson to do what she can to go the extra mile and jazz up the cinematography in a film that clearly doesn't need it. On the other hand the glossy camera work is sometimes distracting- pulling you out of the film to try to figure out what your looking at. She clearly wanted that documentary look, but this movie is about emotions, not celluloid. For better or worse, it looks like "Traffic".

This movie is, by no means, a profound drama. It's melodrama, which is not a bad thing at all just a matter of taste. But it is just made so incredibly well. It isn't the typical Lifetime Movie dreck. It is genuinely funny at times and tear jerking others. While it's "courtroom" scenes are fairly standard, there are also some pretty imaginative sequences in here. The best of which is the finale- a low key, but adorable montage involving Lucy- it comes up on us when we least suspect and is the perfect way to end a movie like this. The characters are all wholly lovable, the moral is completely resonant and, while the pace occasionally drags, it's pitch is just perfect (it's crowd-pleasing but never quite panders). The dialogue is intelligent and seems honest. Most importantly it kept a cynical and jaded moviegoer like myself entertained for it's entire long length. A virtually flawless film for fans of the genera and non-fans might give it a chance and be pleasantly surprised.


A gem of a series which despite the great scripting and the talent involved, failed to catch on.

Everything takes place when 'Frank Nolan' (Jack Coleman) and 'Fay Perovnic' (Lindsay Frost) find themselves in a strange café after dying on the same night and in the same river as each other. The mysterious owner, 'Blackie' (Robert Englund) gives them a second chance to correct all the blunders they have made in life and as a result of their success, lets them stay on as the new cook and waitress at the café.

The café serves as both a central location for the action and as a plot catalyst, primarily by exerting its influence upon each episode's protagonists, or antagonists, to bring them into contact with the regulars. Aside from transporting itself from place to place in its entirety, once settled, it can also create portals between itself and various locations, which are traversed (often unexpectedly on the whim of the café) by crossing the threshold of one of the café's many doorways. These portals are not restricted to the Earth, the café can also travel to outer space and, apparently, even heaven, which hints at a supernatural origin.

The café also has the ability to make both idle and heartfelt wishes come true, which of course are not always what the recipient actually wants or needs, and the café seems to take a perverse delight in "misinterpreting" such wishes. Frank and Fay often take advantage of this ability by wishing themselves from place to place, when this occurs, or when the café otherwise deems it important, those remaining in the dining room can watch the exploits of their companions on the (sometimes interactive) television set mounted in the far wall.

Of the cast, Robert Englund (better known to the public as 'Freddy Kruger') was the stand out. Blackie was a creepy, sarcastic know-it-all but Englund's portrayal of him gave you no reason to dislike him. Jack Coleman was terrific as Frank, looking past his facetious manner you can see deep down he is a warm hearted guy. Lindsay Frost's insecure Fay made a big impression on yours truly, mainly because of the waitress' outfit.

As I said, with the show's cast and excellent scripts by Wes Craven and Thomas Baum etc, its a travesty that 'Nightmare Cafe' only lasted for six episodes. Was it too clever for some viewers? Who knows? I enjoyed it thoroughly, and so will you if you manage to see it.


...but I think it was cool.

Sometimes I like to surprise people by bringing up obscure TV shows from the 1990s that even I can barely recall. My two favorite programs to cite are "Nightmare Cafe" and "Covington Cross" - both short-lived, and both with a cool premise. Generally speaking, nobody I talk to has seen or heard of either one of them.

I remember "Nightmare Cafe" better. If memory serves, it was about a creepy café (of course). People stumbled in and had weird things happen to them. Oddly enough, I recall that the café was not strictly evil - sometimes, it would help people resolve conflicts in their lives. But in a creepy, cryptic way, naturally.

Mostly I remember the tone of the show, which was eerie, in a "Sapphire and Steel" sort of way. I also found Robert Englund very charismatic, and it was nice to see him out of mutated makeup for a change.

Of course the show was canceled, for the usual reason - it had a lousy time slot! I wonder if, given a chance, it might've been another "X-Files."

Apropos of nothing, one person I spoke to once did actually remember this show. And she was really, really hot. What does this say about the quality of the show itself? Nothing, but I thought it was worth mentioning!


Don't let anyone tell you horror stories about the camera work, they probably never had an ounce of imagination anywhere in their bodies!

For those of us who are bored blind with standard Hollywood-ian movies, this kind of camera work is very refreshing. The constant motion puts us right into the characters' world and helps foster an instant connection with them. Not that one wouldn't connect with them without the fancy directing! On the contrary, Jan, Jule, and Peter will reawaken the idealist in anyone.

The movie is essentially about three friends with seemingly no particular direction in life other than petty political activism now and then. But Peter and Jan have found a very clever way of subverting the socio-economic system they so despise. Calling themselves "the Edukators", they break into the homes of the fabulously wealthy only to make some absurd adjustments to the arrangement of their furniture and leave a simple note behind: "You have too much money."

With this basic plot, The Edukators delves into that ill-defined human notion of morality, eventually blurring the line between the ethics of social politics and the ethics of personal relationships.

Don't let the plot scare you, you don't have to be an anarchist to enjoy this movie! It's well-written, beautifully shot, and flawlessly performed. Some of the drawbacks are that it gets a little long and preachy at the end (which happens fairly often to new directors), but let's not nitpick. I'm willing to gloss over the film's (rare) faults because, in the end, there is far too much to take home from this movie. It's a real shame that some would wish to dismiss it as some crackpot anarchist film.


I have to issue a few words of warning first:

Don't see this movie after you have just enjoyed a really good Hollywood-production (as I did). Because if you do you may at first be put off a little bit by the quality of this digital productions that does not quite come up to 35mm-standards.

You will notice this for about 10 seconds.

Two hours later however you won't quite understand anymore what exactly it was you liked so much about this great Hollywood-movie that suddenly seems to be so shallow, so void of real issues and characters ...

This is a wonderful, wonderful gem of a movie that won't bore you even for a second and will keep you thinking for days and days.

I don't want to go into the plot here (see for yourself), just that: This is NOT a movie that can be summed up in one statement. It is a film about political activism, love, friendship, ideals in life and how we betray them, the generation if 1968 and what became of them, the dynamics of small groups and, and, and...

To wrap so much relevant issues into a gripping, highly entertaining and even funny story for me is a real miracle in scriptwriting. The dialogues are outstanding.

Of course the main reason this movie works so well is the fantastic cast. All four main characters are absolutely phenomenal and of course Danny Bruehl and Julia Jentsch show again that they are the best German actors of their generation.

This movie touches you emotionally, gives you food for thought and entertains immensely at the same time. For me it is the best movie I have seen this year.

This is what cinema should be like.


the edukators is a hugely enjoyable film that perfectly balances the human themes of friendship, love and trust with it's more political undertones.

the main characters are all performed with warmth and a playfulness that keeps the human side of the story engaging, while the plot develops with continual twists and tension. of course the idealism and activism of the protagonists plays a central roll, but the film never falls to the temptation to preach or bog itself down with weighty polemic.

all in all, the edukators is a breath of fresh air that is both satisfying to the head and the heart. highly recommended.


... but the days of plenty for German Cinema obviously just started!!

I saw this movie at the Cork Film Festival yesterday night. Being originally from Germany and a huge Daniel Bruehl Fan I HAD to watch this movie. Of course I didn't get disappointed: it's such a brilliant movie with such a profound statement. Hans Weingartner seems to be gifted with a unique power of observation: not living in Germany at the moment made me very sensitive for clichéd German behaviour (Scenes like the one in the tram and the restaurant are just so typical!) Great acting by outstandingly talented young actors (can Daniel Bruehl get any better? Obviously he can!), witty dialogues and a surprising ending made this movie pure fun watching every single second! I am very glad that if German movies make it abroad they are such smart movies as this one (or Run Lola Run, Goodbye Lenin,...). I hope to see more and more German movies over here in the future.

The days of plenty just started for the German Cinema!


This movie has everything to be an excellent movie for young people (but also enjoyable for older people). There is loads of political statement made which should make everyone think even if u don't share the opinion. I mean, how many movies are there which talk about politics at all? The movie is full of emotions acted pretty well. The camera which makes u feel to be very close to the scenes and the music support these emotions successfully.

Even if you are not that kind of anarchist, there are still some scenes which are just so familiar to yourself. It's a movie about youth itself I suppose.

The movie is a must-see


The cast is impressive. Daniel Bruhl once again shows that he can act. The plot attracts your entire attention as you live the experiences of these three kids in Berlin, and their quest to denounce the evils of capitalism. There's romance, jokes, great scenery and good music. At first it seemed to me this movie was the continuation of Good Bye Lenin (probably because of Daniel in Berlin?) Eitherway, It made me want to travel around Europe some more, learn German, and also think about my obsession with shopping and TV. Very inspiring. In a few words, this movie questions our understanding of happiness and success in a very entertaining way.


I went to this film expecting a comedy in the mold of "Sonnenallee" or "Good Bye Lenin", and I wasn't disappointed. The characters became very real to me, even Hardenberg, the kidnapped businessman, who was a bit wooden at the beginning. For me, the best part of the film was watching the relationships build between all 4 of the main characters, both before and after the kidnapping. There is really very little action in the film: it's more about watching the characters develop personally and in their dealings with each other. Lest this sound too dry, I found the film quite humorous at times, exciting and emotionally intense. The conclusion is left open to interpretation--but you'll have to watch the film quite carefully to have the data you need to make your own interpretation! Highly recommended!


Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei (The Edukators) is the first German film in competition at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival since Wim Wender's In weiter Ferne, so nah! (Faraway, So Close!) in 1993. The film's protagonists, Jan, Peter and Jule, dream of changing society. They form "The Edukators," a group that warns the rich and disturbs their material comfort with non-violent actions. In "the Edukators" Hans Weingartner raises the question: "What happened to the revolutionary generation of the sixties? Where are all the anarchists, hippies and idealists that wanted to change the world? I loved the movie, it is condemning and inspiring at the same time, depressing and uplifting and as a viewer you are forced to decide if you feel sympathy for the idealistic young people or the successful materialistic businessman. Or both?!


I'm sure there will be plenty of people that will accuse "The edukators" of being such a cheap anti-capitalism manifest, a "cool" product designed for rich boys who feel like making a revolution. Whatever, nowadays we need idealism more than ever, we need to believe in lost causes, we have to appeal to the dignity of the individual and to spit in the riches' faces. "The Edukators" is one way of doing all those things from the cinema screen by telling the story of three rebel young guys that won't stay and look without doing a thing while the big corporations destroy this world and turn us into working-hard zombies. They have an idea: to assault mansions, mess everything up, to make trouble just to scare the owners... not to steal, not to break things. It is all about disconcerting. Obviously their "game" will soon get out of hand, they'll get involved in a kidnapping, and they will bump into something that's more powerful than revolution or ideals: love. Two boys, one girl... that means TROUBLES.

As I said, we need more movies like this one that are so well made, and also tries to open people's eyes. (Unfortunatelly I'm sure that those who should get their eyes opened will never watch "The Edukators".

PS: It is worth to watch "The Edukators" even if it's just for the last minutes of the film, with Jeff Buckley singing Leonard Cohen's "Hallellujah" (that also proves the director's exquisite taste).

*My rate: 8/10


A very interesting, psychologically well developed film, that starts from the rather simple (the whole of the establishment are 'a wunch of bankers', as the British say) and then becomes more complex. The problem of social precariousness touches many young people today I think, though there are probably not so many around who'd also take 'revolutionary action' as the people in the film do.

The development of the Hardenberg character was also very interesting: at first, he is a very rich top manager, also a rather pathetic figure, but then, as he gets in touch with his own idealistic past, he shows much strength and wisdom. The story of the ménage à trois vs. 'free love' also shows that young people then where even more radical than they are now...

***SPOILERS!***

The ending left me bewildered though. After seeing the film, both my boyfriend and I interpreted it in he way that Hardenberg has succumbed to the establishment again. But here on IMDb I read some other interpretations, notably that it was him who helped them to get to the Mediterrenean and who gave him his boat and money. The message in the empty apartment, 'Some people never change', also pointed into this direction. But why the attack by the police - especially with anti-terrorist forces - was still necessary then, is quite beyond me. Also, Hardenberg didn't at all look amused or content in the police car - as he obviously would have if he had only wanted to fool the cops.


A somewhat thin but likable film, "The Edukators" shows us a couple of young German guys who are reborn Seventies terrorists reduced to gesture. At night they break into rich people's houses and rearrange the furniture leaving notes telling their victims they've got too much money and had better watch out. ("The Days of Plenty Are Over" -- "Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei" -- goes the German film title.) They also go to demos and forcibly leaflet shoe stores with warnings about child labor, but their real thrills come in the break-ins: they're hooked on the rush. One has a girlfriend who works at a snooty upscale restaurant where customers and manager are equally abusive to her.

Things get messy when the other young man, Jan (Daniel Brühl) is prodded into an impulsive break-in with his friend's girl, Jule (Julie Jentsch). He's falling for her and reveals his secret lawbreaking to impress her. She insists on entering the house because it belongs to a man she owes 94,000 Euros to for totaling his Mercedes. This gesture's unplanned and the girl's inexperienced and they have to break back in the next night to find her cell phone. The owner returns while they're there and recognizes the girl. The three young people, Jule, Jan, and Peter (Stipe Erceg) feel that now they're "blown" they must kidnap the rich guy and take him to a cabin in the mountains, which of course they immediately do.

These are young revolutionaries after the fact. There are no longer any Bader-Meinhofs or Red Brigades to belong to. The paradox, a rather pat one, is that the guy they kidnap, Hardenberg (Burghart Klaussner), was a Sixties and Seventies revolutionary himself, who only slowly slid into the capitalist life. Needless to say the slide turned quite successful since he now earns over three million a year. But he claims to feel nostalgia for the old days and sympathy for his captors. Before long they're all happily playing cards and he's cooking for them and could probably escape sooner, if he weren't enjoying the forced vacation amid romantic reminders of the old days.

Things end surprisingly, but "The Edukators" isn't so much interested in its story as in existing as a platform for youthful critiques of capitalism and pondering the old saw -- which Hardenberg comes up with eventually, Anyone under thirty who isn't liberal has no heart; anyone over thirty who isn't conservative has no mind. The youths are exuberant and naive. Hormones are raging, so, typically, the love triangle almost takes over the politics. Their prisoner is smarter than they are, but what sustains the over-long second half is that his sympathy for his kidnappers doesn't seem fake, just as his story doesn't seem contrived. Or rather, only a little fake and a little contrived.

This is a film that musters some good suspense and adrenalin rushes at first, but starts losing them as the kidnapping wears on because it all begins to seem more about politics and the talk than about the action, though wondering how it's going to end is still what's going to keep you watching. That such a dichotomy should appear -- politics vs. action -- is an irony of the piece. If you've got sympathy for the youthful rebellion or the critiques of capitalism -- or just want to debate the issues brought up -- the movie can hold your interest. The actors are all plausible and appealing, particularly Klaussner and the young but experienced Brühl, whose sweetness and exuberance motivated the 2003 East Berlin comedy, "Goodbye, Lenin." The jerky digital video comes with the territory, though it may some day become as dated as bell-bottoms. The filmmakers could have edited this down to less than two hours and four minutes and given the story harder edges. The music is loud and integral to the youthful portraits.


Having read all the comments before I would just like to reinforce that the film is about innocence and idealism. I don't think the director really is doing "propaganda" for leftist ideas or revolutions. The "leftie" characters were aptly shown as naive and even outright dumb. The capitalist wasn't a monster or inhuman either.

I don't think the "alternative" end explanation for Hardenberg being an accomplice makes any sense. He obviously remains "establishment". The message on the wall is clearly for him. In the end I was saddened that Hardenberg didn't have some empathy or learn a bit himself. I think he really was once a SDS member and a revolutionary himself, though naturally he played it up a bit to save his skin.

It also shows that life and the system eventually get us all. We end up boring and all about conformity. Our youthful rebellion becoming a comfortable obedience. We just want our paychecks and suburban homes.

Its also sad to read so many commentaries about "lefty" film... the film is so much more than just the politics in it.


"The Edukators (Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei)" should be adopted as the movie of the "Summer of Live8," with almost as good a soundtrack.

It is a wonderful illustration of how all politics is personal -- as one character quotes, "every heart is a revolutionary cell" and compares the hormonal rush from political action to love.

Helped enormously by an appealing cast who perfectly capture the ebullience, exuberance and idealism of twentysomethings, director/co-writer Hans Weingartner brings to life an intelligent film about politics that is also very funny and wonderfully romantic. Just when any character starts slipping into rhetoric in their thoughtful, pointed debates, their conversations suddenly turn on double meanings for their personal lives. Dialectics quickly turns to longing gazes as these are sweet revolutionaries who are irrepressibly human.

As probably middle-class products of democracy who want to influence voters for change, they are much more Yippies than terrorists. They are more about what used to be called consciousness-raising, hence the original German title, as they warn rich capitalists "Your Days Of Plenty Are Numbered" and sign themselves "Erziehungsberechtigter," a mouthful which I understand translates more as "guardians" than the nevertheless evocative English title.

The first half of the film has a breathless New Wave feel, and I'm sure it's not a coincidence that one character is named "Jule" as the "Jules et Jim" triangle is a driving plot point. There's an amusing pattern of repeated visuals that change meanings as we see who is now next to whom, who is asleep and who is awake.

Her boyfriend "Peter" is just the kind of seductive guy, played by a leonine Stipe Erceg, who brings her a present of a sexy camisole and thinks she just needs bright colors in her frustrating life. So how can she help but be surprised that his Angry Young Man best friend and "weird" roommate "Jan" can really talk to her.

Music is used marvelously throughout the film (even though covers of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" -no, it's not Jeff Buckley's version, it's Lucky Jim- have been way overused in films lately, the words actually are meaningful in a climactic scene here). Non-German speakers are otherwise at a real disadvantage both for having to tear your eyes away from the charismatic actors and because few of the lyrics are translated in the subtitles, though I presume one is translated because the nostalgic lyrics for a pastoral past gain ironic resonance when the threesome ends up in a soothing sylvan Tyrollean landscape. But we can pick up that the guys play loud, aggressive music in very expressive mano a mano camaraderie throughout and the chick plays a romantic-sounding singer, Jeff Cole. So we can also be surprised when "Jan" admits to having gone to the same concert she did.

While Daniel Brühl was charming in "Goodbye, Lenin" and sweet in "Ladies in Lavender," as "Jan" he's a heartbreaking movie star. The camera simply falls in love with him, too, in frequent close-ups, and wet opportunities to take his shirt off, as he puts poignancy into every look, even a furtive, frustrated glance in a rear-view mirror.

Just when a baby boomer is feeling nostalgic watching these kids, the film makes the connection with the '60's explicit as it very amusingly crosses "The Big Chill" with "Ruthless People." There are at least two lines from these comparisons that are very laugh out loud funny, while making points about the 1968 of protests, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Somehow I had previously missed the generation gap truism: "If you're not liberal when you're under 30, you have no heart. If you're liberal after 30, you have no brain."

The conclusion goes in very surprising twists on bourgeois ethics that leave some questions about who chose to do what to whom when and who is now "a good liar." So it is frustrating to learn on the IMDb message boards that the director went back and added a clarifying scene that is only being shown in Germany. I can only hope international audiences will at least get to see it on the DVD.

It is refreshing to see a German political film where the context is Europe within capitalist globalism, though there are a couple of frissons of recall to the unavoidable past, as when the rich capitalist they debate comes very close to saying he's just following orders in how he's just followed the system. The subtitles translated one of his points as perilously sounding like "Work will make you free" but I don't know if he actually said "Arbeit macht frei" in the German. I presume the number of English words that have casually become part of their lexicon is also symbolic of globalization.

How wonderful that a new generation of activists, at least through this film, has a sense of humor. This film restores one's faith that youth is not in fact wasted on the young.


I've just come back from watching "the Edukators" in a cinema in Ipswich, England. From the reviews I was expecting a light comedy. The film isn't like that at all: still, I'm very happy that I went to see it. The start of "the Edukators" reminded me of J. G. Ballard's novel Cocaine Nights, which features a man who breaks into high security luxury complexes not so much as to damage and steal property, but to shake the residents up. Ballard's protagonist intends to make the affluent but complacent and isolated residents bind together in crimewatch activities that will lead to a reawakened sense of community. The young men who call themselves "the Edukators" want to stir the villa residents of Berlin into hearing whispers that they have too much money: to remind them of the other half of the world and how the other half lives. Or rather, can't live, because of low wages and debt.

I was a little annoyed that the film couches the world into the haves and the have nots, with nothing in-between. Although Jule, the heroine, is crippled by a 100, 000 Euro debt due to a car accident in which she totalled a Mercedes, her boyfriend and his friend Jan drive cars, have cell phones,live in Berlin, and fly to Barcelona (Jule's boyfriend apparently travels to Barcelona for his career but it's never exactly clear what his work is). In their arguments with the business tycoon who Jule is enslaved to (it's revealed that he has three cars in his huge garage, so he hardly misses the Mercedes Jule has to pay for) the two young men clearly place themselves in the same position as the oppressed workers of the third world. Jule, however, sees that their demonstrations against sweatshop labour aren't going to really change the situation for the developing countries' child labourers.

That said, I was delighted to see a film that tackles the consciences of both the young not seeing places for themselves in the all-persuasive consumerist society and those who once had ideals, who once tried to change society, and have awakened to find themselves middle aged and voting conservative. The tycoon defends himself, saying he works 14 hour days: at first he wanted to be able to provide security and good education for his children, now he thinks buying new things makes people happy. I don't think he manipulates his kidnappers: I saw real pleasure in his being able to get away from his mobile phone, boss, wife, cleaning lady and job pressures, and being able to touch base with the recollections of his youth. I see his commune experiences as genuine and a reminder of attempts to change society one relationship at a time. And in the end the 60s generation did change society by making the personal political, even if the communes are now only rose-tinged memories in the back of the minds of fat cats now running conglomerates.

What I enjoyed most about "the Edukators" is the question it raises about its three young major characters, and how their generation can make a difference to the world of the 21st century.

SPOILER SPACE

Maybe in the end the tycoon called the police: it didn't look like an easy decision for him at any rate. I'd like to see the last shot of the satellite dishes as an indication that the trio made it to the island and blacked out all the TVs across Europe, cancelling the force that controls society from within. Ballard's hero would applaud them.

By the way, didn't it strike anyone else as ironic that so much of the film takes place in Berlin, which only 15 years ago was divided into two societies, one which welcome the tycoon, and one which would encourage the debate about how to bring out the revolution? As Marx said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."


The Edukators artfully combines the archetypal love triangle storyline with political discussion and your typical heist gone awry flick and a journey of self-discovery. On the one hand, it's fairly ambitious genre-crossing, on the other the political aspects of it (although relevant) feel outdated. Jan is like most Che Guevarra-loving undergraduate Marxists I know, and I agree completely with the frustrating lack of a cohesive politicized youth movement (in the US)to provide an outlet for angst, and dissent from the current regime, etc. but the manifesto of the Edukators isn't particularly compelling. It merely provides a set up for the clash between generations, and the realization that we do share something in common with our parents. Also it frames the love triangle, and emphasizes the fragility of human relationships. On a side note, I hated the grainy-ness of the film...weirdly I actually watched a film print of the DV transfer, so it might look better on a Digital Projector, & I also had the experience of watching the film burn through, which rarely happens now. DV sucks, especially for a movie that's based so much in the mountains and in nature, its a shame it couldn't be better captured.


German movie-making is at its best. In the last 8-10 years a new generation of super-talented writer-directors and actors emerged from the Harz mountains and Bavaria and took the world by storm. It all began with Tom Tykwer and his infamous Run, Lola, Run which showed the way for many a prodigal self-made movie-makers and put Germany back onto the map of world cinema. What is more, their peculiar yet classical take on timeless questions of existence and their social awareness opened up a whole new perspective in audiovisual arts. They ceased distancing and brought the viewers closer to understanding the nature of things by sticking to human scales, cutting down on special effects and omitting falsely-sounding, hypocritical dialogues and proclamations. Hans Weingarten's Edukators however, is balancing on the edge of idealism and the realm of common sense, but finds the perfect solution how to let ourselves beguiled by the sensible and sensitive combination of the two.

Jan, Peter and Jule are young souls worn out by the controversies of modern-day life. They try to play the role of the catalyst in a society which is only driven by money and economical interests: they break and enter rich people's homes to make them feel uncomfortable with all their excessive valuables. But one day they have to think it over whether what they do is not as very selfish as collecting antique furniture or vintage cars.

Edukators is an exciting piece, dealing with the exact same existential problems most of us have to deal with. Although shot with digital technique it is enjoyable to watch: locations were picked with a very good sense, while cinematography is really pure. It is all capped by a chillingly breathtaking soundtrack. Superb.

I have read the American remake is under way. It makes me worried, because this film is literally perfect. Should not be touched only admired.


I expected this movie to be good, and I was not disappointed. It's just the sort of movie we need in these times, with our apathetic, capitalist till death youth. It shows the ideals of revolutionaries of our times in a simple manner that people who aren't interested in politics and matters of the world can understand as well, whether they agree with them or not, and it also shows ways of dealing with these problems even if you're just a "small, insignificant" individual. Yes boys and girls, protests and revolutionary sabotage didn't stop in the seventies! I also love the way the three protagonists beat the stupid morals that almost broke them apart, and the open ending makes up for the slight unrealistic aspects that are also present at the finale. In short, this movie has everything - good acting, a gripping story and ideas that aren't new, but that people of today obviously need to be reminded of!


Director Hans Weingartner has stated that this film came about partly to reflect on his own struggle to find a political identity as a young adult in Germany. This confusion is evident from the beginning, as all three of the young adults seem to have different motives for becoming 'Edukators'. In one scene early on, Jan finds a watch that Peter has stolen and throws it out the window of the van, to which Peter responds "you just threw away 5,000 euros", implying that he intended to capitalise on his 'find'. Jule also seems to have a rather selfish approach to being an 'Edukator', as she purely wants to cancel a debt so that maybe she could start a lucrative career herself. Both of the guys are willing to ignore the nature of her motives and help her (they even compare her situation to the debt of Third World nations) for their own selfish desires (i.e. her).

My problem with the film was that the ending was too facile. The set-up of the characters is somewhat idealistic, so the end message "some people never change" carries little of the gravitas it ought to (as does the clumsy, unauthorised cut of Jeff Buckley's 'Hallelujah'  was it *really* necessary?).


I was really ashamed of being German when I saw this movie (which got so many awards). The characters are so ridiculous that I first thought it was a comedy. Unti the very end I was expecting a major twist in the story because I could not imagine that a such highly decorated film has such shallow characters and such a lame and predictable story. For me this movie could not be recommended to adults because of the childishness of the characters and not to kids because of the dubious political message. That is something like socialism in Disneyland. The story is full of clichés , e.g. the scene in the restaurant with the snobbish guests. All rich people are evil and the poor ones are nice, idealistic and want to become teachers. Absurd and simply wrong is the way Jule got to her outstanding debt by crashing the rich mans' car without being covered by insurance. You simply cannot incur debts that high as a private person because there is a law in Germany against that to protect people from ruining themselves in the long run ("Privatinsolvenzrecht"). Therefore the whole "argumentation" and plot is impossible. The only good thing about that crap (pardon my French) is the shooting of the Alp scenery.


This movie was the first German movie that i had ever seen but i must say, that it was worth the $8.50 i paid for my ticket.I have only studied German for 3 years and i thought that i should try and see at least 1 German movie before i travel to Germany in December.The German wasn't very difficult to understand it was just some of the slang that tripped me up a bit.Some of my friends said that it was definitely the best German movie that they had ever seen.the educators was well worth going to and praise must go to the wonderful actors/actresses especially Daniel bruhl.after seeing this movie i cant wait to see any new movies with Daniel bruhl.this movie is definitely worth seeing and i now know how good German movies really are.


A more intelligent and poignant critique of our Western 'capitalist dictatorship' (the words of our three anti-heroes!), you would not find, not even on the pages of my Brighton anarchist friends' 'The Schnews' (ah, ah!). And this is also a very intelligent, humane and absorbing thriller (for want of a better word, we all express ourselves by clichés, like Peter or Jan would say!) because Hans Weingartner is a consummate and devilishly clever storyteller and after the first few sequences you will forget where you are, and you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen! A must see for old radical firebrands like myself and 'capitalist slaves' (only kidding!) alike!


This film is by far one of my favorites. I saw it for the first time at the Philadelphia Film Festival in February 2005, and have seen it about five times since then. The American audience seems to regard the film as leftist ideological banter, but they fail to understand the underlying purpose behind the film. Not only is the film a political commentary, but more importantly it is a commentary on human relationships. Once one can understand the motives for the film, one can see how great it is. The ending of course, makes the film. I encourage everyone to see this film at least once, and take it for what it is. Its not a Hollywood blockbuster, but a fantastic examination of both the Western capitalist system, and of human relationships in general. It's a fantastic film, and everyone ought to see it just once.


Inspiration, feelings, thoughts, emotion, life, tension, idealism, morality, activism, temptation, love, friendship... One of the best movies i've ever seen. I never read about it before, but after watching it yesterday night with a friend, i couldn't stop thinking about the whole plot, the ending, the dialogs, all the words and actions in the movie. And I watched it again just right now. I liked it a lot, i could feel everything: tension, anger, love, friendship, everything. Very few movies make you feel and think that way. There's no need to write about the plot, it must be discovered by you. It will make you think a lot and will touch you emotionally. Be clever, and enjoy the great cinema. The best movies aren't the one with the best images and less mistakes, but the movies which make you think and wake up your curiosity about things. Highly recommended!


One things that is drastically lacking in the more developed areas of our world today is a social conscience. Many people are simply not concerned with social equality if it is going to take any sort of effort on their part. This movie challenges our apathy and screams at us to get off of the couch (after the movie is done, of course) and raise a little hell! We are edukated to not be complacent in the face of the powers that threaten to segregate us even further. This film is not perfect, but the message is fresh and completely different from any other film I've seen. Some have called it too didactic, but I don't think that is a problem. Every film we watch is there to instruct us; how to look, how to act, how to feel, what to do, what to be etc. And a lot of this instruction is horribly detrimental to our revolutionary hearts. I'm not saying we all need to start marching and fighting, but it wouldn't hurt us to think a little more about the exploitation of millions/billions, and the rewards for the few elite. If this film is trying to be morally instructive, at least it is trying to fight for the little guy, and isn't pushing people to feel unhappy about the way they look, act, feel etc. Let's not let the powers of the world separate us any further. What can we accomplish if we understand that we are all one? So let's get up, stand up, and edukate!


This movie was so cool.

If you're a disillusioned left leaning youth, you will love this film. If you're an aging hippy wondering where the new generation of left thinking kids are, see this movie. Parents do you wonder why your college age child won't get a haircut and a real job, this is the answer. And if you're a former hippy who grew up and joined the main stream rat race, this one's for you.

Three, 20-something Berliners stage a protest against the exploitations of capitalism, but in their own way. They break into homes of the uber rich to rearrange furniture, leaving funny notes yet never stealing a thing. I wished I was 20 again when I saw this film. Why oh why did I join the main stream? There are a few holes in the plot (the ending and a little throughout) but the overall coolness of the movie made up for it. And a good soundtrack too.


Just watched this, loved it.

Truly a refreshing change from the normal sort of tosh that is churned out by the bucket-load in Hollywood.

Having read a few of the posts with regards to the end of the movie, I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring too.

The end is deliberately ambiguous, relying on the moral standpoint of the viewer to define it. If you felt that the diktators got help from the guy they kidnapped in order to get away and continue their work, then you're probably like me - part-hippie, part-revolutionary.

If you felt that the diktators merely predicted that the guy they kidnapped would call the police, then you're probably one of those upstanding citizens we all hear and read about.

The truth is what you make it.

Some people never change. ;)

7.7 / 10


"YOU ARE TO RICH!" - THE EDUKATORS

This movie is a confrontation of two generations. Without getting boring the director tried to find a new way or a new sense of 68's revolution. The result is an interesting story and of course some really funny - but still very natural - scenes. Big praise to the camera. It reflects always the right mood: hectic, calm, with distance, emotional, ... Just the actors sometimes seem to ad-lib, and the end is a friendly compromise.

In the whole: A very entertaining film about Revolution, Friendship and Love! 8 of 10 points! ;-)