Q: I first saw this movie as a pre-teen, about the age when kids start to think through their identity. I was greatly affected by the scene of the man and the children who he raises as his own. The eldest boy has been taunted that his mother is a prostitute and none of his siblings have the same biological father (which Kurosawa makes obvious by having children who look nothing like each other). The man still persuades tho boy that he is their father by the only definition that counts. The man is acclaimed to be father by all of the children but one, who still prefers her brother.

Each of the vignettes are likewise compelling for their own stories and conclusions.

It's a great film, even if it is not the greatest Kurosawa film. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?

I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler.

4/10 OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The Drug Years actually suffers from one of those aspects to mini-series or other kinds of TV documentaries run over and over again for a couple of weeks on TV. It's actually not long enough, in a way. All of the major bases in the decades are covered, and they're all interesting to note as views into post-modern history and from different sides. But it almost doesn't cover enough, or at least what is covered at times is given a once over when it could deserve more time. For example, the information and detail in part three about the whole process and business unto itself of shipping mass amounts of drugs (partly the marijuana, later cocaine) is really well presented, but there are more details that are kept at behest of how much time there is to cover.

Overall though the documentary does shed enough light on how drugs, pop-culture, government intervention, the upper classes and lower classes and into suburbia, all felt the wave of various drugs over the years, and the interplay between all was very evident. Nobody in the film- except for the possibility of small hints with the pot)- goes to endorse drugs outright, but what is shown are those in archival clips about the honesty of what is at times fun, and then tragic, about taking certain drugs. The appearances of various staunch, ridiculously anti-drug officials does hammer some points down hard- with even in such an overview of the drug cultures and America's connection as a whole- as there is really only one major point that is made a couple of times by one of the interviewees. The only way to really approach the issue of drugs is not 'just say no', because as the war on drugs has shown it is not as effective as thought. It is really just to come clean on all sides about all the drugs and the people who may be hypocritical about them (as, for example, oxycontin continues on in the marketplace).

Is it with the great interest and depth of a Ken Burns documentary? No, but for some summertime TV viewing for the young (i.e. my age) who will view a lot of this as almost ancient history despite most of it being no more than a generation ago, as well as for the 'old' who can reflect some decades later about the great peaks, careless times, and then the disillusionment prodded more by the same media that years earlier propagated and advertised it. There are those who might find the documentary to be particularly biased, which is not totally untrue, but it does attempt to get enough different takes on the social, political, and entertainment conditions of drugs interweaving (for better or obvious worse) for enough of a fascinating view. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive