"There have been a lot of films made about the 1960s and the wave of readical activism they produced"--whatever are you talking about? "Getting Straight," "Medium Cool," "Alice's Restuarant," for christsake? These films were all made forty years ago! There has been no, repeat no, attempt to seriously deal with the 60's or the way society was forever changed by the generation of Baby Boomers who had the guts to stand up to America and demand Civil Rights, gender equality, an end to the war in Vietnam, an end to the draft, the vote for 18-year-olds, etc., etc., etc. Or are you privy to a body of films (perhaps from France) that I haven't seen? The blase attitude with which you dismiss these films--"yeah, TOO many"--leads me to assume that I haven't been missing anything, but now I'm curious. A few titles would be in order. You guys usually offer up some pretty thoughtful analysis. I guess like Bob Dylan said, "I didn't realize how YOUNG you were."

There's nothing of substance here on the Battle in Seattle, so why pretend you're actually "looking at it"? And if you were looking at it, you really should have seen the documentary about the 1999 Seattle protests that was released about five years ago: "This is what Democracy Looks Like," by Jill Friedberg. It's a REAL documentary though, not a fictionalized drama like the Battle in Seattle, which although I haven't seen more than a trailer and interviews for it I understand absolutely can't be called a docudrama. and if you are actually going to review the fake documentary it seems like a good idea to know about the real ones that preceded it.

I'm super-unimpressed with your review of the Chicago 10 film. The Oh, I'm so bored already, there's too many documentaries about the 60s tone is absurd -- name a few as though you know what you are talking about rather than posing, posing, posing. you are way too young and wear way too similar hipster-style glasses to presume that your audience will buy into your substance-less pose.

I'm sorry, I'm not usually a hater, and I promise to be more respectful in the future. but really, you guys get paid for this?

Thanks for your review of 'Chicago 10'. I love activist history from the 60s and I'll go out and see this film. Glad to hear it's being received well in the media. I'm disappointed though in how the Salon reviewers see the stylization in this film to draw younger viewers as a casually positive thing. Yeah, I guess it would be cool to see yet another film about the 60s shown in a different light, but what I don't understand is why these filmmakers found it necessary to tailor this film to get young people 'excited about the spirit of 1968'. Do these kids also need to have their vegetables put in Happy Meal boxes to get them interested in healthy eating too? I grew up in the 80s. The 60s were ancient history to me at that time as well. I didn't mind watching Walter Cronkite or Mike Wallace reflecting on Vietnam 20 years later. I didn't need "my music" or animation to get that point across. Why would a young person these days NOT be interested in the 60s without all of that? Get a grip, people.

Best. Movie. Poster. Ever.

If you are looking for other theatrically released documentaries about the 1960’s and activism in recent years, there have been a number of really good ones. For instance:

The U.S. vs. John Lennon, The Weather Underground, Berkeley in the Sixties, The Fog of War, The Camden 28. All are well worth checking out.

But a handful of documentaries spread out over the last couple of decades hardly constitutes "a lot," nor does it justify the ennui ("too many!") of our intrepid reviewers. Besides, I was thinking primarily of mainstream films, the kind that actually make it to the theatre. The only two such, relatively recent, films that come to mind are Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" (which is set in France in 1968 but with an American in one of the leads) and Julie Taymor's "Across the Universe" (which is really just an excuse to enjoy Lennon and McCartney's music once again). That leaves us with all of the films that depict the Boomers as obsessed with sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll and which usually feature a celebrity or two at their center. (By the way, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that, among our many accompishments, we rid the world of Richard Nixon as well. It's never too late to say thanks.) Celebrity bios are fine, but their lives are hardly representative of the activists whose anonymity was often their strength. These heroes (in my book at least) are literally unsung. If not these brave Americans, wouldn't we stand to learn a little something about our history from biopics of demi-celebs like Mark Rudd and Angela Davis? What a fascinating, event-filled era, yet how fallow it lies! Thanks again, Philly Peef, for your suggestions, and I agree with you about the poster.