It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The spectacle of location, is the non-spectacle of non-location. The non-spectacle of non-location is the non-spectacle of nowhere.Non-spectacle is the ordinary. The ordinariness of nowhere is the ordinariness of the opposite of somewhere.Somewhere is precision. The opposite of precision is general. General is the ordinary.The ordinary of the ordinary is the spectacle of spectacle. The spectacle of spectacle is a pure spectacle.A pure spectacle is a pure explosion. An explosion is violence. A pure violence is an impure peace.An impure peace is a violent peace. A violent peace is the illusion of violence and the illusion of peace.The illusion of violence is the reality of peace. The illusion of peace is the reality of violence. The reality of peace is a history of peace. A history of peace is a non-history of violence. A non-history of violence is a non- experience of violence.The reality of violence is a history of violence. A history of violence is a non-history of peace. A non-history of peace is a non- experience of peace.The experience of non-violence is the experience of violence - in order to suppress violence, the illusion of experience has to be a history.Equal knowledge creates violence - equal talent creates violence.To avoid violence, it helps if different talents are part of a hierarchy of presentation, as opposed to an equality of presentation.To avoid violence, it helps if different physical actions take place in different physical locations

Some very liberal grad college students have guests over to discuss politics. However after an incident with one ex-soldier, they start inviting over highly conservative individuals and poisoning them one by one. The movie is fun, I like the premise and the "graphics". However it's not serious or believable. I don't like how they put it together. For example the very first guest was a priest who was very offensive towards homosexuals. He was condescending and harsh. However he never indicated any intention to physically harm homosexual individuals. All he said was that he believed they were sinning badly, he wasn't carrying out any act on them. I don't think he was an appropriate way to start the killings at all, they should have started with some gun wielding far-right redneck who made multiple threats about killing black people or homosexuals. They could have then progressed to some fatcat individuals destroying the environment, poisoning water supplies, inducing slave labour. Even though the writers missed these opportunities to highlight the real issues, they do seem like liberals. The people with strong conservative viewpoints are portrayed as "illiterates". I realize we are seeing things from the point of the liberal college students, but there's more to it than that. A kind of dismissal of topics such as abortion as being something that should 'obviously' be allowed. I resent that, abortion is a really serious matter where you are terminating something that is a little too close to being a human for comfort and not a clear issue. I think they got the idea of Courtney B. Vance as being completely for the killings, and proactive with them sometimes, and that idea was great. At first one of the girls was against them, however she reversed it way too easy IMO. I think they should have kept her on as being the one who didn't like the idea. I think they did the ending more or less perfectly also, and it redeemed some of the offence against conservatives.

This movie is a raw satire about intolerance. It' s not really about political right or left wing views, but about people who fail to understand what freedom of speech really is. The main characters don' t think about their own limits - just the other people' s. This group of elite students conceived their own mission, a mission to get rid of everybody who they think have the wrong opinions about the society. As mention in the movie - i you travel back in time and met the young artist Adolf Hitler, knowing what he would do as a grown man, would you kill him to save millions of lives? I probably would, but to change history - what consequences would that make for the future? That' s the question I asked myself... This is the debut for director Stacy Title, the theme is controversial, and the product has a visual style that appeal to me. The actors are very good, Title and her staff have apparently picked the right cast, and everybody did an outstanding job - even the guest stars. Stacy Title haven' t done anything memorable later in her professional career - which makes me wonder why, for with this production, she hit the nail on the head.

You could also call it, "before they were Stars". Especially true in the case of Cameron Diaz! Right now she's starring alongside Tom Cruise and others, but back then not that many really knew her (despite her breakout performance in the Mask). But it's not her movie, it's an ensemble picture. And everyone in it is really good.The movie is very talk-y and you might not like that. But it does dig deep into human psyche. And while it is very philosophical at the beginning, it gets almost primal towards the end. The good thing is, that you can decide if you want to enjoy the movie as wicked, dark comedy or really read between the lines and get all the stabs it takes (no pun intended) against humanity/society!