**Dated and not very appealing to the current public.** There are comedies that are well-made, elegant, interesting, and there are comedies that are of no interest and will only have some kind of additional appeal to those who saw them when they were young or at the time when they were successful. I think this film fits into the second group: everything takes place on a university campus where the rector tries, with the help of a group of students, to come up with a plan to extinguish a student republic famous for its large number of problems and the poor academic performance. Of course, the students of this republic fueled by beer and madness will find a way to respond in kind. This is a film especially aimed at rebellious teenagers that came out at a time when being rebellious was fashionable. The world was in the aftermath of the Sexual Revolution and struggling with the first problems arising from drug and alcohol abuse that had spread at the beginning of the decade, but there were still those trying to keep this revolutionary flame burning. Today, almost fifty years later, with almost all of these actors experiencing the pain of old age, it is a film that is forgotten and seems completely distant from our current realities. A dated, aged film of no particular interest. For me, the most positive and interesting point that this film had was the inspired and good-humored participation of Donald Sutherland, an actor who is currently a veteran and has a wealth of work and awards to present. Seeing him here seems strange, considering who he is today, but he seems to simply be having fun and enjoying the pleasure of doing what he loves most. I can't say that the rest of the actors did a bad job. I honestly think that they all did very well, within what was asked of them. They simply cannot perform miracles.

Filipe Manuel Neto is a retard who says that this timeless classic is ''Dated and not very appealing to the current public''. It's actually a brilliant film and the only people it wouldn't appeal to is left wing Guardian newspaper reading labour voters, but no one cares about any of them anyway. Oh and the film isn't ''early 50 years old'', it's 45 years old. Big difference you old cunt.

I am reviewing the previous review rather than the film itself. When the author says "Filipe Manuel Neto is a retard" I give that a big thumbs up. I know retard is a loaded word, it's more than likely he's a failed artist, who is jealous of real artists success, like most critics.