This movie is package of perfection. Everything is perfect. Direction level is damn too high. Cast did their job superbly especially Robin Williams. Background sound is too good. Editing is well enough. Best thing about this movie is that it consists of dream, emotion, love, success, passion and drama. You will get a unknown(?) feeling after watching this movie. You can not describe that feeling to anyone. Finally, one thing i can say "O Captain! My Captain!"

Dead Poets Society is absolute success in the portrayal of the truth of the individual, their individuality and the society that was formed on the back of it. The Western and every other First World Country is based in that idealism and through that achievement, pioneers and true champions have been born again and again. The thing about DPS that I do appreciate is also want deeply haunts me that despite it's idealism, very rarely does anything slip by the realists - very much like reality. That truth is so debilitating messed up that it is almost akin to the realization that according to the stats and surveys produced, no matter what you have chosen to believe, most of us would have ended up as the accomplice to the oppression in the Holocaust than be the Hero whose list would be topic of an Oscar winning Biopic. I don't care that you think I may have overstretched my analogy because it is very much the truth in both counts. But getting back to the story, the realism wins out in those moments when Robert Sean Leonard's character chooses quicker incumbency of the inevitable grasp of death than rather face the futility and frustration of living his parents' dreams. This is also a recurrence when Robin William's (RIP, you brilliant and magnificent legend; I have no idea what you thought in the last moments of your days but if I could, I would tell you that every breath that you ever took was completely worth it and you left the world a better world than when you came into it and it was no so because it was inevitable but because you chose to make it better for those whose lives were touched by yours. So, thank you in addendum to anybody who ever made your life better and brought a smile to you) Keating is fired and students are left helpless to do anything about it till the last when they defy their necessary conformity to the school. But even then, the movie ends out an melancholic breezy high which could only be managed by the ambiguity of shot being cut then and there with a final display of approval. That is what is impressive about this movie that there is a definite parallel established in the story because of the world that exists and the world that should exist. It is beautiful in an haunting re-imposition of reality and its dread that we must fight everyday. It will also be close to my heart because of: 1) How close I feel to Neil Perry (RSL) because I could identify with the frustration he fought and lost. It makes me want to face the rough hands I have had in my life a little bit harder. I want to live and be happy in the way of Keating, but should I fail and can't get back up, let this be my self-implicated obituary - I have loved living. I have had good times and I have cherished each one of those, so much so that you could say I sucked the 'marrow out of those bones' whenever and however I could. Unfortunately, I must have more bad shit happen that I couldn't fight or became too cowardly against. I would like to apologize for that, I didn't mean to hurt anybody anymore. Perhaps, most of all, myself was the top of the list. I may have hated quite a few people because my Idealism and weaknesses and loved a lot more because of how much love I felt I had to give and also, of my perpetual, ever-lingering loneliness. I don't know if I feel those anymore, I don't if I want or want to give forgiveness and lastly, if there is even a beyond. I sincerely hope not, one life is all we have and it should all we get; peace and unknowing in the everlasting is all that I seek anymore if I have chosen this path. Take care, be well and value life while you have it and can still make good on its promises, honestly. Only a dead man can tell you the truth of that. 2) It contradicts on almost every story in Indian Film Industry that has been made on this topic (it might be slightly poetic that I am obsessed that I am so obsessed with pain, living in The City of Joy; Then again, Pain is a binary of Joy - Each the more building itself where the other chooses frequent). Indian movies are more emotional, more optimistic and dramatic in their flair that people will actually make the choices that Perry couldn't and people like the Perry parents and the Headmaster will actually take a chance on him and forgive him. This movie shows another very possible side of that scenario and I can appreciate that. Overall, I still do prefer movies with hopeful portrayals because if there is one thing we need some more almost everyday, it is hope. The hope that the unlikely, harder choice which may lead to a positive outcome after toil should still be fought for no matter how hard it is; which, I honestly know, easier said than done but I really wanted Perry to fight one more day even if it was and not have gone quietly into night - Rage, Rage against the dying light (I am paraphrasing Dylan Thomas's poem about this subject which was dedicated to his father). You will watch it. You need just someone to tell you that you will be alright. I will be that person and it is gonna be okay and I think you will find a more fervent desire to live life better and better yet as an definitive individual after you have watched it. P.S. - Should be anybody be interested in checking out the more optimistic portrayals of the style of story DPS pursued, here are the names - Mohabbatein & 3 Idiots

Oh Captain, my Captain! That was a Wonderful movie. I think i'm going to watch it again.

I find it ironic that I am attempting to provide a, largely, objective assessment of this film; a task which the film's main character, John Keating, a poetry teacher, would view with derision. His personal philosophy is that poetry (and by extension, I imagine, all other forms of art e.g. filmmaking) should be viewed entirely subjectively. That art cannot, or should not, be objectively scrutinised but that the importance of any piece of art is in the emotions that it may evoke in its audience members. The reaction of the audience member to any piece of art is, of course, unique to the individual and that is where the value truly lies. Keating's intellectual adversary in this film is the author of the "Introduction to Poetry" Mr Pritchard. His assessment of poetry is cold and detached, believing that poetry can be objectively assessed like a mathematical formula in order to determine its importance. This dogmatic view is, naturally, in the same line of thinking as the strict, prestigious school that the film takes place in. The school is seen to be ruthless in the application and preservation of this soulless mentality which indoctrinates its students. It is, of course, the clash of these contradictory ideologies which creates the central conflict of the narrative. However, I do have major disagreements with how this conflict is presented in this film. Namely, that the film is rather simple in its assessment of this rather complex issue and presents it in a black and white fashion. Keating is seen as the hero of the narrative and his philosophy is presented as, ironically, the objective truth in the overall question. I feel that the school and, the figure of Mr Pritchard, come across as quite exaggeratory and caricatural in the examination of the opposing philosophy. As an agnostic nihilist I understand that life is meaningless and that the only option humans have is to ascribe meaning to whatever we deem appropriate. That is to say that, to the fullest extent, Mr Keating is 100% correct in his worldview. That the examination of art IS entirely subjective because there can be no objective standard. On the other hand, the strict adherence to this worldview is, I find, extremely problematic. There may not be an objective standard for the arts or to the meaning in life but humans do need that structure to exist as a society AND to adequately assess the arts. I think to prove this point I think one merely needs to look at the modern art scene. The current school of thought that "anything is art" also means that "nothing is art" as a consequence. It's a sad state of affairs when an unmade bed can LITERALLY be deemed as a work of art and can be perceived as being of equal worth as, say, the ceiling of the Sistine chapel. Under Keating's worldview the two are inherently (but more importantly readily PERCIEVED) to be equitable since there is no objective standard (other than what one ascribes). This is what, I feel, has led to the degradation of modern art where the skill and artistry derived from objective standards and tutelage in the past has been lost/overlooked. Indeed, in the film Keating is faced with the problems of his own ideology. One of the students produces a poem that reads "The cat sat on the mat" which mockingly exposes the flaws of his philosophy. One of his students becomes quite anarchic when he buys fully into Keating's worldview only to be (arguably hypocritically) reprimanded by Keating himself for his actions. To further illustrate this point I shall use another example. With nihilism, and the lack of objective meaning, there is no reason WHY a man couldn't kill another man if he felt like it (if he knew he could get away with it) as there is no reason why he should or shouldn't do so. Naturally, the reader of this review understands this to be an "objective wrong" as that is the reality of the society we have been conditioned by. Therefore, that obejctivity exists (if not in the truest sense). Ultimately, Keating is correct in that the reason we have the arts is for the emotions that they evoke in us and the value that we ascribe to them. There are plenty of "objectively" bad movies that I love but the fact that they are objectively flawed doesn't hinder my enjoyment of them. However, I do think that the acknowledgment of these flaws is of crucial importance. In short, to justify my ACTUAL review of this film (which I haven't even STARTED yet!) I first had to tackle its underlying philosophy to explain the legitimacy of my objective assessment. Yes, it is true that any piece of art (be it poetry, filmmaking etc) is entirely subjective to the fullest extent. However, practically speaking, it is really more of a mix between the objective and the subjective; even if the objective is merely a delusion which we (as a society) collectively endorse. With that lengthy explanation in mind I can now identify what I understand to be the objective assessment of this film. I think that, before attributing one's subjective value onto a film, a baseline must be set determined on the objective success (or failure) of a film on a technical level. This film is around the 7/10 mark (i.e. a "good" film) as far as I'm concerned. I can certainly understand why people would give it between a 5 ("average") and an 8 ("great") out of 10 as this is where the grey area lies as to the range out emotional investment and subjective assessment exists. However, to give this film any higher or lower (I think) lacks real insight into the strengths, or limitations, of this work.To begin with, I feel that the narrative was solid and enjoyable. The dialouge inparticular is its greatest quality and produces some really great interactions between characters. The character of Mr Keating (played by the late-great Robin Williams) is the centrepiece of the film and the source of its wise and insightful dialouge. Williams is more witheld in this film than his other films but this only serves to create an enigmatic aura around his character. He exudes a great warmth and passion which is made readily evident. Its a good performance but certainly not his best ("Good Will Hunting") as his character doesn't have a great deal more depth beyond his role as an educator and mentor to expose weaknesses in his character. The limitation of the film is that the story is very predicatable and there was no point when I was thrown off track. The change in events that occur in this film is down to the shifting motivations of the students. Of the large group, three are of prime focus: Neil, who feels oppressed by his father, Todd, who is experiences problems with his introversion and Knox, who is too shy to talk to the woman he loves. By these brief explanations of these three protagonists you can almost already figure out what the end result will be. This is largely what prevents the film from ever attempting to reach a higher threshold of significance. Despite the limited scope of the narritive this is beneficial to the film in the fact that it keeps it well contained and is as clear and concise as it could have been. I'd say that the antagonists in the film (being the principal and Neil's father, among others) are very one-dimensional and don't really enhance the story greatly. However, since the overall point of the film is to challenge and resist conformity it is, perhaps, beneficial in a much broader wider context with this in mind. The performances from the extended cast (beyond Robin) are very good and for a film that really depends on the strength of its young actors does a terrific job.The direction for the film is decent and there is some interesting cinematography, namely in one classroom scene which provokes a suitably nauseating and disorienting experience for the viewer which puts us firmly in the shoes of one of the characters expertly. However, the cinematography and direction (at least from a visual standpoint) does not reach a "great" level of quality. To conclude, I shall now talk about the subjective experience I had when watching this film. It is easily understood why so many people have such an endearment towards this film. Its message is simple. "SEIZE THE DAY!" is the Keating's mantra as he implores his students (and more importantly the audience) to make the most of their lives. It is a remarkably simple message, but it is one which is not readily appreciated in day-to-day life in modern society. It is easy to see why people are so affected by this film as they face the humdrum monotony of daily living. I think a criticism which people have of this film is that some of the characters (namely the students) come across as quite pretentious. Whilst I can certainly see WHY people may have this perception, I don't think it is an accurate one. Mr Keating's ambition for the children is for them to be able to think for themselves, nothing more, nothing less. Mr Keating is helping the students start their journey to self-discovery but does not presume to hold the answers. Other than the issues I have with the conflicting ideologies (which I identified earlier in length) I feel that the film deals with its themes and subject matter adequately. As the film's final scene highlights, there will be people who will be deeply inspired by this film and there will be those who will scoff and will deem it to be overly sentimental. I can appreciate the opinions of both in regards to this film but I think that, ultimately, there is enough quality in this film to justify the 7/10 rating from myself.