Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help), and also by his instructors, hypocrites with power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work here, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed script, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the University's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want--or what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world--and get laid--the characters in this picture nevertheless are just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged (and, in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders). Was that Kaufman's point, that student riots really ARE just violent preludes to sex and otherwise a waste of time? Gould's shaggy character rants and raves too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids and their innocence, but he doesn't see his own short-comings--and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like most of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen (in a wan performance) plays Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be married in the suburbs. She's continually put down for that, as if she's a sell-out, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment! The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness--and they are filmed and edited with precision--but they don't come organically out of this story, they are interjected for shock value. The rage and anger presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. *1/2 from ****