Cheaters (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Great film highlighted by great performances.

[deadkerouac · 8/10 · 20 May 2000]

I saw this film when it debuted on HBO earlier tonight. I was pretty impressed by the story (by director John Stockwell), about a group of inner city Chicago youths who decide to cheat on their Academic Decathlon exams. The element that drives the story, however, is its performances, especially Jena Malone as Steinmetz student Jolie Fitch and Jeff Daniels as Decathlon advisor Dr. Gerard Plecki.

These youths decide to cheat solely for ambition, to beat the rival Whitney Young Decathlon Team (who wins every year) at the State finals. Basically, they're desperate, being an inner city school whose funding is based mostly on athletics. Daniels goes along with the plan because of this: to make a statement on how much focus is more on athletics and less on academics.

The only reason I decided to watch this film was for Jena Malone, who's one of the more talented young actresses cropping up out of obscurity. She's only fifteen, yet she's a better actress than women twice her age. She's even being compared to a young Jodie Foster. Hopefully, she'll continue to accept performances that aren't from your latest American teen comedies.

I did manage, however, to find a good story out of this, somewhat reminiscent of "Stand and Deliver," which the students actually watch in one scene. Whether or not we agree on Dr. Plecki allowing the students to cheat, we'll always agree that it's the teacher's responsibility to teach, and teach morally. Make up your mind about cheating; this story focuses on cheating and its consequences, and will probably be one of those great films not too many people will see.

Had it been released to theaters, it would've done modestly in the theaters and been critically acclaimed, then fade away after a couple of weeks. But it's good enough to win a few hearts and minds. Watch it for Jena Malone, though. I did, and I wouldn't be surprised if she was nominated for an Emmy here.

Good, but I have a bit of a bias

[dysfnctional101 · 7/10 · 14 November 2005]

I saw this movie for the first time in 8th grade and thought it was great. Funny and entertaining, with a bit of a moral thrown in. Once I went to highschool my view changed somewhat, considering I went to (and am at) Whitney Young. It's been said here before, but the characterization is all wrong. Whitney has a majority of black students and is neither private nor in the suburbs. At the time the movie was made, Whitney was simply the best public school in the city (new rivals have cropped up in recent years), and so it developed a nucleus of extremely intelligent kids. For the most part they are not the privileged suburbanites portrayed in the movie, although there have been some families that would move into the city just to send their kids there. Anyways, it killed the moral for me, but it showed me a different fault in the Chicago Public schools, that good schools get help while smaller ones get forgotten. This was the story of a forgotten school fighting to get their name back into the light. They went about it the wrong way, but there is something to be learned from it. Or maybe not, considering the funding gap just seems to get worse.

But if I forget all of this, ignore the realities, this is still a great movie.

Is winning everything?

[lib-4 · 7/10 · 26 July 2001]

This movie presents a real moral dilemna... should students who have always been thought of as losers take the chance and cheat. The teacher has the toughest decision to make- whether to let his students cheat and what to do if they get caught. Jeff Daniels plays the part well- showing how he is torn- wanting his students to get recognition and wanting to teach them right from wrong. This movie is a very good look at the moral questions we all face in life.

An easy to relate to film that tells a unique story

[pompaj · 1 June 2000]

Cheaters is one of the best cable films. It's good because it makes a statement, which is that cheaters do prosper and that winning does count, contrary to what we are told throughout life. It justifies the characters' decision to cheat very nicely and it makes for an interesting story. It's not an amazing film that you can't believe they thought of, but one that's enjoyable to watch, partially because it is so plausible. Jeff Daniels plays the teacher who goes against policy and he is really convincing. The kids themselves are mostly cliches, but it doesn't matter because this isn't a movie about character, but about story, and the story is strong enough to make it a very good film.

This movie makes you think

[BDeWittP · 7/10 · 13 October 2010]

I like movies that make me think, not just about contemporary issues, but about ourselves, as human beings. Cheaters is a great movie that does exactly that. The questions it raises are very good ones. Is cheating, even when the deck is stacked against you, wrong, or is it just against the rules? Or as the students in the movie discussed, do two wrongs make a right? Or do two wrongs make it even? Cheaters is a movie about the 1994-95 Steinmetz High School students entering the years academic decathlon, a mammoth competition featuring numerous tests, an interview, and a super quiz. The team that is fielded by their dedicated and respected teacher, Dr Plecki, immediately has three strikes against it: they have no experience, no support from most of the school staff and students, and they're up against the perennial powerhouse and cross-town rival: Whitney Young.

The Academic Decathlon, at least in Chicago and the State of Illinois, isn't really a competition, because Whitney Young has been winning for ten straight years. As Dr Plecki (played fabulously by Jeff Daniels) says "they live, breathe, and eat the decathlon...they recruit for it." So, right away, we know this is definitely a long shot because we know what they're up against. So the title is obviously self-explanatory, of course the only chance they have to win is to cheat.

Although we know this story would have never been told had they not gotten caught cheating, it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. In preparation for the regionals, we see the team really working hard. They fight tooth and nail, but just make it to the state finals, finishing in fifth place. "Jerry, keep it, you didn't know what you were up against" says the Whitney Young coach to Dr Plecki, after both bet money on their teams. We really know these words are heartbreakingly true, and we agree with Dr Plecki when he congratulates the team on a great effort ("I think you guys should be proud of yourselves"). Indeed, the team did very well, considering what they really were up against.

This is the point where things heat up, as one of the students manages to get a copy of the state test, and things really start heating up. Dr Plecki, when he gets the news, encourages the team to use the test to study, if they all agree. When they get to the State competition, using planned tricks, quick and private ways of getting signals, they win with a big improvement in their scores from their regional performance. Whitney Young believes, through suspicion, that they did indeed cheat. The logic being that it is statistically impossible for anyone to have their scores increase that dramatically in only three weeks. We, as an audience who can't help but root for the underdogs, find us hoping they don't get caught and those Whitney Young rich spoiled brats get a dose of their own medicine.

The performances by the teacher and students are fantastic. Jeff Daniels is a very underrated actor and it's refreshing to see him give such a great performance here. He gives the character of Dr Plecki an excellent illustration of anger, confusion, insight, and frustration. The students, especially the one played by Jena Malone (as Jolie Fitch, who, according to the film, helped assemble the team) are just as convincing in their bonding to keep the code of silence. The lawyer for the board of education, who questions them about their cheating in one of the later scenes, said it best: "These kids may be some of the most skilled liars I've ever encountered. They looked me in the eye and lied to me. They scared me."

I will not give away the ending, only that it leads to some very good arguments and the "city gripped by 'Did they or didn't they?' fever." Did Dr Plecki do right? Do you sometimes have to break the rules to change them? Would they have questioned Steinmetz if it were a rich, WASP school, as one of the Steinmetz students points out? These are all questions that the film raises, and leaves for the audience to decide.

The movie doesn't ask anyone to condone cheating, nor does it say that we should condone it. All the movie does is ask the audience to pay attention, and raise questions. It is fair to both sides. I liked the fact that one thing the movie does make clear is: right, wrong, or indifferent, our society is not fair. It doesn't say that the actions of Dr Plecki and the students are okay, but they're understandable due to the circumstances.

I would recommend this film be viewed by all students in their English classes or with their parents. I also believe very strongly that anyone who watches this will be asking themselves questions about the values, morals, and quandaries of today's society. This film is a must see for all students, educators, and parents.

conflicted morality

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 20 August 2015]

It's 1994 in a run-down Chicago public high school. Dr. Gerard Plecki (Jeff Daniels) is the hopeful teacher organizing the Academic Decathlon team. The only student who shows up is the plucky Jolie Fitch (Jena Malone). She helps him recruit a ragtag group of diamonds in the rough. They get fifth and advance to state. However, they also see how far behind they are from the favorites. A couple of kids steal a copy of the state test and the group faces a true dilemma.

It's interesting to see the story through the eyes of the cheaters. The characters make convincing arguments but it's also obvious that they are going down the wrong path. This conflicted morality makes this a difficult watch. Jeff Daniels is the senior presence and Jena Malone makes this compelling. The production isn't the highest quality but it works for a TV movie.

"Isn't Cheating Wrong?"

[insomniac_dreamer · 9/10 · 4 March 2005]

What I absolutely loved about this movie is the fact that it displays a genuine moral dilemma without necessarily preaching anything. It doesn't provide viewers a standpoint for moral ascendancy, instead, the viewers get the pleasure of interpreting the situation, thus gaining that threshold for ascendancy.

I'd say the film did play out a bias, and the bias was in favor of the students from Steimetz High. I'd say that it is rather a fair bias, because it is rare to see the cheaters as the protagonist. Amidst this, they weren't portrayed as the over-glamorized heroes that will promote a cheating society. What John Stockwell did was to give us a dose of reality, an arena for sympathize with cheaters, at the same time, displaying the consequences of the human act.

I love the mixture of documentary footages. Opening Credits was awesome, wherein there were raw footage in grainy stock of actual American high school. It played greatly on the emotional framework that the film worked on and I'm so glad my parents were able to find a copy of the film on DVD.

Full of ironies (semi-spoiler)

[galensaysyes · 7/10 · 5 September 2000]

The story of "Cheaters" is full of ironies, more perhaps than the film is on to. It's constructed like one of those films about the dedicated teacher and the students whose lives he changes forever: "Deads Poets Society" or "Dangerous Minds". The only catch is that what he schools them in is cheating. Or what they school him in: one of the ironies is that we can't be sure to what extent it works both ways. In the end the teacher loses and his pet student wins. The film ends with contrasting scenes of the two of them: he's shown as cynical but also unhappy about the corruption of the world; she's one step ahead of him, indifferent to it and confident in her ability to survive. Our uncertainty about how much of this the film recognizes is one of the things that make it interesting. It's honest enough so that you can question or quarrel with its attitude, if you can figure out what it is. On the one hand, we hear the teacher's mother exposing his shallowness and self-justification. On the other, we're shown the students' victory straight, as if they'd earned it totally. The kids' immaturities aren't slighted, but everyone in the story--everyone--other than them and the teacher is a hypocrite, a scoundrel, or a sap. Their sentimentalization and the blanket accusation hurled at the rest of the world makes me doubt the accuracy of the film's account of events, even in fictional terms. But it leaves itself open for such criticism. It gives the impression, as it were, of questioning itself, in the same way the teacher and some of his students do. The blithe amorality of his star student at the end may be the last word, but the happy ending, if it is one, is highly equivocal. The film gets you thinking about where you stand, which character you'd be. In a TV movie that's more than can reasonably be hoped for.

Brilliant - Seek Out This Movie!

[Bill N. · 10/10 · 24 May 2000]

I was so stunned by the power of this movie that I had to watch it a second time to give it a more objective assessment. I came away from the second viewing every bit as impressed.

We learn from the opening scene of the movie that things will turn out badly for the cheaters, the kids who made up the 1994-95 Academic Decathlon team for Chicago's working-class Steinmetz High, and that their downfall was of their own making. But this movie refuses to be a simple morality play. It looks at the scandal from the viewpoint of the participants, and examines why they cheated and how they came to justify their actions. It's a refreshingly honest look at how effectively the mind can blur the distinction between right and wrong. Each character's moment of decision is captured so effectively that the viewer may very well find himself rooting for the teacher and his students as they exult in their short-lived triumph.

The whole story plays out in a realistically-portrayed inner city school, and succinctly presents the values that flourish in such an environment, where ideas of what's fair are colored by the feeling that life hasn't been very fair to these kids from the very beginning. One comes to realize that the central characters' greatest triumph came not in their ill-gotten victory, but in simply wanting to overachieve against all odds in such an environment.

The acting in this movie is top-notch across the board, from Paul Sorvino, Jeff Daniels, and each of the seven kids. But special mention has to go to Jena Malone for her memorable portrayal of Jolie, the brilliant and sharp-tongued inspirational leader of the team who remains defiant to the very end.

I give this movie a 10!

What was this film saying?

[iwatcheverything · 6/10 · 21 November 2003]

If you watched this film and came out of it wondering what it meant then you need to watch it again. The film is mildly entertaining but is the best work of lies I have ever seen. Most people can not keep a secret for five seconds let alone the amount of time these kids did. The best line is the very last one in the movie. I own this movie b/c you can get it for cheap at most stores now and it is not a bad film to own. Just don't let someone get the wrong idea when watching it b/c cheating of course is wrong and does not need to happen.

Cheaters cheats the truth

[maydmaryn · 1/10 · 15 June 2005]

I can see how some might find this film rewarding - watching the little guy take down the overbearing elitists that win every year. Those homogeneous white kids at Whitney Young all wear button down shirts, and come from privileged backgrounds. And that Larry Minkoff, he just wanted his team to crush the other schools. That all makes nice drama, but has little to do with the actual story. Sure, Cheaters, is based on a true story, but its omissions and perversions of the truth make it little more than a piece of trash.

You won't be surprised to learn that I actually went to Whitney Young. When I first saw HBO's incarnation of my high school, I had to laugh – WY is a Chicago Public School (although a magnet) with a minority of white students and not an Oxford shirt to be found. I got over it pretty quickly, however, when the film turned into a character assassination of a man that had died tragically the previous year and kids that had worked their butts off to get where they were. Cheaters portrays WY as claiming Steinmetz cheated because they beat them. In reality, Steinmetz was the only school in the competition to improve – literally every other competing school's scores, including WY, had dropped significantly. Young raised the charge, but they were not alone in thinking something other than increased study time at Steinmetz's had happened.

I appreciate how difficult it can be for neighborhood schools to compete with magnet schools, which select students based on test scores and are given more flexibility with curriculum. It provides a disparity that can be very difficult or even impossible to overcome. The ultimate message of Cheaters, however, seems to be that sometimes you need to cheat to succeed. I'm not really sure that's an ideal to strive toward. Also, it's portrayal of Larry Minkoff was very hurtful to his family, friends, and everyone who knew him for the kind and generous man he actually was. This film has made me watch films that claim to be "true stories" or based thereon with a much more critical eye. I hope anyone who reads this will take Cheaters with a very large grain of salt.

Insightful movie about moral values

[tecnogaming · 9/10 · 28 June 2012]

Sadly, for sake of moral insanity on this world, the best part of this movie is actually when the group is working on how to cheat.

I will explain this, in further detail.

When confronted with an impossible task of defeating a Senior decathlon group who nobody can, a suburb group lead by a rebel professor, having found a copy of the next decathlon exams decide to cheat.

The movie is filled with moral dilemmas, trying to balance its way out of it with real insightful ideas on how society scheme is not just "black and white" where good moral is to do it right and cheat is satanic.

The best moments in the movie are related to how the team moral values plays out and the fantastic aspect of this movie is specially dedicated on how good the team work when they are together, it is a very contradiction of terms, to see the team working so good together when they are actually trying to cheat.

Sad is that society is really preachy, society is not nice and never was, cheating is only a part of the equation and this is beautifully portrayed in the movie, for example when the guys are subjected to the worst prejudice comments from the people, when the people suspect of cheating, prejudice is far worse than cheating an exam but society doesn't see it that way, putting the team against each other in a police type interrogatory is far worse than cheating, telling lies about your friends to get what you want is also worse than cheating,but, society approves because it serves the purpose of maintaining the status-quo.

When you balance the movie out, it is clear what the message is, the education system is flawed,I for one identify much more with this cheaters than with the whole system of education. Outside of school copying and helping each other in a subject is called collaboration, inside school, this is called cheating, working as a group, helping each other inside an exam is called cheating, doing this exact same thing on a corporation is called "group-work" and as a matter of fact, it is highly well paid in corporations like Valve and Google for example.

Cheaters is a wonderful movie, really, this guys does bring a very important moral dilemma in which, sometimes, something that seems "wrong" is not so and some things that everyone knows to be right, are, VERY wrong.

An unjust competitive system of education which compels young people to take each other's eyes out for a score is NOT right, a system that encourage prejudice, that encourage absolutes, a system that values success as a win or die and not as a learning process is WRONG.

The movie ends in a graceful note, the moral values are beyond what society teaches, and "Cheaters" is a movie for the human race, it tries to put the matter into perspective and teach us what is wrong with the system and it does this with brilliant presence, nice script, very good acting and clever directing.

This is a jewel of a movie and one you should not miss.

A solid 9 out of 10.

Cheaters Never Prosper

[darkjosh · 7/10 · 10 December 2000]

HBO's Cheaters is easily one of the better based-on-a-true-story TV movies ever done.

Jeff Daniels stars as Dr. Jerry Plecki, a teacher in a raucous, urban school who decides to head, for the third year in a row, a bound-to-fail Academic Decathlon team. But one of the students gets a hold of the test, and all decide that the ends justify the means.

Cheaters attitude towards cheating seems to be that it is okay if the odds are stacked against you, taking on an almost fervent pitch. But at its end, we see that perhaps it doesn't say that cheating is good, but the fact that most people have done it at some time in their lives. How many of us have never sneaked a glimpse at notes or used some other less-than-cunning trick to get ahead on a test?

Director Stockwell holds the story together well and gives good pacing to the story, never truly making the film a sermon and instead letting the viewer judge the characters. Jeff Daniels fares well in a touching performance as a cynical teacher, and the entire young cast is a showcase of talent, with two outstanding performances from Jena Malone and Luke Edwards. Newcomer Dov Tiefenbach is also despicably good.

Stockwell's firm handling of the material and his never-wavering direction raises Cheaters a notch above the usual teen drama flick, injecting some nail-biting scenes of suspense into an intelligent, never-condescending film that breaks down to an ethical dilemma. Though Cheaters knows that cheating is frowned upon, it also recognizes it is commonplace now more than ever before.

7 out of 10

the writers of this film are the real CHEATERS

[LFChachere · 1/10 · 24 May 2005]

I attended Whitney Young H.S. and was a member of the 1st Whitney Young Academic Decathlon team in 1982; the first year this competition was nationalized. I was very interested to see this movie as I did not even realize Whitney Young had continued to win the Illinois competition.

Had it not been for the misrepresentations in this movie, I probably would have given it a much better rating.

For those outside of the Chicago area, basically Whitney Young AND Steinmetz are BOTH Chicago Public high schools. The difference is that Whitney Young is a magnet school, where you apply and get accepted on the basis of merit of your grades in elementary school, whereas Steinmetz is a district school which accepts anybody who lives in the neighborhood. Whitney Young is NOT a privileged school filled with rich kids (some of the people making comments, after seeing this movie, even had the impression that it might be private and/or suburban.) The overwhelming majority of my classmates were minorities, with nearly 70% black. As a matter of fact, there were probably more minorities at Whitney Young than Steinmetz, which is located in a white neighborhood on the north side of the city. I was disgusted by the Jeff Daniels' rant implying that rich suburbans were sending their kids into the city to attend a public high school; some line about this school being a "fortress in the city" -- The majority of kids who attend Whitney Young are from middle class and poor families. I just could not believe that Hollywood could stoop so low, to portray high achieving public inner city public school city kids as privileged snobs, for the apparent purpose of getting the audience to sympathize more with the Steinmetz kids .. to make us feel that the kids being cheated deserved to be cheated.

And Whitney Young having cheerleaders at this event .. PLEASE .. that's just insulting the intelligence of the viewers.

The reason that Whitney Young would consistently beat out other Chicago schools year after year is very simple: There is a system in place in Chicago with centralized magnet schools such as Young, Lane Tech, where all of the A students from grade schools across the city can attend and be in classes with each other ... for the purpose of having enough kids in the same place to provide advanced courses.

The professor at Steinmetz who helped his students cheat, basically tried to cheat kids at another school who worked VERY hard to earn their spot, and that stinks. This film did a very good job at desensitizing the audience about the injustice done to the kids who actually EARNED the win, in order to help add sympathy to the Steinmetz students who were NOT underprivileged, but simply chose either NOT to apply to Whitney Young, or simply did not work for the grades to get into Whitney Young in the first place.

The movie tries to make you feel sympathy for the cheaters, rather than the victims of the cheating. What a wonderful message for America.

Very Well Done.

[Banky-4 · 21 May 2000]

This is a complicated movie, because you're not always sure you SHOULD be rooting for the main characters.

The film is about the apparently true story (I never heard about it) of how a teacher encouraged his students to cheat on an academic decathalon. The story was well told, but you're never really made to feel pity towards the characters. The story is told fairly and not just to be entertaining. I suppose it's a morality tale to a certain extent. But, be warned, there is a fair amount of foul language, more than I expected.

Still, a great and well done movie, and I feel will please those who are curious.

Reporter: Is it true that one member of the team is a bisexual witch? Lawyer: I cannot comment on that aspect of the investigation at this time.

[bombersflyup · 6/10 · 13 April 2018]

Cheaters is a reasonable to good film that never really threatens to be anything more than that, as its characters have no depth and at times quite amateurish. Has an interesting story and is an engaging film however.

It's basically "Cool Runnings" all over again :). Jena Malone and Jeff Daniels are good, but the rest of the cast's weak. Apart from the poor characters, my biggest problem with the film is how obvious they made it that they were cheating. Going from winning none of the awards to winning every single one.

Well Done HBO Production

[Falcon-51 · 7/10 · 20 May 2000]

Writer and Director John Stockwell puts together and tells the true story of a teacher and a group of students that agree to cheat at an academic competition. Jeff Daniels flexes his acting talents proving he can do everything from a Civil War Colonel (Gettysburg) to a raving lunatic (Dumb and Dumber) and now as a teacher and coach of some academically gifted students. When one of his students acquires the test questions that will be asked at the State competition all the students and the teacher conspire to cheat. The story tries to explain and justify why this course of action was taken. Whether or not you agree with the logic, the story is still quite interesting. Worth seeing if you have the opportunity. The film is an HBO production and therefore shown exclusively in their medium.

Brilliant made for HBO special that proves two wrongs don't make a right

[filmbuff-36 · 9/10 · 1 May 2003]

I was pleasantly surprised to discover how serious this film took the issues of both social injustice and cheating within the high school microcosm. Jeff Daniels gives an excellent performance as Dr. Plecki, the adviser and sponsor of the Academic Decathlon team at Steinmetz, a working class Chicago high school, who sees an opportunity to buck the system and gets his students to cheat in the competition, something that many of them don't need very much help to be convinced to do.

I think most viewers of this film might tend to look at the actual competition itself from a distance, so let me just say one thing from an insider's perspective since I was on my high school's Academic Decathlon team. The facts that the movie present about the unfair advantages wealthier schools have over others is completely true. There were four high schools in my school district, and two of them routinely won the local Academic Decathlon every year. Wouldn't you know it, it was the two wealthier high schools, like Whitney Young in this film. And just like in the movie, they could afford to actually offer a specific class dealing with Academic Decathlon, whereas the rest of schools had to do all their work and research on the students own private time.

Now it might sound like I'm griping and moaning and being a poor loser about just a pointless little challenge, but the fact is the Academic Decathlon isn't just a superficial status competition; it really looks good to have a victory on your resume. But the fact is, when one school wins a contest over and over again because they have an unfair advantage, it's not really a competition, it's just an excuse for elitists to stick it to underprivileged kids year after year.

I also have to commend Paul Sorvino for his wonderful role as Steinmetz principal Constantine Kiamos, the man who stands behind his Academic Decathlon team against the media backlash about the cheating. I was pleased the film makers presented Kiamos so fairly; he is not an evil man who's trying to cover up the conspiracy; he's ignorant of it (as is everyone else in the school save the Decathlon team) and is honestly trying to protect his students and his school. That aspects makes his defense of the cheaters all the more tragic. The same goes for the all the parents of the cheaters as well.

Another thing is the Whitney Young Academic Decathlon team doesn't seem to challenge Steinmetz's victory for anything as noble as "keeping it fair." Despite the fact that they were ultimately right (one of the strange moral ambiguities of this film), it seems more like they were trying to stop their "social lessers" from getting a one up on them. I think it's all together likely that even if Steinmetz hadn't cheated, Whitney Young would have protested anyway.

All in all, a brilliant movie that details a group of students who sought the wrong way to fight an unfair system, and also serves as a reminder that despite society's progress, there will always be an invisible wall that blocks the underprivileged from advancing, even in something as "insignificant" as a scholastic competition.

An okay HBO Movie that is BETTER then just OKAY

[slammerps · 7/10 · 29 January 2001]

Writer/director John Stockwell displays a firm grasp of filmmaking technique. Stockwell, who also wrote Breast Men for HBO, has alot of talent, and will be sure to make it in the future. Stockwell propels the story forward through montage, and he does it the way it was ment to be done. Some of the camera shots are awesome, and its clear he wants to take you on a trip, the camera never ends up where it starts off in the shot.

Jena Malone does a good job in the movie and she will be on the up and up for sure, you may remember her from CONTACT or FOR LOVE OF THE GAME.

Jeff Daniels does a good job as the teacher, but everytime he talks I can't help but think of DUMB AND DUMBER.

The great thing about this movie is that it is not exactly what you would expect. I don't want to say too much in fear of spoilers, but the ending is a perfect example.

If your looking for a movie that will teach you that cheaters never win, and its bad to cheat, this is not the movie. This movie teaches more the lesson that it's bad to get caught, if you cheat right the sky could be the limit.

Pete's Movie Rating (out of 10): 7

Superb

[JoshuaJ956 · 8/10 · 16 September 2003]

In a time of society when cheating -- at the high school level more specifically -- is a daily occurrence . This movie accurately shows the effects of what it brings and what the result can be.

Cheating happens. It can be at the academic or the athletic level or at the financial level. It has no boundaries. This movie depicts just one of those levels.

The accuracy -- whether or not it is based on a true story -- is superb. I really enjoy this movie and recommend it to everyone.

What was he thinking off?

[CharltonBoy · 7/10 · 14 September 2002]

Cheaters is one of those increasingly good American movies that were made for TV. This is a very watchable film that has you interested in what happens all through without you feeling at any moment that this is not a high budget hollywood film. Jeff Bridges is his usual excellent self as a teacher of a run down school that cheats to win the annual academic decathlon. The big question that has to be asked is as this is a true story what was the teacher thinking? surely he must of realised that children cannot keep a secret (neither can most adults) so it was alway going to happen that they would get caught. Sit back and enjoy this bitter sweat movie. 7 out of 10.

This films misses the "true story" mark

[ebonie17 · 1/10 · 4 March 2007]

I was born and raised from a working class family in Chicago. I am also a Whitney Young alumni. Take one look at the school's website and you will learn that whites are the minority and that most people are from low SES or middle class backgrounds. This film's depiction of the Whitney Young was waaaaay off. Cheerleaders at the pep rally, matching outfits, and laptops for every student...LMAO! After viewing this film, I now understand what it's like to be on the other side of those "based on a true story" movies.

In this movie there had to be an enemy. So, Whitney Young played the role. However, the real evil is the school system. But no one wants to talk about that. What this film displayed was the selfish and lazy attitudes of the cheaters, and their need to justify their behavior by blaming the kids who worked hard and won. (If people only knew the amount of time they put into studying for AD) What we should be paying attention to is how easy the children took almost no responsibility for what they did. Instead, transferring the blame to the opposing school. Rather, the film should have told the story of how a teacher took advantage of weak-willed teenagers to boost his ego, counter his life of inadequacy. He could have been a voice for the oppressed but chose to take the easy road and let the kids down.

I Can Resist Anything But Temptation

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 12 May 2002]

Above-average TV movie. It raises some interesting questions and, unfortunately, tries to provide answers. It's the dark side of "Stand and Deliver." A teacher in a working-class Chicago high school, Dr. Plecki, tries to -- wait a minute. What's a guy with a doctorate doing teaching in a slum school? Never mind. He's played by Jeff Daniels as if defeated from the beginning, with little energy. His students are uninterested in his lit classes; they fight, throw spitballs, curse magnificently, and fall asleep, except for Joli Fitch, played by cute, perky, and preppy-looking Jena Malone with a certain verve. She forms a kind of conspiratorial bond with Plecki and they gather a group of the smartest students in the school to form a team for the academic decathlon. Their SATs are evidently high, but none of them except Joli shows any evidence of it, nor any interest in academics. However, as fate will have it, one students manages to steal copies of the decathlon exam and brings them to the team meeting. In most movies, this is the scene in which the teacher provides the students with a proper role model. Not here. Plecki asks if the students want to cheat -- and they jump at the chance, with one demurral from a Russian immigrant girl who can't be expected to have properly absorbed American ethics yet. Plecki convinces her that, after all, everybody cheats. Life in unfair. Those *********s at Whitney Young High are all spoiled rich kids and the school has a huge budget, and so on. She demonstrates her quick intelligence and her latent Americanism by readily agreeing to cheat. They win the state academic decathlon. But this brings expectable problems, as it did in "Stand and Deliver." How come these lunkheads from the inner city suddenly are able to defeat the Whitney Young team, winners for the past nine years in a row? In fact, Plecki watches "Stand and Deliver" on TV in order to figure out how to get out of the hot water he and his students have gotten into! (Let's see -- if you see this movie, then you're watching art imitating life imitating art imitating life. The old "serial universe" problem.) The student who originally brought the purloined test to the teacher's attention had been excluded from the decathlon team and, understandably petulant, squeals on the others. This only adds to the bureaucratic and media turmoil surrounding Plecki and his band of unlikely Mirmidons. The media people are self parodies: "Is it true that Dr. Plecki was recruiting cult members?" So are the self-righteous bureaucrats: "I can't comment on that aspect of the investigation." There are interesting issues. Simple questions arise. Are you justified in cheating simply because you feel the playing field is tilted against you? Does the end justify the means? That sort of thing, for which Gordon Gekko would have equally simple answers. The film-makers come up with the same answers. It's on the side of the cheaters all the way. It's better to be realistic than idealistic -- an A average gets you into a better school. It opens doors in a way that a D average doesn't. You can do things in one of two ways: the proper way and the smart way, and the smart way is quicker and more effective. The kids survive the ordeal but have developed a nurturant bond with one another. One or two go on to college, the rest to working-class jobs. (Why working-class jobs, with those high SATs? Presumably they don't mind winning, it's just learning that they abhor. Why should I have to know the names of all fourteen planets?) Well, the way the film sums up the story at the end is kind of a problem because, after all, education is what you make it. We could skip the whole tiresome business of GPAs and SATs and academic decathlons easily by just awarding everyone a BA from the University of Chicago at birth. As one student interviewee puts it, what's the point of knowing about stuff like polynomials? Why should we have to know what "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here" means? There's another, more serious problem, one which involves not ethics but science. There is no evidence that attending a school with a higher budget, that pays teachers a better salary, that has more equipment or smaller class sizes, improves a student's grades. The primary determinant of academic performance seems to be values inspired within the family. If you grow up in a home that has a copy of Dante's "Inferno" on the shelf, you'll probably do better in school than if you grow up in a home in which Mommy and Daddy sit around on the couch, scratching themselves, drinking Budweiser, and guffawing at "World's Most Violent TV Videos." I judge this movie as above average not because of the intentions of the writer-director, but despite them. Don't be like the students here and grab for the easy interpretation the film itself offers you, but instead think about what you've just seen. It's harder work, but worth the effort.

You won't feel cheated

[rob-236 · 7/10 · 13 February 2002]

Wonderful unknown gem of a movie based on true life events. `Cheaters' is about a likeable school teacher, Dr. Plecki, who takes a school representative team into regional academic championships each year – and his team always finishes last. Sick of being a laughing stock with the other teachers he bends to the temptation to cheat when a pupil stumbles upon the actual question paper weeks before the event. Both teacher and pupils swear to keep the plan to themselves and cheat their way to success in the championships, although thier amazing rise attracts suspicion and their vows are tested to the maximum. Jeff Daniels is superb as Plecki, while Jena Malone is surely a star in the making shining as Jolie, a usual model student who gets tempted into taking the easy option.

A Bland But Troubling Scandal Story

[sddavis63 · 5/10 · 25 October 2009]

As this movie came to an end I found myself troubled by it. The movie itself was OK - but really no better than that - and the incident upon which it's based is an interesting one from a number of perspectives. It's the story of how the Academic Decathlon Team of Steinmetz High School in Chicago cheated to win the Illinois State Championship, with the knowledge, encouragement and active participation of their teacher and coach, played by Jeff Daniels. It's a classic "ends justifying the means" kind of story. Everyone involved seemed to portray both the cheating and the cover-up as a noble act, necessitated by their belief that the competition was biased in favour of the perennial champs. Steinmetz was a racially diverse, financially challenged inner city school; their rivals a privileged "white bread" sort of school. To everyone involved in the scam this apparently justified the dishonesty.

That's what I found troubling here. There was never a moment of contrition; never a point when anyone directly involved said simply "this was wrong." Even the kid who finally blew the whistle did so only out of jealousy - because he wasn't getting to share in the limelight of winning. In the end, everyone involved (teacher and students) seemed to do just fine with few serious consequences (the teacher lost his job but ended up opening his own business while most of the students seem to have successfully gone on to university, their experience with the scam becoming an apparently valuable piece of life experience) which perhaps explains one of the closing captions: 80% of high school students admitted to cheating, while 50% thought cheating was OK. I wonder what that portends for the future? Then at the end we're told that one of the School Board officials who condemned cheating was sent to jail later the same year for tax evasion. The apparent message: everyone does it in their own way.

Frankly, it's not a great movie, but it is a troubling one. 5/10