Punk's Dead: SLC Punk 2

source: Punk's Dead: SLC Punk 2

What seems obvious to me is that this movie was definitely written with the return of the Matthew Lillard "Stevo" character in mind. All the secondary characters from the first movie who returned for this one claim an uncle-type relationship with Ross, the son of Bob, who is the main character in this movie. But none of those guys had particularly close relationships with Bob, or Trish, the mother, in the first movie. The only character who did was Stevo. So yeah, the subtext here is, the movie was written for Lillard but he decided not to do it. My guess is, Lillard wouldn't do it because he read the script, which is...unreliable. I enjoyed the random elements of the first movie. For example, when the character Mark (played by a young Til Schweiger - later Hugo Stiglitz), the independently wealthy European drug dealer, left town and never came back, even though he was one of the more well-developed and interesting characters. I loved that. People actually do sometimes leave town and never come back. James Merendino just gave Mark up to the void. He could have kept him around for the whole movie and thereby kept the door open on all kinds of interesting antics, but he had a real story to tell and Mark's part was over. I like it when a writer's not afraid to leave a good character behind for the sake of the story. No such artistry here. The only character who really gets left behind is Lillith, Ross's first love, who was not developed at all. So when she ended up making out with some other guy in some dark corner of a bar and obviously breaking Ross's little heart, I for one felt nothing, even though this was supposed to be the seminal moment in the movie that sent Ross off on an entirely new path in life. By the way, it's pretty obvious that at some point in his real life, Merendino had a girlfriend and caught her making out with another guy, because the same scene happened to Stevo in the first movie. Does this happen that often in reality? Also missing from this movie was any kind of counterpoint to the youthful rebellion that is punk. Christopher McDonald as Stevo's father in the first movie was a vital (not to mention hilarious) representation of the kind of vapid, money-motivated society that punk kids want no part of. But what are the kids rebelling against here? There's one nonsensical scene in which the female lead Penny runs into her father at a gas station and he slugs her in the nose for drinking and carousing. But how the hell did that happen? They were taking back roads all over Utah and they just happened to pull up at a gas station where her redneck father was getting gas? Very contrived. There were a lot of parts of this movie that were obviously contrived, which is, again, disappointing. Still, I enjoyed the movie for nostalgia's sake. It was good to see Bob narrating from the afterlife. Unfortunately it kept reminding me that the first movie contained some real substance. I actually cried when Bob died in the first one. Overall, I'd recommend it for people who loved the first SLC Punk. I can't imagine, though, the boredom that would probably be felt by someone viewing this movie as a stand-alone comedy-drama, with no frame of reference from the original. It really isn't even in the same category. The original SLC Punk was a very insightful commentary on the conflict between youthful idealism and the reality of transitioning to adulthood. This movie? Just a road trip to nowhere. I'm giving it 5 stars. I don't want to encourage or discourage anyone about seeing it. Those who saw the first one won't need any encouragement, and those who didn't should probably stay away.

The first SLC Punk answered some questions that people might (or might not have) asked. About the 80's midwest HxC Scene, what was going through these suburban white kid's heads. It did the scene some justice, and while not quite breaking untread ground, it was fun enough. This one came out of left field. Didnt answer any questions. And while SLC Punk might have been a passion project, I don't really know what this was, or who really wanted it. I will say, I loved the scenes with Shawn and Matt the Mod, and even Crash when Bob's son wasnt on the screen. Overall, not too bad... Would I recommend it:? No. There's far, far better. Like Penelope Spheeris' Suburbia.

I don't know what happened to the writer/director between this and the original, maybe just age? Either way after having watched both back to back it is insane that they came from the same mind. The first is both poignant and satirical, dripping with irony and original takes. The sequel is, bar some interesting ideas thrown in but never realised, simply a celebration of Punk and escapism. It lacks almost everything that made the original great. Even in the first 5 minutes you can tell the difference. Everything in the sequel is glamorised, there are touches of struggle, but mostly it's something to aspire to. The original starts off showing how crappy the lifestyle is and how false a lot of the philosophy is. There is a real sense of hopelessness and anarchy, whereas this film is basically saying "yay, it's cool to be yourself!" Overall there are things to like here and it works for a 12 year old to watch and want to emulate, but somehow the original is much more advanced despite being over 20 years old. It makes no sense, maybe it is supposed to be ironic. The original message seemed to be that everyone sells out in the end, and this could act as a meta proof of that, if so it is genius!

I was really really bummed.. This movie was Terrible which emphasis on the capital T. I loved the first one and always will and respect Mr. Merendinos efforts to try and create another punk inspired movie with a uniqueness all its own. But this was a huge, HUGE fail. Probably my least favorite moment was the use of the word "fag" which I have zero tolerance for and in this day and age should never be used in a script. You couldn't find a better pejorative, Mr. Merendino? Moving on..The acting was mediocre at it's best. Sarah Clarke brought nothing new to the character of Trish. Her acting was bland, boring and could barely keep my attention. There was none of the quirkiness that I came to love with Annabeth Gish's portrayal of Trish. Jenny Jaffes character (can't remember the name and Ijust watched it) was ridiculously overdone by over dramatic acting and just plain, not believable. If acting is her career of choice she needs to rethink it. Ross was plain boring. Penny and Crash were pretty decent as far as acting goes. I give MGK props on his acting as this is, what I believe to be, his first major acting job. Bob really disappointed me. I felt his narration and acting were forced. As for Johnny Jekyll and Sean, well what can I say, they carried this movie. They were the only characters and narratives that brought even a hint of entertainment to this dull, lifeless film by bringing the nostalgia I had waited for. They were the only ones who's acting I can say was good. The worst part of this movie was the utter lack of character development and aimless plot. They could have developed Pennys character, for instance, when we see her (a little dramatically) bashing her father's car with no real explanation of motive (aside from the hit to the face) Merendino had a perfect chance to develop Pennys character but for whatever reason he chose not to. So, then, why did he even put that scene in the movie if he had no intention of expanding on it? Who knows but it's a good question to ponder. It was not just Penny though, the entire movie lacks any real character development necessary to bring this movie to life with characters that are relatable and interesting. Huge fail. And the plot? Boring and aimless with no real point. I mean, my 13 year old son could have written a better screenplay. The concert scene was drawn out and way to long. And the pivotal climax? Well that never happened. *Yawn* I could go on and on. When the credits hit, I was left scratching my head in astonishment asking myself "Did the movie really just end like that? Apparently, yes it did. Maybe he wanted to end it like that because he has plans for a trilogy? Scary thought. I'm also curious as to why he claimed there would be a couple awesome surprise cameo appearances. I suspect it was to get people excited about whom they could be. Will it be Mark? Could it be Stevos dad? Or maybe Sandy? Although Merendino made it clear Stevos (Lillard) and Mike (Segel) would not return, many fans still held onto hope that maybe they would at least make a brief cameo. So, in essence, I believe these supposed cameo appearances were just a ploy to excite fans enough to donate money to the indiegogo platform. Why, you ask? Because exploiting fans excitement was the only way they were going to get enough money to make this God awful POS. Again, I LOVE SLC Punk! I was a fan of Punks Dead page for years and kept myself updated on everything that was happening in the making of the film. Although I was skeptical I kept an open mind. I wanted so badly for this to be another cult classic. What it ended up being was another ultimate sequel fail and huge disappointment to many fans. And the fans that claim to love it? They must be delusional. Sorry. Not. Sorry.

This turned out like an extended version of a Boy Meets World episode with more content related to my actual life. And it's significantly less corny. But the character development is nothing compared to the original SLC which may have to do a lot to do with it being told in 3rd person. It's also a road trip film and if you read Chuck Klosterman's take on road trip films, this is spot on and the film isn't about the anything other than an interpersonal character growth/reflection. I think the punk aspect is mostly an aesthetic and not very necessary to to the overall story, unfortunately. A lot seemed forced to make this happen, and as a fan of SLC Punk, I appreciate the attempt.

'PUNK'S DEAD: SLC PUNK 2': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five) A sequel to the 1998 cult classic 'SLC PUNK!'; once again written and directed by James Merendino. Actors Michael A. Goorjian, Devon Sawa, James Duval and Adam Pascal all reprise their roles (from the original film); as Heroin Bob, Sean, John the Mod and Eddie. Matthew Lillard (the star of 'SLC PUNK!') did not agree to return, to his most iconic role. The film also stars Ben Schnetzer, Machine Gun Kelly, Hannah Marks and Sarah Clarke (replacing Annabeth Gish, as Trish). The film tells the story of three outsider rebels, on a road trip to a punk rock show. It's definitely nowhere near as good (or as classic) as the original. The story, this time, revolves around a 19-year-old misfit, named Ross (Schnetzer); the son of Heroine Bob (Goorjian) and Trish (Clarke). Bob died before Ross was born, but he still narrates his story; from beyond the grave. Ross just got dumped by a girl, and has decided to go on a road trip with two punk friends, Penny (Marks) and Crash (Kelly), to a punk rock show. Along the way he does drugs and alcohol, for the very first time, and his mother becomes very concerned; upon hearing about it. The movie is extremely low-budget, and amateurish looking; which is very fitting for a movie about punks, and punk rock music. I admire the message of the film, and a lot of things the filmmakers were trying to say, but I just don't think it came together right (as a whole). The jokes are not funny, and the characters all seem like bad fake stereotypes. In a way, the movie kind of becomes what it's supposed to be fighting against. I respect it's ambition, and effort though; but it definitely doesn't live up to the original. There are some good live performance in it (from the likes of Dwarfs and Screeching Weasel), and the soundtrack is pretty cool though! Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/n2qWxeZ0Tck

I was glad when it was over. I wonder why anyone would make such a listless movie. The characters each seem indulgent yet none are developed to the point where they provide any interest. The usefulness of a car ride as a sort of journey device is marginalized by the redundant and boring settings. The production value is mix and match mediocre. The narrator's bad acting is creepier than the creepiness of employing a dead narrator character. The climax of the story is not even anti climatic, but at least you know the end is near.

Slc Punk was one of the greatest films about the social commentary of the punk rock scene in the mid 80's. So when I heard this film was getting a sequel I was intrigued. It was great seeing SOME of the original cast return. Devon Sawa saved this movie. I was disappointed with the overall story of this film. It was a road trip film. Penny was behind the wheel most of the movie. The dialogue so bland I couldn't invest myself in the new characters. MGK was fine but was in the shadow of StevO, so he was fighting an up hill Battle. Ross was bland, over emotional with little explanation or character development of the relationship he was grieving over. Many returning characters were misused. At the end of the day, this film suffered from poor writing. Not really having anything groundbreaking to say unlike the first one. Very disappointing.

I found this movie on netflix today. F*ckin loved it like the first one, shown to me by my best friend, the first punk kid i've ever met. So here's why this movie is awesome to me. I was the goth/cyberpunk kid who grew up with punks. We went to shows together, we played rancid to heartbreak. We lived this movie. This was our teenage years, driving 100 miles drunk off our asses down the 101 blasting the * out of punk rock. Going to shows in LA, moshing our asses off for every single song that's played, dripped in sweat and someone else's blood. This movie was great because it reminds me of the first show I ever went to. And the next one. and the next one. Its a reminder that, no matter how old you get, you can wear a tie and work a day job, but you're still a punk no matter what. I wanna say i saw the first one close to 10 years ago. This is one of those movies I'll be buying (along with the first one), showing my kids if DVD's are still a thing, going "listen here you little sh*ts. Your uncle Adam and I lived this. This here is what love looks like. All that f*ckin energy. In short, this movie is excellent because its something anyone in the scene who's getting older can relate to. Its excellent because its originality even when its a story that has been told and experienced over and over by almost everybody, and its excellent because it makes a person remember who they are. Its excellent because it reminds you of your teenage heartbreak, the booze and moshing after, and that cute blonde you make eye contact with on the rebound of your first show. Even with the irony of the title, its a reminder that punk's not dead, because punk is where the love's at. Its one of those movies that make you remember. Thank you heroine bob.