I saw this movie after hearing very positive things about it and with generally good expectations. And those expectations would seem to be the same if I looked at the IMDb reviews.
However, soon enough into the movie I remembered that not all indie movies with quirky premises are works of genius. The whole film felt like the writer/director saw "Trainspotting" and took the wrong things from it.
One element in particular that gave this feeling is the use of narration. With movies like Goodfellas, Fight Club, City of God, and of course, Trainspotting among my favorites, I am certainly not opposed to movies told in the first person. But James Merendino seems to think narration is a valid substitute for characterization and plot development. Most of the narration says things about the characters and events that either would be more interesting shown in the film rather than simply told, or has already been shown in the film, and is thus being redundant. Very rarely does the narration actually do something to add to the story. I don't know about the other reviewers, but I found it pretty clear from the beginning that "being an anarchist in Salt Lake isn't easy", before Stevo told us several times, and by the time he tells us flat-out that Mike is "hardcore" despite his outwardly preppy appearance, Mike has already *well* established that in a certain fight scene.
I also felt the film squandered a lot of potential. In one of the first shots, where the camera zooms in on targets made from Reagan portraits, I became excited about a thought-provoking and unique critique on such an oppressively conservative atmosphere as Reagan-era America against the backdrop of already religious and conservative Salt Lake City. Instead, the characters' rants seem to go little beyond yelling the F-word and telling the audience what anarchy means(not what it means to them, just the dictionary definition of anarchy) for the umpteenth time. The closest the movie comes to an actually intelligent argument for punk/anarchy is Stevo's rant at his parents, and even then it rambles and becomes little more than saying things very eloquently. In fact, all the script ever seems to do to try to depict punks as anything beyond the stereotype is embellish their dialog with the same kind of faux-eloquence that Bill and Ted enjoyed using so much. I was disappointed how despite how much there is to argue against the system, especially in Reagan-era *anywhere*, no one really discusses why they choose anarchy or what's wrong with the government/system. Everyone seems to be content with a blind, almost dogmatic belief in anarchy.
This isn't to say that I completely hated the movie, however. There were certainly parts that I thought were funny and well-done. I loved the scenes with Sean, the character of Mark and the scene that highlighted him, and the trip to the liquor store, among other scenes. When the movie hit the mark in scenes like these, it was hilarious and original.
I thought it was overall decent film-making, as far as camera and editing technique goes. However, I thought it sometimes tried to pass style off as substance; a prime example being the overtly complicated digression about "The Fight", that despite using an interesting, if not inventive, montage of images and clips in conjunction with a mock-lecture from the narrator, ultimately says and means nothing, and is not only content with that, but fully aware of it.
Overall, I was pretty disappointed with SLC Punk!. I thought there was decent film-making throughout and some good parts here and there, but this was ruined whenever the the narration came in or Stevo broke the fourth wall. The characters were rarely more than ideas or stereotypes, and never seemed to stand for anything more than "F**k the system", without figuring out or explaining why. Why this seems to be a must-see for punks everywhere is beyond me; if anything it simply dumbs them down and dissolves any real purpose behind being a punk, and is fully aware of this.
However, soon enough into the movie I remembered that not all indie movies with quirky premises are works of genius. The whole film felt like the writer/director saw "Trainspotting" and took the wrong things from it.
One element in particular that gave this feeling is the use of narration. With movies like Goodfellas, Fight Club, City of God, and of course, Trainspotting among my favorites, I am certainly not opposed to movies told in the first person. But James Merendino seems to think narration is a valid substitute for characterization and plot development. Most of the narration says things about the characters and events that either would be more interesting shown in the film rather than simply told, or has already been shown in the film, and is thus being redundant. Very rarely does the narration actually do something to add to the story. I don't know about the other reviewers, but I found it pretty clear from the beginning that "being an anarchist in Salt Lake isn't easy", before Stevo told us several times, and by the time he tells us flat-out that Mike is "hardcore" despite his outwardly preppy appearance, Mike has already *well* established that in a certain fight scene.
I also felt the film squandered a lot of potential. In one of the first shots, where the camera zooms in on targets made from Reagan portraits, I became excited about a thought-provoking and unique critique on such an oppressively conservative atmosphere as Reagan-era America against the backdrop of already religious and conservative Salt Lake City. Instead, the characters' rants seem to go little beyond yelling the F-word and telling the audience what anarchy means(not what it means to them, just the dictionary definition of anarchy) for the umpteenth time. The closest the movie comes to an actually intelligent argument for punk/anarchy is Stevo's rant at his parents, and even then it rambles and becomes little more than saying things very eloquently. In fact, all the script ever seems to do to try to depict punks as anything beyond the stereotype is embellish their dialog with the same kind of faux-eloquence that Bill and Ted enjoyed using so much. I was disappointed how despite how much there is to argue against the system, especially in Reagan-era *anywhere*, no one really discusses why they choose anarchy or what's wrong with the government/system. Everyone seems to be content with a blind, almost dogmatic belief in anarchy.
This isn't to say that I completely hated the movie, however. There were certainly parts that I thought were funny and well-done. I loved the scenes with Sean, the character of Mark and the scene that highlighted him, and the trip to the liquor store, among other scenes. When the movie hit the mark in scenes like these, it was hilarious and original.
I thought it was overall decent film-making, as far as camera and editing technique goes. However, I thought it sometimes tried to pass style off as substance; a prime example being the overtly complicated digression about "The Fight", that despite using an interesting, if not inventive, montage of images and clips in conjunction with a mock-lecture from the narrator, ultimately says and means nothing, and is not only content with that, but fully aware of it.
Overall, I was pretty disappointed with SLC Punk!. I thought there was decent film-making throughout and some good parts here and there, but this was ruined whenever the the narration came in or Stevo broke the fourth wall. The characters were rarely more than ideas or stereotypes, and never seemed to stand for anything more than "F**k the system", without figuring out or explaining why. Why this seems to be a must-see for punks everywhere is beyond me; if anything it simply dumbs them down and dissolves any real purpose behind being a punk, and is fully aware of this.