Let me start off by saying that this film had a lot of potential. The last 20 minutes of the film was terrific! The end of the film was exciting, tense, and I really rooted for the seemingly misunderstood bunch of misfits. It's a shame, because the rest of the film they annoyed the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong, nearly every character in this film was dislikable - from the aforementioned punks to the neighbourhood folk who have it out for them. The only nice person in the film was the police officer (Don Allen). I'm not saying every film should have a pleasant character in it, but considering the ending of the film, it just made it harder to root for the main characters.
I thought this film would be about a group of punks who aren't accepted because they're different... I've been in the same situation myself when I was younger. However, the punks just go around being stealing food from people's houses, spray painting shops, degrading a women at a gig, and just generally being dicks to everyone. As I said, there were other characters in the film that were dislikable, but they were secondary characters. The punks were the main focus throughout, but the film didn't even manage to successfully create lovable anti-heroes out of them.
One of the main problems of this film is that it has that Roger Corman stink about it. Sure, it's low budget, but it had some Corman trademarks thrown in there such as: bad day-for-night shots, terrible acting, and painfully long padding scenes. Did we really need 5 full songs being performed in the film? I like all the bands featured, but it just became a chore to sit through... if I wanted to watch a live gig I'd go to a club, or check the Internet. I was surprised the infamous Corman castle didn't make an appearance! Granted, the blame can't be dumped on Corman, seeing as it was Penelope Spheeris in the director's chair. Spheeris is a hit-or-miss director: when she's in the zone, she can create a great film, but this was not one of them. Although her involvement does explain the bad acting, as she knew a lot of kids and bands in the punk scene after making a great documentary about the L.A. music scene. I can understand wanting to use unknowns in a film a film to make it feel authentic, but the acting was painfully bad! The turning point of the film is when the punks lose a friend, and it really hits them hard. They begin to realise they're not infallible. The characters started to feel human... they weren't trying to being tough, or raise hell. They just wanted to mourn a friend, something we can all relate to at some point. Because of their previous actions, and a little sprinkling of prejudice, the punks aren't wanted at the funeral. At this point, it's understandable, as they've been complete tools to everyone. When the punks make one last revolt at the end of the film, it becomes clear what's going to happen. Nevertheless, the ending hits hard. Good stuff.
I can't recommend this. If you're interested in the punk movement, there's plenty of better films you could watch. I'd start with the closest link to this film; Spheeris' previous film, The Decline of Western Civilization.
I thought this film would be about a group of punks who aren't accepted because they're different... I've been in the same situation myself when I was younger. However, the punks just go around being stealing food from people's houses, spray painting shops, degrading a women at a gig, and just generally being dicks to everyone. As I said, there were other characters in the film that were dislikable, but they were secondary characters. The punks were the main focus throughout, but the film didn't even manage to successfully create lovable anti-heroes out of them.
One of the main problems of this film is that it has that Roger Corman stink about it. Sure, it's low budget, but it had some Corman trademarks thrown in there such as: bad day-for-night shots, terrible acting, and painfully long padding scenes. Did we really need 5 full songs being performed in the film? I like all the bands featured, but it just became a chore to sit through... if I wanted to watch a live gig I'd go to a club, or check the Internet. I was surprised the infamous Corman castle didn't make an appearance! Granted, the blame can't be dumped on Corman, seeing as it was Penelope Spheeris in the director's chair. Spheeris is a hit-or-miss director: when she's in the zone, she can create a great film, but this was not one of them. Although her involvement does explain the bad acting, as she knew a lot of kids and bands in the punk scene after making a great documentary about the L.A. music scene. I can understand wanting to use unknowns in a film a film to make it feel authentic, but the acting was painfully bad! The turning point of the film is when the punks lose a friend, and it really hits them hard. They begin to realise they're not infallible. The characters started to feel human... they weren't trying to being tough, or raise hell. They just wanted to mourn a friend, something we can all relate to at some point. Because of their previous actions, and a little sprinkling of prejudice, the punks aren't wanted at the funeral. At this point, it's understandable, as they've been complete tools to everyone. When the punks make one last revolt at the end of the film, it becomes clear what's going to happen. Nevertheless, the ending hits hard. Good stuff.
I can't recommend this. If you're interested in the punk movement, there's plenty of better films you could watch. I'd start with the closest link to this film; Spheeris' previous film, The Decline of Western Civilization.