Punk's Dead: SLC Punk 2

'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

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.

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.

To be honest, this movie isn't a sequel to the first film in any relatable sense. Some characters appear with the same names as some in the first film, there is some narration that happens, a goth kid goes to a punk show, gets hammered, has a revelation while getting the hell beat out of him, and end show? SLC Punk! was a surprisingly great film. This one? Not so much. The production values weren't good, the acting was uninspired, and the direction was horrible. The original was one of those films better left on its own. It was like they were pressured to make it at gunpoint and this was the post-mortem product.

This is what happens when you try to recapture lightning in a bottle while standing in a half-full kiddy pool.

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!