VALUTAZIONE IMDb
4,6/10
1312
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA young punk's odyssey.A young punk's odyssey.A young punk's odyssey.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Colson Baker
- Crash
- (as Colson 'MGK' Baker)
Michael A. Goorjian
- Bob
- (as Michael Goorjian)
Recensioni in evidenza
First off let me start by saying that this holds no candle to the first one. This film is probably the worst film I have seen this year. I don't know which was more terrible, the soundtrack, the bad acting or the terrible costumes. The wigs alone looked old and cheap. This is NOT a punk movie. The acting is so bad, just as bad as Michael Goorjian's fake mohawk (which you can clearly see the line of across his forehead. BTW Bob's mohawk was never that long in the original movie, something they must have overlooked, but die hard fans of the first would never overlook. Bob did not even sound like Bob anymore. His voice was not edgy as the Bob in the original. Big fail on Michael's part. They call that a punk soundtrack? Really? It sounded like mainstream bullsht to me. When did 'punk' become mainstream? There are so many fails in this movie that I could go on for hours about, but I won't.
In my opinion, this movie should have never been made. It was horrible! The plot was horrible, the wigs were horrible, Bob was horrible, and it was a cheese fest. Avoid this movie! It is a waste of time, money, and I cannot believe they did this to what could have been something really good. I would give it zero stars if I could. Everyone in this film looked and acted like posers! No Steve-o, no film. BIG FAIL!
In my opinion, this movie should have never been made. It was horrible! The plot was horrible, the wigs were horrible, Bob was horrible, and it was a cheese fest. Avoid this movie! It is a waste of time, money, and I cannot believe they did this to what could have been something really good. I would give it zero stars if I could. Everyone in this film looked and acted like posers! No Steve-o, no film. BIG FAIL!
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 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!
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 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.
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.
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.
This is what happens when you try to recapture lightning in a bottle while standing in a half-full kiddy pool.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDevon Sawa was paid $100 in Subway gift cards for his role as Sean in this movie.
- BlooperWhen "John The Mod," now "Johnny Jekyll," seems to make a faux pas by mentioning death metal, it may be an intentional attempt at a joke. He never refers to himself as being Black Metal or Death Metal during the duration of the film, nor does he ever state he's an extremist. He's only described as "Norwegian Black Metal" by other characters.
- ConnessioniFollows Fuori di cresta (1998)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Punk's Dead: SLC Punk 2?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- SLC Punk 2
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Salt Lake City, Utah, Stati Uniti(Concert Scene)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 15min(75 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.39:1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti