{"id":10233,"date":"2014-03-25T23:02:32","date_gmt":"2014-03-26T05:02:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bmovienation.com\/?p=10233"},"modified":"2014-03-25T23:02:32","modified_gmt":"2014-03-26T05:02:32","slug":"the-good-the-bad-and-the-other","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.bmovienation.com\/?p=10233","title":{"rendered":"The Good, the Bad, and the Other"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why does it seem next to impossible to get punk right in movies? It is not just a Hollywood thing, although it is definitely exacerbated in Hollywood films more so than in independents. However, even independent\u2014or relatively independent\u2014pictures just can\u2019t seem to capture punk in anything less than laughable terms. I recently put myself through the miserable experience of watching CBGB,<\/em> a film that captures (I use this term in the most loose context imaginable) the first few years of the club\u2019s existence, and some of the legendary acts that were discovered within its walls. The film can be seen as a textbook of every mistake you could possibly make in attempting to produce a film about punk rock. Watching the film made me think about the entire subgenre of punk films, which is littered with some of the most classic pieces of cult cinema you can imagine and alongside some of the most clich\u00e9d nonsense captured on film. So here you are my short list of the best and worst punk films (purposely avoiding documentaries, which should warrant an entire article on their own).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE BAD<\/h2>\n

CBGB<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Despite wishing that CBGB <\/em>wasthe brainchild of a clueless studio executive, I am fairly certain this was probably a Randall Miller passion project. If you are familiar with Miller, and you probably aren\u2019t, he is the man who brought you classic films like The Sixth Man <\/em>and Houseguest <\/em>starring Sinbad; so why wouldn\u2019t he be the one to make a film about punk, right? What is exactly so bad about the film? Simple. It lacks a coherent plot and believable\/enthusiastic actors, it is loosely held together with an arbitrary comic book theme, and the script is unbearable. Featuring lines like: \u201cI bet they stink\u201d, \u201cHey man, you\u2019re gunna wanna crank it\u201d [said with absolutely no conviction], and my personal favorite, \u201cWhat part of Cleveland are you from? Cleveland, Germany\u201d [asked of the Dead Boys in response to their bafflement over the existence of bagels], it is amazing that any actor made it through their lines without laughing. Choice moments the film offers include: a great scene where the sound guy, \u2018Taxi\u2019, (in order to avoid stepping in dog shit and having fleas biting his ankles) buys a pair of combat boots (an act that the film portrays as some kind of scene of enlightenment); the Ramones playing \u201cI Wanna Live\u201d (a song they released in 1987) during their CBGB tryouts (which would have taken place sometime in 1974); numerous shots of stickers from contemporary bands (easily avoidable); and some of the worst pantomime instrument playing you\u2019ll ever see (my favorite being Evan Alex Cole\u2019s, who played Richard Hell, expressive bass fills). It is worth noting that the film did struggle with licensing issues, and this is why the Ramones are unable to play songs that were historically accurate. While this addresses why this may have occurred, it is far from justifying the choice. To be fair, there are a few things that the movie did well. Alan Rickman does a fine job with a horrendous script, and what seems like a director with a complete disregard for actor direction. The film leaves me torn. Should I recommend it and progress the immortal shaming the director will receive or just warn people to stay as far away as possible. I\u2019m leaning towards the latter.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sid and Nancy<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Alex Cox\u2019s Sid and Nancy <\/em>is a remarkably different kind of film than his masterpiece Repo Man<\/em>. Broken down, Sid and Nancy <\/em>is essentially a 112-minute depiction of the heroin-induced deterioration of the two titular characters. The film is painful in numerous ways. The painful portrayal of drug use often becomes both the source of praise and disgust. The supporters see the film as a tragic story of two lovers battling an awful addiction; the critics see only a glorification of heroin loosely disguised as a punk biopic. Unlike some of these other films, Sid and Nancy <\/em>is a film that is, however, worth watching, and in fact, the large majority of people that I know do find value in it. I can admit Gary Oldman is, like always, amazing in the role. He does his normal disappearing act into the role, despite the rather one-dimensional script he was given. Unfortunate for us, this disappearing act fails to live up to the unintentional comedic genius of his performance in Tiptoes, <\/em>leaving us with a well-performed but nevertheless empty character. <\/em>For Nancy, Chloe Webb\u2019s performance is, by all accountable means, excellent. When I say \u201call accountable means,\u201d I am only referring to her ability capture one of the most aggravating performances I have ever witnessed, in a believable form. Authenticity is the character\u2019s sole value, outweighed by what can only be described as one of the most maddening character creations in film history. To be honest, I have never been able sit through the entire movie more than once, and I am fairly certain that, played on repeat, the film could be one of the most veritable methods of torture available. Nancy\u2019s voice is enough to drive a person insane. While I do dislike the film, my distaste is not a result of the story, or the alleged drug glorification. My aversion rest solely on my distaste for Nancy; Webb\u2019s portrayal will incessantly haunt me.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

SLC Punk