Better than I expected... they really got the 70s look and atmosphere correct, and tons of period details (the horrible music store lessons, etc). Director Floria Sigismondi is an amazing visual stylist (lots of good music videos) so the movie looks great. So, good direction IMO... Acting is mostly pretty good. After reading some reviews I knew this was going to concentrate mostly on Joan Jett and Cherie Currie (and neglect the other members) which I anticipated would be a major weakness, but after watching it, I thought that aspect was fine... you have to focus on something, right? Otherwise the movie would be 6 hours long. The band origins were deemed to be the most interesting I guess (not the dismal ending). Also, the screenplay was based on the book by Cherie Currie, who left the band relatively early. The only weird thing was that the timeline got a bit blurred at the end (shows Joan working on solo material after Cherie quits, when actually the band continues on for several years before she goes solo). Minor complaint. Obviously shit gets enhanced or exaggerated for dramatic effect in a movie. Also, doesn't really touch on the aspect of the band being hated or dismissed at the time (bands like Yes and Electric Light Orchestra were huge then, and bands like the Runaways "sucked" the same way the Stooges and Ramones were dismissed). I don't know if "Cherry Bomb" even cracked the Top 100 (I don't think I heard it on the mainstream radio even once, at the time). Would have been good to show more opposition to the band. (back seat driver)
Anyway, worth a rental, along with the Jackie Blue (later bassist) documentary "Edge Play" (available on Netflix too) which focuses on different things (Joan Jett declined to participate in that one). "Edgeplay" is probably slightly better because it's more real, but I enjoyed "The Runaways" as well. They are both worth watching IMO.
I wanted to like it, but it was a big FAIL in my book. Kristen Stewart CAN NOT ACT! Good grungy look, great soundtrack though.
Edge Play was excellent.
I thought she did pretty well - came off as being surly and self-absorbed. Maybe she wasn't acting?
I saw a little bit of it and that was enough.
But I am old and curmudgeonly.
Quote from: Lumpy on February 14, 2011, 05:57:37 PM
I thought she did pretty well - came off as being surly and self-absorbed. Maybe she wasn't acting?
You just described how she acts in every single role she's ever had. She has no range at all.
The other night I saw 'welcome to the Riley's' with Stewart. I thought she did a decent job in that, and you get to check out her skimpy clad ass.
Quote from: juggernaut on April 19, 2011, 05:00:06 PM
Quote from: Lumpy on February 14, 2011, 05:57:37 PM
I thought she did pretty well - came off as being surly and self-absorbed. Maybe she wasn't acting?
You just described how she acts in every single role she's ever had. She has no range at all.
Fair enough... I think that was the only thing I've ever seen her do.
Hey I just watched "Night on Earth" last week, and Kirsten Stewart was a better actor than Winona Ryder was, when Winona was 20 (could have been the director's fault, but I doubt it).
I already knew that it must be worth watching and better than the expectations but still I didn't seen yet. I downloaded last week but didn't get time to watch but definitely will catch this week.
Watched it today. Not too bad. Not that this has anything to do with anything but L7 were a better band.
I watched a few minutes a couple weeks ago, the second time around it seemed slow and a little boring. The story of the band is pretty interesting though.
I watched it not too long ago. Not bad, entertaining, though pretty anti-climactic.
not bad
at least way better than i thought
Good movie. Almost a documentary in it's realism/set design/locations. Bought the Blu-Ray. It's a keeper.