Just this year I stumbled upon the movie "SLC Punk," a quirky cult classic about two young punk rockers living in the Mormon stronghold of Salt Lake City. It follows two college grads, Bob and Steve-o through their adventure trying to rail against the man and everything he stands for in a town that doesn't really tolerate that sort of thing. It has a great soundtrack, crazy costume work (complete with Reagan Nazi t-shirts and knee high doc martens) as well as a resonating message at the end. That you don't have to dress or act a certain way to be a non-conformer.
In fact, dressing like how you think one should is conformist in and of itself. The movie is, by most parameters, not very good. The acting is at times solid but it's overdone, overacted in many cases and slows down at the wrong times in the plot. That being said, people love it because it is original, quirky and funny. It follows the same success story that movies like "Zoolander" and "Super Troopers" follow, although to a lesser extent. The movie does poorly upon release but becomes loved later on. The magic of movies like that is that it all happens naturally, the humor is real and nothing feels forced. Fast forward 17 years and we have the sequel that no one asked for, "SLC Punk 2: Punk's dead."
The sequel centers around Bob's son, who is nothing like his punk rocker father, trying to find himself with two of his best friends, both punks with pink hair and mohawks, one played by rapper Machine Gun Kelly. Some of the original cast, like Bob and Trish are back, but noticeably absent are Steve-O (who plays Shaggy in the live action "Scooby-Doo" films) and Mike who was played by Jason Segel. The movie looks like a cheap reboot with none of the originality or wonder that the original had.
No one was really dying for a sequel 17 years after the original but the director got the funding and made the film regardless. In a day when the majority of films being released are reboots or sequels, it seems to be a re-enforcement of the idea that there isn't much originality left in Hollywood. Of course this is a generalization as stellar films come out year after year, but a lot of what we see in theaters is just lifeless repetition.
I can't be upset at the director for making a sequel, as I am sure the film will make some money and I am sure he's been waiting to make it for awhile. That being said, I do think that cheap sequels such as this take away from the original. As I've mentioned, the best part about movies like "SLC Punk" are that they are goofy, strange and were created without any pretension. our love for those films is because of their uniqueness and the organic way they came about. I know I shouldn't bash the sequel until I've seen it, but it sure does seem like it will be a letdown. remember how good "Zoolander Two" was? Me neither. I'm no film critic but I know a cult classic from a bust.
