Genres

Visitors Review

Keshia 2012-05-25 08:53:10

Kristen and Dakota

What a film. Kristen Stewart did not disappoint. One of the best roles she has ever done. Dakota, Dakota, Dakota, she is not that young girl from War of the Worlds anymore. She stepped out of the box. Playing Cherie Currie was not something that I would expect her to do, but I have to give it to her. Both of them actually. I was entertained and I loved it.

FilmMan74 2012-05-24 18:26:06

It really is a Cherry Bomb!

In a good way of course.After seeing this movie I asked why this film didn't get a theatricalrelease. Upon thinking of it, I realized that this movie would freakout parents across the nation, just like some of the various rock androll acts of the 1970's.What makes this film good is the repelling and compelling aspect of thefact that Fanning and Stewart are both under age in this film whichdoesn't show any explicitness, but certainly hints at it. Fanning rulesthe school in this film, and Stewart finally gives off a performancethat doesn't make me want to vomit. After all these actresses are thesame age as the original members of the band when they did what theydid.The only flaw this film has is it feels a little too much like adramatized "Behind the Music" with the usual stages. Band getstogether, band struggles, band becomes successful, members get caughtup in fame and fortune, band breaks up, and the quick resolution at theend.However the first three quarters of the film is brilliant. Certainly amust see if you're interested in 1970's music.

2012-05-17 13:39:40

Vulgarity and Obscenity Rule

What on earth are Kristen Stewart and once-baby-face Dakota Fanning soiling themselves like whores in this movie? Is this what sick Hollywood producers do to actresses these days? Oh yes, maybe that's what today's twisted mass consumer "market" wants to see: the degradation of the young. You're just making another movie to capture market share, thinking that there are no consequence to your actions.If you like watching girls turn really bad by swearing their mouths with endless expletives and behaving like cocaine-snorting whores, this is one classic example of the loose, evil culture that reigns in Hollywood and Gomorrah-city California. Guess the Rebellion hasn't ended in the Garden of Eden, in ancient Babylon or in the 1970s. What you'll learn in this movie: Whore, swear, sing and Get Rich! Are we supposed to pity those whoring junkies and have kids turn to them as role-models?! This is one memorable Dakota Fanning classic: I am Sam (New Line Platinum Series)

2012-05-17 02:57:10

"The Runaways", should have run longer

This review is from: The Runaways (DVD) Being a long time #1 Joan Jett fan I thought the movie was terrific.. Kristen Stewart plays Joans moody personal down to a tee.. Dakota Fanning played Cherie Currie to perfection.. There was not enough of Sandy West (probably the first female rock drummer) or Lita Ford's (the worlds greatest female guitarist) parts in the move.. In real life they had as much impact on the band as did Joan and Cherrie.. Dont forget Cherie's sister Marie and Vick Blue joined the line up for short periods when Cherrie went off the rails and Joan & Lita started thinking of breaking up the band.. My only problem was there was a lot of music and story left out but then the movie would have to have been 4 times longer.. I could have handled that.. They were the worlds first heavy female rock band barly out of school (when they went) and they nailed it.. It was a pitty the band didn't go longer but then we wouldn't have had Joan Jett and the Blackhearts.. HOW ABOUT KIRSTEN PLAYS JOAN AGAIN IN A STORY OF JOAN JETT AND THE BLACKHEARTS.. Now thats another great story again...

2012-05-13 09:12:44

Good, but a few things were avoided, missing, or downplayed

I thought the performances by the two leads were terrific. However, Lita Ford got completely snubbed in this movie. If you didn't know the band and of her legacy you'd wouldn't even remember Lita Ford being in the group after watching this movie. Also, as someone that has seen them live, this movie really down played how raunchy and wild these girls performances really were (sexual behavior, blood, etc). The music was a lot cleaner too (like it was done in a studio) than how it really was, but I guess that's to be expected in a movie trying to be successful with a wider audience. Finally, they indicated sex was going on with the girls, but at the same time, they really steered around it avoiding any specifics (probably to protect the people involved as the girls were under age). Oh, one other thing that bothered me quite a bit was at the end or the movie they say what happened to Joan Jett, Cherie Currie, and manager (went on to do so and so...). But, again they left out Lita Ford, Sandy and the bass player (who's name escapes me at the moment). That was really a huge mistake in my mind and I'm shocked they did that. A note on the extras. I listened to the whole movie with the commentary by Joan Jett and the two stars. While interesting, the girls spoke over Joan Jett all the way through discussing their performances and just random stuff (mostly just talking to talk). I really wanted to hear from Joan what really happened through out, but she hardly was given a chance to tell us. Also, they should of asked the other band members to be there as well as their thoughts and memories would have been very interesting.

calm-117-544312 2012-05-12 15:25:52

Chicks who rock

I have been a fan of The Runaways for a couple of years and was prettyintrigued by the idea of a biopic about them. I was excited to see theportrayal of young teenage girls getting thrown into the highly adultworld of hard drugs, alcohol and sex.I can honestly say that this movie didn't disappoint me. Stewart whoplays female rocker Joan Jett was a treat. She gave a good performanceas the rebellious and cool singer but I was never worried about heracting, I'd seen her in the movie Speak and knew she'd give it her all.She didn't let me down as I watched her raw and emotional performance.Dakota Fanning also was an excellent cast as Cherie Currie. She playsthe innocent girl spiraling downward into the explosive world of rock nroll superbly. Stella Maeve is also another awesome cast choice. She isgreat to watch as Sandy West and I found myself smiling every time shewas on screen. The last actor who made a profound impact on the filmwas Michael Shannon who plays eccentric band manager Kim Fowely. He isdynamite on the screen and I loved his sexist and harsh ways. Shannondug deep and became a monstrous asshole. The only thing I had difficulty liking was the haphazard progression ofthe film. I read Currie's "Neon Angel" and was expecting something alittle more cohesive from the film. I don't know if Sigismondi wasusing it as a technique to further enhance the chaos of the band but itjust annoyed me a little. As I said I like the movie. I enjoyed thegrungy and hard examination of the 70's rock and roll world. The actingus great and so is the material. I love the music, always will, andfound it faultless in the film. Fanning and Stewarts vocals are on keyas is the awesome ability if the girls to play their instruments. I recommend you watch it if you love music and enjoy a goodtrashy/grungy film about girls behaving badly. Trashy goodness.

2012-05-07 00:13:34

Good Rock & Roll Movie With Main Focus on the Characters Portraying: Kim Fowley, Joan Jett & Cherie Currie!!!!

This review is from: The Runaways (DVD) This is a good rock & roll movie, that any Joan Jett fan would probably enjoy. I love rock & roll, Joan Jett and this movie. Being a true Joan Jett fan, I'm glad her character was protrayed very well. Joan is protrayed by Kristen Stewart. Cherie Currie (protrayed by Dakota Fanning), was the real center of this movie. Both of these actresses did a great job of protraying Joan and Cherie.This movie was based on the book "Neon Angels", which is based on the memiors of Cherie Currie. That is why she is the main focus of attention in this movie.This movie is about how record producer Kim Fowley (a man, not a woman, protrayed by Michael Shannon), put together this band, with Cherie Currie being the lead singer. He really put them through a lot of stress, demanding better performances, etc. He really put a lot of pressure on Cherie Currie, which finally lead to her breakdown, her rebellion against Kim Fowley, and her leaving the band, which finally resulted in it's discontinuance.It ends with Cherie Currie listing to the radio, while doing some chores, working on a job, and she hears Joan Jett & the Blackhearts on the Radio, performing "I Love Rock & Roll".Bonus Material: Includes a "rockin'commentary with Joan Jett, Kristen Stewart , and Dakota Fanning".

glampriss 2012-05-06 09:35:22

Too much off center

First of all if you read the book you'd notice a lot was skipped over entirely.The script was lacking in many ways. A good movie pulls you in, this movie leaves you sitting there watching young girls do drugs. There is no warning to young kids that these drugs ruined lives or careers until the very end in one small sentence. Otherwise it just glamorised drug use throughout the entire movie. Dakota was very poorly cast, she was totally out of her element. She looked like a baby face skipper doll in garters. Cherie has a thin face and was very slender not cherubic... and her sister Marie looks like her, they are twins. So why put Marie in the movie and not cast someone that looks like dakota? duh... This was barely about Joan Or Cherie it was a breeze by the concept of the Runaways that ended up grinding to a halt too soon. They barely touch on the Japanese tour, they do not follow up with Cherie & Maries album or Joan fronting the Runways after Cherie left. They do not Mention Sandy (RIP)... We did not get to know the characters in a deep sense , everything was surface. The end was too quick as if they all said "ok, we are done now lets go get a latte....". Kristen did the best acting job. There was just too much out of place..too much missing and too much cut short. If you want to see glam rock decadence rent Velvet Goldmine... This was better than nothing, I love the Runaways and have for a long time but what a huge disappointment.

2012-04-29 08:19:16

This movie will stand the test of time

This review is from: The Runaways (DVD) I had to watch this movie twice. The first time around I had a hard time because it was so painful to watch the train wreck of sex, drugs and rock and roll that was these young girls lives. But in the end, its what happened and these girls grew up and are part of rock and roll history. As far as the acting I thought Kristen Stewart who plays Joan Jett did a fabulous job portraying her. I can't think of anyone else that could have pulled if off. I would like to see another film of Joan's later life, there is plenty of material and Kristen Stewart is still young enough to continue playing her. Everyone was quite good in their parts, even with the gloss over of the rest of the band, would be nice if someday when they are old ladies they could sit together and really tell it for histories sake, they were important piece in female rock history.

2012-04-28 21:27:08

Rad rock a roll film

This review is from: The Runaways (Amazon Instant Video) This movie is great! It is a well done film that is very entertaining to watch the acting is great, love both of these girls and they transform into there rolls. All in all this is a movie you don't want to miss!!

Colin George 2012-04-26 12:27:06

"The Runaways"

"The Runaways" isn't much of a film, but it has so much damn style thatit's hard not to be intermittently enthused by music video directorFloria Sigismondi's music video of a movie. Her chipper cutting andblisteringly upbeat Joan Jett/Runaways soundtrack makes, on one hand,for spontaneous and thrilling tour sequences, which on the other,emphasize how hopelessly average the narrative around them is.Sigismondi has worked with the likes of Sheryl Crow and David Bowie,and understands the symbiotic relationship between sound and image—Theproblem is that when the film rolls sans tunage, she can't quite findthe rhythm.I suppose she didn't have the best script to work with, and as she'salso credited with the adaptation of Cherie Currie's book, I'm inclinedto blame conservative manipulation of fact in her writing before herdirection. Knowing literally nothing about the Runaways as a band goingin, I couldn't care less if "That's how it happened." In truth, I foundtheir rise to superstardom in the first act of the film fortuitous tothe point of contrivance.The truth may be stranger than fiction, but watching characters I metten minutes ago immediately succeed isn't endearing, it's alienating,especially in proximity to yet another groaningly caricatural cinematicbusinessman. You've got Giovanni Ribisi in "Avatar," Jon Bernthal in"The Ghost Writer," and now Michael Shannon in "The Runaways," all inthe span of, what, four months? Hollywood, I get it. Corporate guys areweasels. Even your corporate guys. With the omission of Jeremy Piven, Ijust don't find it funny or compelling anymore. It's cheap, lazycharacter writing.But Shannon's performance in "The Runaways" is a minor gripe comparedwith its overall insubstantiality. The band biopic is nothing new, andwhile I commend Sigismondi for not watering down the sex, drugs, androck and roll to cater to the sort of PG-13 audience that would eat upanything Kristen Stewart is doing by peripheral association, her filmis still intellectually immature and fundamentally broken.For starters, Stewart as Joan Jett has every reason to be ourprotagonist except a book deal. Cherie's got a louse of a father, astrained relationship with her sister, and a burgeoning singing careercomplete with a trendy drug habit. Really, movie? The 'price of fame'angle? Give me a break. The family stuff should carry weight, anddoesn't, because the bulk of the film is bubblegum, which I'm perfectlycontent to chew. Just don't tell me it's a three-course meal."The Runaways" is overlong. Its second half, which sinks into theband's inevitable downturn of fortune, comes to a screeching halt toflesh out story bits that I didn't care about to begin with. Sing that"Cherry Bomb" song again.The problem is there's no reason to care, and entertainment value alonedoesn't cover for the obviously weak story. And if the story is weak,as I suspect it is, because it's based nearly to the T on the honest toGod truth, then with all due respect, it doesn't make for great cinemaas is. Aspiring biopic writers, here's a tip: lie a little.It's ultimately character that begets emotional gravity, not an eventitself. Pill popping, drunkard dads, and band infighting don't amountto a hill of beans unless I really care about who those people are.Sigismondi's film is strung up on the rack and pulled from both endsuntil its neither frenetic rock pic nor indie coming of age story,which is a shame, because the former is executed so well. When themusic stops, it's all too clear that as far as drama goes, "TheRunaways" is an absentee.

itszombietime 2012-04-25 19:34:57

Slow, dull, tedious film. A disappointing effort.

The story (or legend) of the Runaways is fertile ground forscreenwriters and filmmakers. It has all the requisite elements that agood, wild, invigorating drama needs -- LA in the late 70's, some ofthe sleaziest characters the music industry can conjure up, the "boyband" prototype (in this case, "girl band") taking a new tack andopening up new musical territory, disaffected and angry teen girls fromthe Valley trying to make their mark in the world, young starry-eyedteens gaining a flittering slice of fame and living the alluring rockand roll life.This film, unfortunately, follows a self-indulgent, ponderous,"explorative" path that focuses less on the invigorating pace andaction of the creative, high energy world of rock and roll in the late70s, and more (far, far more) on the feelings, conflicts, attitudes andsentiments of the principal characters. It doesn't work. In fact, itfails quite badly.It's a slow, dull, tedious film that reeks of amateur, quasi-artisticproduction tones. A character tone piece is a tricky thing to tackle asa director and/or writer. It requires astute artistic instinct andsensibility, the ability to develop and promote scene and setting asprincipal (and interesting) elements that guide the film, mainly thecharacters, through the expository journey.This production failed, and what we get are a bunch of miscast youngactors forced to overact and drag out both passive and active dramaticelements, ad nauseum. Again, it's tedious and amateurish, and itcompletely misses the artistic mark, which is to convey the look, feel,excitement and angst of the music industry in that era.I couldn't wait for the film to finally, mercifully end.

2012-04-25 05:18:01

The Runaways Weren't A Good Enough Band to Justify an Entire Movie Dedicated to Them

Yes, they WERE all girls. And KISS wore make-up. Don't try to rewrite history; The Runaways are a throwaway band. Now people know who they are because there is a movie about them starring perpetually-eleven-years-old Hanna Dakota and perpetually stoned Kristin Stewart. But do you know who they are because of their many, many great songs? NO, you don't! Because The Runaways didn't created any classic songs or albums. "Cherry Bomb", their pseudo-hit hardly charted and was stillborn crap compared to the stuff Zep, Steely Dan, Yes, Sabbath and Purple were putting out. And albums? Trust me, these bargain-bin discount albums aren't getting entered into the pantheon of great rock albums alongside "IV", "Aja" or "Paranoid" anytime soon.I'd much rather watch a movie about Kansas, Blue Oyster Cult, or Edgar Winter. No, none of these bands are among the rock 'n roll superelite, but at least they were good on their own terms. Edgar Winter was better looking then these chicks anyways.

JimBeam49 2012-04-24 12:39:44

Entertaining, but overall disappointing.

Let me start by saying that I was in my early 20's when the Runawaysfirst came on the music scene back in the mid 70's. I've enjoyed theirmusic all these years and as a fan have always wanted to know theirstory. There are two movies about the Runaways, this movie "TheRunaways" and a documentary called "Edgeplay - A Film About TheRunaways" from 2004. Unfortunately, neither film was made with thesupport and cooperation of all of the band members. This film wasproduced by Joan Jett and is focused on her and Cheri Curry. Lita Fordand Jackie Fox didn't get on board, so in my opinion a huge part of thestory isn't being told. The bio Edgeplay has the same type problem,Joan Jett didn't get on board with that project, so again, a huge partof the story is missing. The bottom line for me then is this, was themoving entertaining and worth watching. I'd say yes with somereservations. First of all this isn't a documentary by any means. Amovie based on true events maybe? Well, based on Joan Jetts and CheriCurries rendition of events that they chose to portray. I believeJoan's ego got squarely in the way of how things really were back then.Perhaps why all the members didn't participate? Also, I wasn't reallyimpressed with Dakota Fanning's performance. I couldn't quite buy intoher character portrayal. I just kept seeing Dakota, not Cherie and thiswas quite distracting. Maybe someday, someone will make the trulydefinitive biography of the band with all the legal squabbles leftbehind, but I doubt it. So watch both films, and you'll be getting thebest representation possible of what the Runaways were and went throughall those years ago. One thing is for sure, the music was great backthen and still is today.

2012-04-22 21:23:57

Good movie, but what about Lita Ford?!?

This was a good movie, but the cover of the DVD says it all: this is a movie about Joan Jett and Cherie Currie. There is one scene that I can remember featuring Lita Ford, where she gets fed up with Cherie Currie's lack of commitment to the band and tells her off in the studio. Even the ending of the movie, where they have text on the screen saying what happened to the band members, only mentions Joan Jett, Cherie Currie, and producer Kim Fowley; which is strange, because Lita and Joan both went on to have big solo careers. It is almost like Lita Ford was purposely written out of the movie, which makes no sense because she was an accomplished guitarist and her and Joan held the band together for years despite Currie's personal issues. And when Joan had to take over playing bass for a while, it was all Lita on guitars. Most people today probably haven't even heard of the other members of The Runaways besides Lita Ford and Joan Jett. The only thing I can figure is that Lita was not as dysfunctional as some of the other members of the band, and thus her life was not as colorful from a Hollywood perspective. Too bad. She was a very important, but unappreciated, member of this legendary band.

Polaris_DiB 2012-04-22 11:14:42

The popularized aesthetic of the middle finger

Initially, this movie seems like the type of joke people paste onmessage boards called "What's the worst idea for a movie ever?" "Howabout a movie about The Runaways featuring the chick from Twilight asJoan Jett and that one little girl from How the Grinch Stole Christmasas Cherie Currie?" Hahahaha--oh.However, let's consider a few things first. One, I hear down thegrapevine that Kristen Stewart takes Twilight about as seriously as theguys who made Vampires Suck. However, it's a job that provides herexposure and money. Secondly, with Hound Dog, Dakota Fanning prettymuch announced that she intends to be a serious actor and not nextyear's forgotten childhood star television special. This movie makes abad marketing decision by playing out of typecast, but the stars make agood marketing decision by playing out of typecast. This makes therelative success or lack thereof of this movie at least somewhatinteresting. Here is an opportunity for these two actresses to breakout of type.But back to step one. We're talking about a movie about The Runaways.People who want to see movies about The Runaways want punks, rebellion,and disestablishment. However, this is obviously a commercial film.Those who want to see a nice movie featuring the innocent Bella Swan orcute-as-button blond girl from yesterday don't want punks, rebellion,and disestablishment. So the movie is kind of set up for failure beforeit even starts.Okay, so, that said.... how is it? To be perfectly honest, it's prettycharming. Stewart and Fanning get to strut, lurch, scowl, and slouchtheir way through that world of popular youth angst that, ironic asthose subcultures really are, at least are refreshingly angry andpassionate in light of that new form of commercialized teen depression,emo. It features sex, drugs, and rock and roll without editing orshying away from any of those three concepts (especially incredibleconsidering the leads' ages). And the movie is a straight-up old schoolunderdog story that gives every fourteen year old sneaking into a clubhope that they'll get discovered by a record producer just because ofthe devil-may-care 'tude on their faces and tee-shirts. It iseverything romantic about the rocker aesthetic, where even the negativethings such as drug abuse and band conflict is part and parcel ofMusician's American Dream.Thing being, of course, that it's no Almost Famous. This is allfamiliar territory, the rise to fame, the fall from grace, psychedelicbreakdowns leading into junky rock soundtracks as the hospital scenesstart stacking up and the stars stop having so much fun scene to scene.What it does have is a lipsticked Michael Shannon having fun asproducer Kim Fowley, Fanning in Lolita chic, girls helping girls figureout how to get off, and yes, cinematography with wide angle lenses,hand-held moments, slow motion, saturated colors, club lights reflectedoff rain on taxi windows, everything set to rhythmic rumblings ofelectric guitar--you know, rock and roll. Yeah alright: underneath allthe streaking eyeliner and angry expressions is something arguablyquite vapid; but then again, that's kinda what rock and roll is, fulldedication to acting out and getting fame and admiration for it.It is, in the end, a well-produced and delivered form of the genre, andaudiences' enjoyment of it will probably be directly correlated totheir interest in the concept. For me, more than anything, I saw itpurely out of curiosity to see where Fanning and Stewart are going.From what I saw, somewhere good, even if it is set up fortoo-cool-for-their-own-old-school hipsters to hate it on principle.--PolarisDiB

samkay1 2012-04-21 02:12:49

Not too bad, but needs much more

"When you stop to let 'em know you got it down...it's just another townalong the road" --Jackson BrowneThe sole intention of The Runaways (as a film) is to get inside theheads of the five girls who rocked the world in 1975. The film comesclose to, and sometimes does hit the mark, but its general sense ofdrama is inconsistent. A large portion of the Runaways is too choppy,and many scenes feel like they are several minutes too short. I have afeeling that plenty of good material got lost in the editing room.I'm a little dubious about Kristen Stewart's future career as anactress. Though definitely more admireable than Twilight, herperformance is torpid, and doesn't earn my sympathy. Dakota Fanning, ismuch better, perhaps because the camera is on her more, but she does amuch better job of acting with her face.Their ability to portray rock stars on stage is impressive, but themusic numbers are too brief. The Runaways left me a little frustrated,but it's still a film worth checking out, just take a moment before yougo see it and ask yourself, what do you expect from it. (If it's actual music you want maybe the Runaways isn't the film foryou)

2012-04-20 14:14:45

True to Form

This review is from: The Runaways (DVD) The Runaways sticks to the events as described in Neon Angel by Currie. Sadly, this means that the movie pays close attention to Currie's story and there's simply a gloss over of the other band members (it would have been nice to know more about Joan Jett, for instance, played superbly by Kristen Stewart). The music is fantastic though and the subtle undertones make The Runaways an unforgettable film that i wouldn't hesitate to recommend!

2012-04-17 09:50:20

Meet the first girls of rock

You can tell from the opening shot of a drop of menstrual blood hitting the seedy LA Sidewalk between the platform shoes of a 14-year-old Cheri Currie that director Floria Sigismondi has a very strong vision about women, about rock and roll and about the band of teenage girls who combined the two to break through the glass ceiling of music during the early 70s. [...]

2012-04-17 02:33:38

Amazing and worth your money

This movie was very raw, very real and my only complaint is that it was not long enough. Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning are amazing as Joan and Cherrie. Kim F is absolutely funny and entertaining. The story could have gone on and on but i guess they had to cut some scenes. Its worth your money.