No Escape

3 Stars (out of four)

The previews held some promise that this would be  a good thriller, and it was, but it was kind of run-of-the-mill.

So, No Escape has Owen Wilson and Lake Bell playing a mother and father with two girls moving to an unnamed Asian country (but looks a LOT like Thailand) to work for a water company.  On their way there, the country is beginning an extremely violent coup.  By the time Owen and family check into their hotel, events are already in motion.  The next morning, he goes to buy a newspaper and gets stuck literally on the middle of a violent street confrontation with police and protesters.  He manages to get back to the hotel just in time to find a mob pulling out foreigners and killing them on sight.  He quickly manages to get in the hotel, get his family, and what follows is one of the worst two days imaginable as they try to escape the country without being killed.

Now, the reviews have been savaging this film because of its extreme bloody nature, and I think this demonstrates how naïvely sheltered Americans can be.  Rarely have we experienced the kind of upheavals many countries have, and even then, they tend to be very contained.  Maybe it's the unflinching look at what being inside not just a riot, but a real revolution, is what critics don't understand.  Maybe it's because there are two endangered children in the story?  Maybe it's due to Lake Bell's attempted rape.  In any case, it is harrowingly real as to the level of brutality.  It is a little over-the-top as far as how murderous these guys get, especially with their own people, but recent history has given us such orgies of violence from the Khmer Rouge to Syria to El Salvador to Burma to pick your conflict in Africa.  But in this case, these guys appear to be everywhere and an unstoppable force, wiping out everyone wherever they go.  It struck me a tad unrealistic, but then again, I've never been in the middle of a revolution, either.

Maybe people are having such visceral reactions because they don't want to see very realistic depictions of violence in their popular entertainment.  There has always been a sanitization of real violence in American movies, and this movie, for the most part, sticks to those sanitized rules, except when violence is done to other Asians. I once read a movie review (I think for Executice Decision) that said the indications a movie is racist is when the villains are interchangeable with each other, ie Asian, black, whatever with no consideration to their motivations.  I would hold its rather the treatment of the victims is the yardstick.  We are obviously seeing this from the disoriented view of our white family.  On the other hand, the Asian victims in this film are not just meat for the grinder in increasingly horrible ways while the white family is "safe" because we Americans need a happy ending where we don't die.

The circumstances are very conventional cat-and-mouse dodging of bad guys.  There is nothing particularly original about the film other than this is a typical family thrown into a chaotic situation.  In any case, it is very exciting, albeit tough to watch at times.  For the most part, this movie was really good outside of the omnipresent killers, and a really odd plot twist with Pierce Brosnan that is a little deus ex machina.  But all in all, I really liked it.

Train Wreck

1.5 Stars (out of four)

Oh, I so wanted this to be good.  Amy Schumer's comedy can be brutally funny at times.  But, much like suppositories, this movie proved that she is only good in SHORT doses, and the longer it goes on, the more painful and humiliating it gets.  I admit, I like her a lot. Her internet shorts "Inside Amy Schumer" consistently make me laugh until I hurt.  That said, there is some stuff I don't get about her.  Now, I'm no prude, but what is up with her wine-swilling, barely functioning alcoholic persona mean?  Is she lampooning younger women today who drink way too much wine, or is she trying to be hip?  It really isn't clear sometimes.  This weird persona of hers is on full display in her movie, written with Judd Apatow, Train Wreck.

The story starts with two young girls being told by their father that monogamy is unrealistic and you should only live for yourself.  Flash forward an undetermined number of years and she is a writer for a Maxim-type men's magazine and she is essentially screwing her way through New York City.  For an assignment, she interviews a sports doctor who has revolutionized joint replacement, and works for Doctors Without Borders.  After being dumped by her boyfriend for her philandering ways, she begins to fall for this doctor, but she is so screwed in the head with misconceptions about relationships in general and men in particular, she doesn't know what she wants.  Hilarity ensues.

Now, I am not saying this movie isn't funny, because it is very funny in parts.  The stereotypical feminine relationship between her boyfriend and Lebron James is particularly hilarious, especially Lebron.  Normally, the kiss of death is to let athletes act (Brett Favre, Michael Jordan, Shaq and Mike Tyson ring a bell?  They're not funny.  You're not laughing with them, but AT them.  It's sad), but in this movie, Lebron is so earnest, it's impossible not to love his performance.  Amy herself, despite all the stupid stuff in this movie, is absolutely fearless in her eviceration of everything, including herself.  Which makes what I'm going to say next, so tragic.

You know how you broads hate it when we (men) tell blonde jokes and women-are-bad-driver jokes?  Why is that?  Because it shows an absolute idiocy in understanding women and reduces them to negative stereotypes that go for the lowest common denominator.  News flash!  All women are different.  They're not dumb, stupid, forgetful, flighty or crazy.  Now ladies, I know you don't want to hear this, but here goes: all men are not dumb, muscle-bound brutes who are totally clueless.  "But," I hear you shrilly yelling at me, "you men have been doing this for years!  What's good for the goose...etc, etc etc.."  To which I reply: this dumb stereotype has been going on in almost every female-based comedy or rom-com in the past thirty years.  Enough!  It gets old!  Get some new material!  This joke has played out a loooong time ago.  Be more clever than the knuckle-dragged so and prove us wrong.

Another thing I don't get with today's comedy is the very brutal and unimaginative takes on previous taboo subjects.  For instance, there is a scene where Amy wants her muscle-bound boyfriend to talk dirty and it gets more and more pathetic.  It ends with him getting almost gay when he compares her ass to another dude's.  I have said it time and again, anything for its own sake is gratuitous and lazy.  The same goes for crudity.  Just because you show an escalating argument where one guy keeps getting more and more graphic about how he will anally rape another guy (See?  The non-gay guy is saying more and more gay things to another guy. He must be a closeted gay!  Isn't that funny?) doesn't make it funny.  And dwelling on it after the rule of three doesn't make it any funnier.  This modern tendency to focus on the obvious and drag it to uncomfortable lengths (starting with Austin Powers and brought to new heights by the incredibly unfunny TV show, The Office) isn't funny.  Crudity for its own sake is a cheat and it's lazy. It's the same reason I hate Andrew Dice Clay's comedy.  I don't mind the occasional dick and fart joke.  In the right place, they can be quite funny.  In Train Wreck, it was the opposite.

And that's too bad because Amy is a great comic.  But in this movie she comes off as selfish, oafish, stupid, blind, arrogant and ultimately pretty unpleasant.  The cast of Seinfeld were the same way, but they had that magic sauce that Train Wreck lacked: cleverness.  Anyone can make a joke about hanging a towel off a guy's dick (as they do in this film), but that's a lazy cheat.  This movie's premise was great and could have been comedic gold, but came out mostly as sludge with moments of real brilliance in it.  And that is the final tragedy, because Amy deserved better than this.  She is crass, but incredibly witty.  In here, she's just...sad.

Straight Outta Compton

3.5 Stars (out of four)

1987 was a big year musically.  Two groups exploded on the scene that both had comparatively short life spans and yet profoundly altered their respective genres with a very nihilistic but urgent attitude, and oddly enough,with almost identical messages.  They both spoke of hellish urban life, dangerously twisted lifestyles focusing mostly on the destructive power and allure of drugs, and systemic harassment by law enforcement and authority figures.  The first was Gun 'N' Roses with the seminal metal album Appetite for Destruction.  The other was N.W.A. with their explosive debut album, Straight Outta Compton.  I once read a review that said Straight Outta Compton was hip-hop's Appetite for Destruction.  In a sense, that is a fair comparison.  Both albums immediately branded their respective groups as the most dangerous in America, both were acerbic and resonated with a real street authenticity, and both laid the groundwork for a much harder style of metal or rap, respectively.

While historical revisionists like to say hip-hop began in the 70s with groups like the Sugarhill Gang, I don't remember hearing the term until N.W.A. and their equally important contemporaries, Public Enemy came on the scene, and back then, it was called rap.  By the time N.W.A. showed up, rap had become sort of acceptable family entertainment with the likes of Young MC, The Fat Boys, Tone Loc and Dz Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince reigning the charts.  And while music historians will debate the birth of hip-hop, Gangsta Rap unquestionably started with N.W.A.

So, how is the movie?  Pretty good as far as music biopics go.  The movie starts quite stylistically, but very quickly becomes a by-the-numbers rise and fall story. In fact, this may be the best-produced and most expensive episode of VH1: Behind The Music.  That's not to say the movie isn't interesting or entertaining, because it is.  The subjects are very compelling and in the case of N.W.A. alums Dr. Dare and Ice Cube, both have had a big influence on American pop culture for decades.  This is a very important story to tell because of the very reason N.W.A. existed in the first place.  Both Public Enemy and N.W.A. spoke about issues tearing apart the black community.  But while Public Enemy seemed to focus on larger philosophical explorations of race and injustice, N.W.A. were, as Ice Cube says, reporters for what they saw every day: more personal stories of the death, destruction and hopelessness prevalent in inner-city communities that caused and still causes a very nihilistic, "live today-die tomorrow" ethic for many young people living there.  After N.W.A., these sentiments are just repeated over and over again: the ghetto sucks, life ain't nothing but bitches and money.  But N.W.A. was talking about this long before anyone else and created a new gangsta style and attitude that has been ruthlessly copied ever since.

The movie does not tread any new ground as far as themes go.  The music business is crooked and the young artist tends to get screwed in the end.  The movie makes an interesting contrast with N.W.A.'s manager Jerry Heller and Death Row Records founder Suge Knight.  They are essentially identical in all ways except their methods.  While Suge Knight is a brutal thug who robs artists of their money through intimidation and violence, Jerry Heller does the same, through shady business practices of the shady music business.  My biggest complaint is the movie relies too much on the viewer having some previous knowledge of the subject.  In the beginning especially, it glosses over the importance of characters like Alonzo Williams or of the LA hip-hop station KDAY.  They are mentioned briefly with no context to their importance for the nascent group.  The movie also deals primarily with the famous guys. Ice Cube, Easy E and Dr. Dre.  This is probably a necessity for time, but other N.W.A. alums MC Ren and DJ Yella barely warrant a mention and Arabian Prince isn't mentioned at all.  Finally, this being a biopic financed by Dr. Dre and Ice Cube, it feels they are whitewashed a bit, that they could do no wrong and that the world was out to get them.  But like their music, this movie isn't about objectivity, but rather how they saw the world.  It's not really an objective documentary, but an understandably biased autobiography.

So is the movie good? It sort of depends on your attitude going in. If you hate hip-hop and gangsta rap's attitude and don't want to try to understand where the frustration comes from, this movie will not change your mind, and may even strengthen your perconceptions.  But it has a point of view, a valid one, and one more important than ever as U.S. race relations are going through rocky times again.  If one understands where the animosity comes from, real progress can be made to address it, which makes N.W.A.'s art arguably more important now than it ever was.

Spy

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Boy, I love to be surprised, and that usually happens for me in comedies based on how mind-bogglingly stupid the state of comedy has become lately.  From the scene-chewing hammy crap of Jim Carrey that passes as slapstick, to overly-sensitive parents who don't want their darlings to hear the words boobs and butts, much less see one, to overly pansy, politically-correct liberal-types who don't understand the concept that effective humor tends to be brutal and will offend, to the lazy producers who churn out a never-ending stream of fart jokes; humor has definitely taken a hit in the last 15 years.  It's become so bad that Will Farell playing a pan flute for an extended sequence is considered funny AND repeated in the sequel.  My god, what happened to the funny?  With the occasional sublime comedy like The Hangover, Bridesmaids or Ted occasionally slip through the cracks, a good, rip-roaring adult comedy is difficult to come by lately.

And then Spy came along.

I admit, I went into this movie sorta under protest.  As much as I liked Bridesmaids and Melissa McCarthy did make me laugh in it, to me, she was not the strongest element in that film.  Most of her movies lately have appeared to be retreads of that comedy template, the fat person with no sense of self or propriety.  But as in similar cases with Dumb and Dumber, American Pie, and The Forty-Year-Old Virgin, I must apologize to the filmmakers.  This movie was FANTASTIC!

When the CIA's top spy (Jude Law) is killed on a mission, his partner at HQ, Susan Cooper (McCarthy) is activated into service to track a ruthless arms dealer (Rose Byrne, also from Bridesmaids).  Along the way, a hell-bent-for-revenge CIA operative Rick Ford (Jason Statham at his unhinged best) keeps almost blowing Cooper's cover because he feels she's not up to it.  Hilarity ensues.

Now this could have gone off the rails if they would have made Cooper to be the stereotypical bumbling fat person played for laughs.  But instead, the filmmakers go the exact opposite way and play her totally straight, which works beautifully.  Cooper is a natural talent for the work, but is a little unorthodox in her appearance, which makes the comedy juxtaposition so much fun and interesting.  They play her realistically, lacking in confidence in herself and her abilities.  This has held her back as other people push her aside because they underestimate her.  Many overweight people will understand this, that this tends to be a truism in real life.  Most people don't respect overweight people for whatever reason, and that is why overweight people are the last safe group to make fun of.  Look at any comedy.  Who is the lovable, clumsy, dorky loser?  The fat guy/gal.  Lately, Hollywood has been overcompensating for this by making fat people strong, but incredibly crude, devoid of any sense of decency or decorum.  In either case, the end result is the same, the fat people are a freak show in every sense of the word.  Don't believe me?  Look at any fat person in any comedy over the last 20 years.  They are either gross, stupid, unaware or clumsy, or a combination of all four.  But Spy turns this trope on its head, that the overweight person is quite capable and the stereotypical beautiful people don't know what to make of it.

While the F-bomb is thrown around a LOT, the movie relies mostly on the subtle for its comedy.  The jokes are sharp jabs grounded in reality, with such acidity in some cases that I felt my skin burning.  That's not to say it isn't over the top.  Jason Statham is a comically deranged version of every character he has played in the past, and he is absolutely brilliant.  Many times, he rants about how all his loved ones were killed and the horrible things that happened to him.  The funny thing is, each of these rants are basic plots to every one of his previous films.  The end result is hilarious.  Louie C.K. has been making the rounds in the last few years with his brand of the wickedly perverse wrapped up in the banal.  You feel almost guilty laughing at his jokes.  The humor comes from a VERY dark place and you don't see it coming.  Spy has that same quality for me.  This is NOT an Austin Powers-flirting-with-the-dark-side-but-still-PG-13-family-friendly-type of film.  Nor is it a Borat or Bruno-let-it-all-hang-out-type of film.  This is not for kids. Leave them home.  Don't be cheap and spring for the babysitter, or send them to that mutant hellspawn atrocity, The Lego Movie.  Spy is pure adult, guilty pleasure.  Don't question it.  Just enjoy it.

A final word to 20th Century Fox's promotions department.  Despite this movie making a boatload of money despite your best efforts to ruin it, you really need to hire some new blood.  The commercials were dull, the movie poster campaign unimaginative (see the first two below for the dull, dumb, boring posters for this campaign), and as a whole, lazy except for the third poster on the right.  THAT is a great poster for this movie, and yet I see it nowhere.  Poster design used to be great art, now it's just dull, boilerplate pictures of the cast with a tagline and a title.  The ad campaign did this movie a great disservice.  I almost missed this amazing gem based on that alone.

Ant-Man

3 Stars (out of four)

Dammit, Marvel has done it to me again.  From the Avenger you cared the least about (if you knew him at all, but was part of the original Avengers lineup), comes Ant-Man.  Like Guardians of the Galaxy last year, when Ant-Man's production was announced, I was so underwhelmed about this new entry into the Marvel cinematic universe.  And yet, like last year, they pull another rabbit out of the hat and blow away all my expectations.  With the exception of the incredibly perfect casting but pretty dumb Thor series, Marvel is batting near 1.000.  We will give Iron Man 2 and 3 a pass because the first one is so good.  Marvel is really hitting its stride and it seems to be just getting warmed up.

Paul Rudd plays Scott Lang, a self-professed cat burglar (not a thief, there is a difference) who is released from a three-year stint in prison for robbing ill-gotten profits from a nameless corporate CEO (the bad-guy du jour of today's obscenely rich Hollywood that acts like they're salt-of-the-Earth types) Robin Hood-style and redistributed the booty back to the swindled customers.  Now he is an ex-con, an electrical engineering genius who can't find a job in San Francisco, home of the high-tech industry that might have an opening for an electrical engineering genius.  Anyway, he is trying to get his life together when he is approached by Michael Douglas' Dr. Hank Pym (the original genius and Ant-Man in the comics) to destroy a formula and suit that will cause humans to shrink down to ant size (don't ask).  This will involve a complex heist to get into a highly sensitive facility and destroy it using ants.  Trust me, it makes a lot more sense in the movie than on paper.

Like Guardians of the Galaxy before this, Marvel Studios (and more specifically, original writer/screewriter/director Édgar Wright) wisely chose an adventure-comedy to lessen the blow of the unfamiliar Ant-Man to make it more approachable for people new to the material, and they succeeded brilliantly.  There is just enough humor for great entertainment and yet enough pathos to keep a story about a guy who can shrink to the size of an ant grounded in a pretty realistic universe.  You actually care about all the characters, even when they are played for laughs.  There are no cheap shots, no over-the-top bad guys like Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2, just out-and-out fun all around.  The reasons the movie rates three stars are there are some plot holes so big you could drive a truck through and it is a tad formulaic in the final confrontation/extended fight scene.  I also felt like I was watching an update to Honey, I Shrunk The Kids a little too much.  But in the end, the reasons don't detract from some good old-fashioned fun.  This is why we go to movies, grand entertainment.

Also like Thor and the first Captain America, this movie is a placeholder, setting up the pieces for next year's Captain America: Civil War.  With the introduction of Hank Pym, who hates the Starks and distrustful of SHIELD's motivations, as well as some key scenes at the end (stay all the way), Civil War is shaping up to be a universe-shaking movie.  This is the second piece of genius to the Marvel cinematic strategy.  Every one of these movies exist in their own microcosms, and can be viewed as such.  Marvel has such a rich mythology to refer to, and they have been deftly linking all their movies into a seamless universe from the beginning.  They have been patient and methodical, and they take their subject matter seriously, never descending into Batman & Robin buffoonery.  For the most part, the movie company has wisely stayed out of the visions of the filmmakers, despite what news reports say.  Artists are always a prickly lot, and will never be satisfied without total creative freedom.  Many times, they are also disdainful of the art versus commerce debate.  But they should never be fully trusted with the keys to the kingdom.  Otherwise, they end up with a bloated, indulgent, but incredibly beautiful vision like Heaven's Gate.  This is a great movie that I highly recommend for all ages.

Terminator: Genisys

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Normally, I'm pretty hard on sequels and reboots.  They tend to be formulaic, predictable and in some cases, insulting in their condescension to recreate the lightning in the bottle that made the original great.  They are overthought, overworked and distilled (read: dumbed down) in a ham-handed attempt to make a hybrid, improved film that is all the good stuff and more; but normally, they turn out to be a hideously deformed mutant that takes on a life of its own, strangling everything that was good and prescious into a pale reflection of what it once was (see Jurassic World for a recent demonstration of this phenomena).  I went in expecting the same from the newest entry into The Terminator series, which has been veering off the rails (with a couple interesting side journeys) ever since the second movie in 1989.  Thè bad news is that Terminator: Genisys is far from perfect, but the good news is that it is a LOT of fun and a worthy entrant into the series.

Terminator: Genisys starts off in the future where John Connor (Jason Clarke) and Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) have smashed the world-ending Skynet and now have to deal with historical issues.  That is, Reese has to go back in time and save Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke-no relation to Jason) from the first terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger-for those of you living under a rock for the last 31 years) sent to kill her in 1984.  Without giving away too much, there is some very creative storytelling that explains why another terminator has aged so much.  It works perfectly to bring Arnold back in the fold.  The time in 1984 is a fanboy's dream, and for me, the most interesting part of the movie.  The timeline has skewed and some changes have now happened, so we are not seeing quite the same story.  It is a very interesting "What if?" diversion.  There is a lot of time travel involved in this movie, and for this timeline, Skynet becomes active when the corporation Cyberdyne (which made Skynet) introduces a new worldwide computer app called Genisys in 2017.  It is a revolutionary communications system that will connect everybody and everything online.  Reese and Connor have to go to 2017 and stop it.  Mayhem ensues.

So, if the movie movie is so great, why did you only give 3.5 stars, Thombat?  Well, it's not perfect.  But it's close.  It manages to retain many little details intact to include characters (even minor ones) and storyline do from the first two movies to keep Genisys interesting and from falling apart.  The movie wisely pretends the last two (Rise of the Machines and Salvation) never happened and sticks with the good story of the first two films as its source material.  The time jumping schtick is a tad overused and is a little too cute.  It's essentially a lazy deus ex machina to fix the finality of the second film to make room for this new one.  This creates some minor plot inconsistencies if you think too much about it.  But that said, if you can accept an unstoppable killing machine surrounded by skin sent back in time to kill someone to change the future once, why not a few more times?

The biggest issue I have with movies like Jurassic World is that they stray from their original premise to create an inferior copy.  It breaks its own rules to go in a new direction.  Jurassic Park is not a story about dinosaurs.  It is a story of unintended results of tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with.  Jurassic World is a Godzilla movie.  Interesting bad guys become good guys, small things become bombastically big, more and more elements have to be added.  These are the fundamentals of what I call sequel-itis.  Star Trek (Khan, Klingons and Borg become good guys), Star Wars (Boba Fett shows up, Greedo shoots first), Indiana Jones (Salah and Brody come back for no particular reason), Batman movies (more and more villains, sidekicks), James Bond (more gadgets and stupid jokes and outrageous plot situations occur-Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, Die Another Day) and even the terminator becomes a good guy in T2: Judgement Day.  But in Genisys, these issues are very few and the movie goes off in a whole new, interesting direction.  Unfortunately, they left it open for a sequel, as well.  Genisys would have been a satisfying ending point.

So, one last observation, PARENTS: Just because it is PG-13 does NOT mean you should take your kid to see this, and if you do, you are horrible parents (Yeah, I said it!) and people and growing the next generation of serial killers.  Is it any wonder why kids seem to be more and more disconnected from empathy and more violent?  A steady diet of this type of film at such an early age will almost guarantee they will be little monsters. I must have seen at least 10-12 families with children as young as 5-9 in the theater.  The Terminator is one of those perfectly good R-rated films that has now been dumbed down to a PG-13 rating to get precisely this, more butts in the seats. (Another issue I have with the film.) Parents, please heed the 13 in the rating and don't take your kids to this. It really isn't appropriate for them.

The Decline of Western Civilization, Parts I, II and III

Part I - 3.5 Stars (out of four)

Part II: The Metal Years - 3 Stars (out of four)

Part III - 3 Stas (out of four)

The Decline of Western Civilization is one of those documentaries that gets under your skin and confirms every parent's nightmare scenario for their children.  I was so happy when I saw all 3 would be released on DVD and blu-Ray FINALLY.  These films have attained a cult status of their own, and indeed, the third part has never been available in wide circulation before.  The first two were extremely rare, and only available on VHS as originals.  Shot by Penelope Spheeris (of Wayne's World fame, due primarily because of her work on Part II), at three different time periods in L.A. (1979-80, 1986-87, and 2006-07), chronicling three music movements at their respective times.  Part I covers the burgeoning west coast punk movement that was beginning to take hold, Part II: The Metal Years covers the height of the "hair band" heavy metal scene when it was beginning to explode in an honest-to-God phenomena, and Part III, while talking to some of the new generations of punk bands, focuses more on the lifestyles of the homeless gutter punks prowling through L.A.  Spheeris must be blessed with a perfect sense of timing as she caught all three movements at critical junctures.

Part I focuses more on the bands and the phenomena at the time.  The punk movement on the west coast was radically different than the one from England led by bands like The Sex Pistols and Siouxie and the Banshees (more idealistic) and the east coast with bands like The Ramones (more violent).  (Side Note: For an excellent documentary of the proto punk band The Sex Pistols, watch The Filth and the Fury) The west coast sort of blended the politics of England with the violence of the east coast and added a huge dose of nihilistic self-destruction.  It pulls no punches in the hard drinking and drugs lifestyle, and in fact, many people in the film are no longer alive, most famously Darby Crash (on the poster below), the original lead singer for The Germs.  Shortly before the movie came out, he OD'ed on heroin in a suicide.  The movie shows some of the rawest, electrifying and in many cases terrifying footage of these bands playing live and the violent reactions in the audiences.  In some cases it resembles a war zone.  It features a Who's Who of punk greats, with performances from The Germs, The Circle Jerks, Catholic Discipline, Black Flag (pre- Henry Rollins who would come from Washington D.C. about six months later and form arguably one of the most influential punk ensemble ever save The Sex Pistols and The Ramones), X, and Fear.  The movie discusses the band's lifestyles and world views and they are uncommonly candid once they get past the strutting.  Probably one of the best rock documentaries ever done, it crackles with life, energy and urgency.  Most of the kids you see died within five years of the film's release.  Part I speaks to a misunderstood and disaffected group of kids who think they are adrift in a sea of chaos.

Part II takes up with the heavy metal time frame in L.A., the time when "cock rock" ruled and groupies drooled.  While this doesn't focus much on the fans, it does examine the lifestyle, both real and imagined.  It takes a unique view of looking at the bands trying to make it (London, Faster Pussycat, Megadeth, Odin) and the been-there-done-that metal gods like Steven Tyler and Joe Perry (Aerosmith, just six months sober at the time), Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons (Kiss), Lemmy (Mötorhead), Ozzy Osbourne (Black Sabbath and solo-still lucid at the time), Chis Holmes (W.A.S.P.-VERY drunk in his pool with his mom sitting poolside), and the members of Poison.  What's interesting about the young bands is their drive to succeed.  Unlike the punkers from Part I who thought they would be dead in five years (some were, many still alive) and therefore don't want to be stars, everyone in Part II wants to be a rock star.  And although members from the band Vixen are interviewed, all the rest are people you've never heard of.  Another interesting point is the old guard's perspective.  They say of course the life starts out fun, but it all come crashes down on you.  Everyone besides Kiss, to a one, say that in the end, they hated the life and weren't happy at all.  All in all, a fascinating look at the time of rockers and the strippers who want them.

Part III is the saddest of the series, as it focuses on the homeless gutter punks and the lives they lead.  Every single one of them have depressingly similar stories, tales of horrifying physical, mental and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents, many leaving their homes for the streets around age 13.  Hassled by Nazi skinheads and the police alike, every day is literally a war zone of constant struggle for survival.  Some of the older punkers who did survive the early 80's speak about the horrific downward spiral of drugs and its toll on them.  But this is primarily about the kids then and their lives from panhandling to squatting and all the danger that entails.  Almost every one of them is convinced they will be dead in ten years or less, and in the case of two, they were correct. One was burned alive in a squat fire and the other was stabbed to death by his jealous girlfriend with scissors.  The only one with a semblance of a normal life because he has a residence is there only because he was crippled in a drunk driving accident and lives on disability.  The hell of their existence mixed with the community they share with each other is stark but touching. List souls that support each other when they can, but will all probably die as they predict.

So, what does this series give us, why does it matter?  First, it's a fascinating look at lifestyles that most people want to have nothing to do with the children who live it.  These are the disaffected youth at their most bare and vulnerable.  It is a warning to all parents and guardians to love your kids and that your actions really do matter.  But it is also a plea for us to understand them, to meet them on their turf and on their terms.  We spend so much time supporting causes like PETA and Greenpeace, but we cannot muster that kind of compassion for people, children in this case.  We give more respect to a dead body or lost puppy than an abused, frightened and homeless kid.  It doesn't make sense.  These movies, while quite disturbing at times to watch, do what great documentaries should do: shed light onto a perceived problem and asks you to consider it.  Plus, they serve as a great, historical snapshot  to catch a feeling of the time, the zeitgeist, if you will (sorry, I promised not to use that term, but it fits best here).  These films are great, and should be seen.