MovieChat Forums > The Runaways (2010) Discussion > Terrible Film

Terrible Film

posted 14 years ago by chrisnope
40 replies | jump to latest

The Runaways are a GREAT band, if for no other reason than they really were the 1st all female rock group. Also they had Joan Jett, Lita Ford and Sandy West! But it's Cherie Curry that defines the Runaways and their incredible story. Anyone who has read two chapters outta Cherie's autobiography can attest to the story that only she could live to tell. So why does this movie suck soooooo much? I thinnk the actors are average at best, for the most part, however I simply don't think that Dakota is as great as everyone else. I also think that Kristen Stewart overplays Jett, okay we get it - Joan Jett's a tough customer w/ a perennial snarl et al. I waited on this film FOREVER and actually thought that w/ the credibility that these two actresses have, that it might really showcase a great rock band. Nope. Instead it plays like a bad after school special! The worst scene is when Joan tells Cherie that "we got signed! Mercury #$@in records" Hilarious!!!! The director/producers etc. certainly hollywooded it up, waxing poetic over the crap and forgetting all the teeth to this story. But they didnt forget to put in all the lesbian scenes! So typical of Hollywood, ignore the rape of Cherie and the totally weird (but vital) chapter where crazy Kim Fowley takes the girls to "sex school," This is what happens to a great film when Hollywood gets ahold of it. Apparently the real Runaways were a part of this and all I can say is: I hope you got paid well! Oh and did I mention the actresses commentary! "So fun," says Dakota. This movie actually did the impossible. It made "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" starring Peter Frampton and the BG's look like Citizen Kane!

[–] chas437 13 years ago

Being the first all girl rock band doesn't make them a great band. They were a gimmick band that was sh*t upon by critics. Like another poster said, if they were all guys they would be playing in bowling alleys. I'll agree, this was a dreary movie. Frampton in Sgt Peppers was even worse.

[–] xx_rae_of_light_xx 13 years ago

I didn't think this movie was TERRIBLE, but it wasn't the best movie I'd ever seen.

I did not like Stewart's acting; I agree that she was trying to hard.

However, that being said, Fanning's acting was incredible for me. Honestly, I'd never seen her in anything outside of family movies (other than Push, and I didn't like her in that). To me, her acting felt very genuine and I could understand her performance.

The movie in some parts was very flat. I felt it was rushed in some parts, but it's a movie for Christ-sake. I can't expect years and years to be put into 90 minutes without rushing a few parts and skipping some things.

I had never heard of The Runaways before this movie, but I knew who Joan Jett was. This movie kind of inspired me to do more research, and if a documentary/biography can do that, then it has succeeded in my opinion.

[–] LongRunner 13 years ago

Guilty please type of movie :)

[–] CCRider01 13 years ago

The Runaways are a GREAT band, if for no other reason than they really were the 1st all female rock group"

Actually The Runaways were not the first "all female rock band". They were at least preceded by a band called "Fanny", who not only came 5 years earlier, but were a more talented group of musicians and singers. The difference was The Runaways had better marketing / image (that whole jail bait thing), used more of cranked Marshall sound, and had a couple of catchy songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eF7HWwM_8U&feature=related

[–] jackcarson 12 years ago

The real difference is that the Runaways rocked hard - an amazing first of sorts - and of course were younger and better looking.

I've listened to all the Fanny records. They were a good band, but most of their songs were not hard rockers; instead, the majority was "tasteful" slow stuff and ballads with a few "good timey" rock and roll numbers that wouldn't have offended any Eagles fan. They looked like late 20's hippies heading to a womens lib rally.

Suzi Quatro ? I'd like to see a movie about her, but she wasn't really a "hard rocker" either. I like her music, dated as it might be in spots - it's that 70's glam pop sound with a major pseudo-50's rock and roll vibe.

Girlschool - true heavy metal'ers, but they came out at a time when it was safe to do so (1980). Their first record was almost immediately embraced by the NWOBHM movement and they had no problems selling lots of records in the UK.

[–] BugisStreetAnnie 12 years ago

The real difference is that the Runaways rocked hard - an amazing first of sorts

Actually, Birtha was probably the first all-female band who played hard rock. They were around about the same time as Fanny. Why are they not heard of today? Well this review by a music critic who reviewed Birtha's first album could explain it: "This could all be rationalized by some eager feminist theorist--women have never played macho rock before, but it would still be lousy music."

I don't find their music to be lousy at all, but it would be unheard of today for a critic to make such a comment as, women 'attempting' to play 'macho rock.' Birtha were ahead of their time.

"You Are a Testimony to Witlessness!"...Madalyn Murray O'Hair

[–] jackcarson 12 years ago

I have the CD retrospective they put out on Birtha a few years ago. It's ok, but lotsa generic "blooze" rock dominates. I prefer the in your face punk/metal/rock bombast put over by the Runaways.

Anyone heard Isis ?

[–] BugisStreetAnnie 12 years ago

Anyone heard Isis ?

Yeah, I have their "Ain't No Backin' Up Now" LP (I bought it back-in-the-day). That's a really great album!!!!

"You Are a Testimony to Witlessness!"...Madalyn Murray O'Hair

[–] jackcarson 12 years ago

I have it too - but it's shrinkwrapped and I hate to open it and spoil the look ! Glad to hear your recommendation, though, I'd really like to give their music a spin.

I've read where KISS played with them in their early days. (Gene Simmons made some ungentlemanly comment).

[–] EmilyyAndrews 13 years ago

For one, they ignored the rape because they didn't want to take the innocence away so soon. I have read the book, and the film is my favourite film, it captures it perfectly (besides making it more friendly that is). Also, this so called 'lesbian scene' was hardly a proper scene, it was a little moment to show what people were like back then, in the book there's the bit with Cherie and the lesbian at the party and it wouldn't have been as good on film with a random girl, it was better they actually used Joan because at one point it was rumoured they were a couple. If they had it the same as the book people wouldn't have liked Cherie at all, especially because in her second version of the book it has been changed, and according to Jackie she was never forced to sleep with 'person A who's in band that was famous in the early 70's then he went solo' (don't remember his name. The film wouldn't have done as well then either and the Runaways wouldn't have been liked. The film was good overall, so deal with it.

[–] Stirchley 13 years ago

This movie took a story that is quite interesting and made it into a very boring movie. I bailed out halfway through and I doubt that the movie improved.

[–] Darkskynet 13 years ago

The story wasn't so bad, for me it was Kristin Stewart and Dakota Fanning, I thought they were bloody aweful together! I felt no connection between either of them, and kristin stewart... well i think she should stick with being a TV actress.

[–] chinawhite252 12 years ago

I thought it was real good, weird seeing Dakota like that kind of, she was still real young in 2010, s3it she real young now I think. However the movie was well done, maybe you just weren't high enough. Get blazed, or want ever you like to do and watch it again.

Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking