Punk: Attitude

2005
7.4| 1h28m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 04 July 2005 Released
Producted By: Cactus Three
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A documentary on the music, performers, attitude and distinctive look that made up punk rock.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Cactus Three

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!
Protraph Lack of good storyline.
GazerRise Fantastic!
Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews
mcshortfilm When you see a documentary film with the word "Punk" in the title, you really can't have high expectations. It's tempting to watch but you know you are going to miss a lot when a film tries to strip down a huge movement and make it so concise. Granted, the film is about attitude as it states in the title but somewhere along the film, it feels as though the point gets a bit lost. We know early on that being punk was about being different and being able to express yourself without any current influence. There is only one documentary I know of that makes this point clear and that is the Sex Pistols documentary film "PIST". "Punk: Attitude" seems to focus chronologically on the New York scene, The British scene and then the L.A. scene which is fine but the problem is that we only see the punk artists that fit the status quo (which is totally contradictory of what punk was all about.) What the film should have done was emphasize more closely the importance of being different and how that idea transcended new directions and movements in the world of punk. The film suggests that punk seemed to die in the 1980's as far as the mainstream was concerned but this is absolutely false. It is also a bad direction from the point of being different which had nothing to do with catching on to the mainstream. As one of the interviewees said, "you only need 5% to really get people to think in a new way". But as far as popularity is concerned, there were a good number of punk musicians that were visible at least within the margins of the mainstream during the 1980's. There was Devo, Brian Eno, Elvis Costello, Fishbone, the Pogues, Dinosaur Jr., The Cure, The Butthole Surfers, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tom Waits and Jonathan Richman among countless others. (Yes, Jonathan Richman, former Modern Lover who influenced the Sex Pistols with his infamous song "Road Runner".) (I'm sure there are plenty of people who would challenge me on some of these artists as being labeled punk but punk is really only a paradime of many styles of music like hardcore, new wave, no wave, grunge and my favorite "alternative".)Despite the overemphasis of punk on the mainstream culture, the film does include some artists that are probably not so well known to the average punk fan. Bands like "Suicide" and "Slit" were a delightful surprise. But as far as bigger bands were concerned, why was X never mentioned or the Descendents or the Minutemen? Or Fugazi or Husker Du? I guess the film would just have to be a bit longer. I didn't really appreciate the bands that were mentioned in the end like Rancid and Limp Bizkit. That really gave a blow to the authenticity of punk. However, I was happy to hear the interviews with Legs McNeil author of "Please Kill Me" and Bob Gruen as well as Mary Harron, former Punk magazine writer and current independent filmmaker (I Shot Andy Warhol) as well as filmmaker Jim Jarmusch. These guys helped us to see the world of punk in a bigger light that has more to do with just the music. Its the ability to change ideas and keep things new and different in a postmodern world.
mouseclicker33 Obviously making a documentary on the history and progression of punk rock is very difficult- many people debate where it started, how it started, who started it, etc, etc. Punk: Attitude manages to crystallize, utilizing and excellent array of interviews with figures who were actually part of the scene, all the different strains of punk into one solid, cohesive unit and gives a very accurate and insightful look into just what punk is and what it means.The documentary starts off with the menagerie of punk influences, from the Stooges and the Velvet Underground to MC5 and the New York Dolls, covering not just the bands and artists who musically influenced what would become punk but the people that set the punk aesthetic. They pay due respect to a whole host of seminal punk bands, starting in the New York scene and shifting to the British scene, all the while analyzing how the music was changing and what it was saying. It then gracefully moves into American hardcore punk with bands like Black Flag, Agnostic Front, and the Dead Kennedys, also paying respect to such hugely influential bands as Minor Threat and Bad Brains. It all starts to fall apart, though, when they mention Nirvana pulling together bits and pieces of the last decade of punk rock and creating a product that the public could stomach. From there they give passing mentions to Green Day, Blink 182, Sum 41, and Rancid, acting as if that's all there is to the current punk scene. The documentary completely fails to recognize bands like Bad Religion, the Descendents, the Circle Jerks (although they interview its singer about different topics), NOFX, Operation Ivy, the Offspring, and all of recent punk bands gaining popularity. Modern punk is not just Green Day and Blink 182, and is arguably far more diverse and fully formed than ever before. It was disappointing to see the documentary turn a cold shoulder to the current crop of punk bands when it handled punk's history up until then so well.Overall, though, the point of the documentary is to look at the impact society had on punk and conversely the impact punk had on society, and in this respect, it excels. It looks at countless facets of life this abrasive form of music has affected and really opens your eyes to the truth that punk rock is so much more than just a bunch of kids screaming. Highly recommended despite its shoddy coverage of punk's current phase.
Matt Wall I have no doubt that future cultural historians and music cognoscenti will appreciate this competent and fairly broad-sweeping history of the original punk "movement" of the 1970s. But I have to say, as a forty-something who was "there" at the end of the 1970s, there's something unnerving and vaguely depressing to seeing a bunch of fifty- and sixty- somethings waxing nostalgically about their great good old days. I mean, my god, weren't we making fun of the hippies for growing up and going mainstream back in the day? There's nothing more unpunkrock in some ways than a documentary film about punk. Come to think of it, I think punk may be safely said to have died the instant they started filming it, and Letts' own 'The Punk Rock Movie" was the original culprit. Taking the DIY attitude and transforming it into the mindscreen of the cinema, with all its implications for mass consumption, is a way not so much of preserving the original punk spirit as diluting it.This is to say, that if anybody has a right to make a film about the scene way-back-when, it's the old-school Letts. (Although it was a bit awkward when he manages to let some of his interviewees refer to him in the third person.) As a documentary, it's a standard mix of stand-up interviews and old stills and footage from the period, which tells the "story" with the reflective blinkers of thirty years of hindsight. So I can't fault this as a movie qua movie.Whoever takes credit for originating the phrase, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture", they had it right. I had a hard time finishing watching this movie not because it was a poor telling of the tale -- far from it, my memories coincide with it exactly -- but because it seemed like a far better use of my time to dust off the vinyl of my collection and just listen to the music. Or maybe, even better, go out and find some new music by the current generation of snot-nosed rebels, which will prevent me from wallowing in nostalgia and kick my rear into gear. There's something about the genre of the film documentary that seems to add layers of dust to music and music culture, or sprays them with a preservative that may keep them for future generations but which seems stale as a living thing.The one moment I loved above all in the flick was the appearance of the now-middle-aged and delicious Poly Styrene, who manages to come off as honest and fresh as she did in X-Ray Spex. But in general the shock of seeing virtually all the (surviving) great bands of the era in paunchy, balding, reflective -- dare I say, mature? -- late middle age made me wince. In about 2015, there'll be a similar documentary about old-school rap, followed ten years later by nostalgic flashbacks about techno and ecstasy...and so on.
slh2 loved it. loved it. loved it. really great accurate doc. punk is a state of mind....depressing to see how many dead people are in this film...but that's punk rock... one big gripe--more ramones. much more ramones. but hey, i can always watch the ramones raw DVD. and i would have very much liked to have scenes on--billy idol generation x the smiths, the cure, etc. joy division and a certain beloved indie 103.1 dj to actually speak in the movie vs. one tiny scene to open and close the film...but that's just my own happy little punk rock taste.