Post by Society of the Spectacle on Dec 19, 2011 12:23:23 GMT -5
So I just recently watched "What We Do Is Secret" and I wanted to know other people's opinions on it.
I personally was kind of conflicted by it. On one hand, I think it was cool that someone would even do a movie about Darby and the Germs. On the other hand, I thought parts of it were far too "Hollywood" for their own good. Maybe I'm being nitpicky though:
-Shane West, while good in the majority of the scenes, really bothered me in the "interview" portions with Claude Bessy. Shane West played him too normal in these instances, whereas I think he needed to show some more scattered, self-consciously precocious Darby like we got in the rest of the movie.
-I think the guy they picked to play Pat Smear was a little too "good looking/smooth" (for lack of a better term.) I love Pat, and I love the Germs, but my god, Pat is a very very weird looking and eccentric guy. Maybe they could have done some better makeup.
-It looked a little silly to me to see the Germs playing in the midst of very modern looking stage lights.
This being said, even though I've read about the Germs quite a lot, I don't know if I could call into question too much of the research about some of the "characters" (Rodney, The Damned, etc.) portrayed, as I wasn't there, but some of those seemed overdone as well.
On the other hand, my favorite scene in the movie is where they recreated the "Decline" film session. That was really well done, with great attention to detail (Like the guy holding up the Germs banner, West's mannerisms as Darby, etc.)
Basically, I didn't hate the movie, but I found a lot to cringe at, and though it was apparent that some of the performances were well-intentioned (West loved it enough to tour with a reunited Germs lineup), I just can't bring myself to say that I truly enjoyed the movie. Did anyone else have similar feelings?
I personally was kind of conflicted by it. On one hand, I think it was cool that someone would even do a movie about Darby and the Germs. On the other hand, I thought parts of it were far too "Hollywood" for their own good. Maybe I'm being nitpicky though:
-Shane West, while good in the majority of the scenes, really bothered me in the "interview" portions with Claude Bessy. Shane West played him too normal in these instances, whereas I think he needed to show some more scattered, self-consciously precocious Darby like we got in the rest of the movie.
-I think the guy they picked to play Pat Smear was a little too "good looking/smooth" (for lack of a better term.) I love Pat, and I love the Germs, but my god, Pat is a very very weird looking and eccentric guy. Maybe they could have done some better makeup.
-It looked a little silly to me to see the Germs playing in the midst of very modern looking stage lights.
This being said, even though I've read about the Germs quite a lot, I don't know if I could call into question too much of the research about some of the "characters" (Rodney, The Damned, etc.) portrayed, as I wasn't there, but some of those seemed overdone as well.
On the other hand, my favorite scene in the movie is where they recreated the "Decline" film session. That was really well done, with great attention to detail (Like the guy holding up the Germs banner, West's mannerisms as Darby, etc.)
Basically, I didn't hate the movie, but I found a lot to cringe at, and though it was apparent that some of the performances were well-intentioned (West loved it enough to tour with a reunited Germs lineup), I just can't bring myself to say that I truly enjoyed the movie. Did anyone else have similar feelings?
