Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

zero-signal Escaping from boredom of family home, where you just sit and watch tv, have a few insults ... to a garbage bin, where you WATCH TV, having idiotic conversations, hunger and diseases. what a glamorous presentation of human looseness.

triggerhappyguy Let me start off by saying that this film had a lot of potential. The last 20 minutes of the film was terrific! The end of the film was exciting, tense, and I really rooted for the seemingly misunderstood bunch of misfits. It's a shame, because the rest of the film they annoyed the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong, nearly every character in this film was dislikable - from the aforementioned punks to the neighbourhood folk who have it out for them. The only nice person in the film was the police officer (Don Allen). I'm not saying every film should have a pleasant character in it, but considering the ending of the film, it just made it harder to root for the main characters.I thought this film would be about a group of punks who aren't accepted because they're different... I've been in the same situation myself when I was younger. However, the punks just go around being stealing food from people's houses, spray painting shops, degrading a women at a gig, and just generally being dicks to everyone. As I said, there were other characters in the film that were dislikable, but they were secondary characters. The punks were the main focus throughout, but the film didn't even manage to successfully create lovable anti-heroes out of them.One of the main problems of this film is that it has that Roger Corman stink about it. Sure, it's low budget, but it had some Corman trademarks thrown in there such as: bad day-for-night shots, terrible acting, and painfully long padding scenes. Did we really need 5 full songs being performed in the film? I like all the bands featured, but it just became a chore to sit through... if I wanted to watch a live gig I'd go to a club, or check the Internet. I was surprised the infamous Corman castle didn't make an appearance! Granted, the blame can't be dumped on Corman, seeing as it was Penelope Spheeris in the director's chair. Spheeris is a hit-or-miss director: when she's in the zone, she can create a great film, but this was not one of them. Although her involvement does explain the bad acting, as she knew a lot of kids and bands in the punk scene after making a great documentary about the L.A. music scene. I can understand wanting to use unknowns in a film a film to make it feel authentic, but the acting was painfully bad! The turning point of the film is when the punks lose a friend, and it really hits them hard. They begin to realise they're not infallible. The characters started to feel human... they weren't trying to being tough, or raise hell. They just wanted to mourn a friend, something we can all relate to at some point. Because of their previous actions, and a little sprinkling of prejudice, the punks aren't wanted at the funeral. At this point, it's understandable, as they've been complete tools to everyone. When the punks make one last revolt at the end of the film, it becomes clear what's going to happen. Nevertheless, the ending hits hard. Good stuff.I can't recommend this. If you're interested in the punk movement, there's plenty of better films you could watch. I'd start with the closest link to this film; Spheeris' previous film, The Decline of Western Civilization.

qasdfghj I really enjoyed Suburbia. I accidentally stumbled upon it, and then while watching could not take my eyes off the screen. It was clear the intention of this movie was not simply to tell a story but to portray an experience. It makes sense to me that the actors were not just actors but also punks in real life... it gives a slight feel of "reality TV" to the story.I've always been intrigued by Crusties and kids who choose to become homeless, and so forth. This movie has done the best I've seen so far in explaining their perspective, granted it being quite dated now.I do feel like it does filter the image of them through rose-colored lenses, as kids just trying to get by, raising kids, acting like a family and whatnot. The drug scene and alcohol scene was not portrayed - nor the rude, abrasive, anarchist, apathetic attitude toward one another.Even so, I thought it was an excellent movie and stunning to watch at some moments.

reg-71 I recently rediscovered this movie in a bargain bin. When I was growing up in Dublin this was the movie we all watched when one of our parents went out and we could sneak in some beer. One night I couldn't afford beer and bought a jar of coffee instead . I watched the movie 5 times that night!!I was nervous putting on the movie. (I had found Sid And Nancy a few weeks previously and found it absolutely awful.) But it was like a trip down a familiar path. This movie is Quality. The acting is awful, the message is non-existent and did I mention the acting is awful, but it doesn't matter .Its a perfect snapshot of what it was like to be a young punk anywhere in the eighties and pre Nirvana nineties. The fact that not one band gets to finish a set was true a lot of the time, (usually because of idiots like the TR kids!!!) The kids are not meant to be role models they are meant to be lost kids who lash out as kids are wont to do.This movie isn't meant to be over analised . For anyone who's in their mid 30's and had any interest in Hardcore/Punk during their teens should own this movie. Reg