What seems obvious to me is that this movie was definitely written with the return of the Matthew Lillard "Stevo" character in mind. All the secondary characters from the first movie who returned for this one claim an uncle-type relationship with Ross, the son of Bob, who is the main character in this movie. But none of those guys had particularly close relationships with Bob, or Trish, the mother, in the first movie. The only character who did was Stevo. So yeah, the subtext here is, the movie was written for Lillard but he decided not to do it.
My guess is, Lillard wouldn't do it because he read the script, which is...unreliable. I enjoyed the random elements of the first movie. For example, when the character Mark (played by a young Til Schweiger - later Hugo Stiglitz), the independently wealthy European drug dealer, left town and never came back, even though he was one of the more well-developed and interesting characters. I loved that. People actually do sometimes leave town and never come back. James Merendino just gave Mark up to the void. He could have kept him around for the whole movie and thereby kept the door open on all kinds of interesting antics, but he had a real story to tell and Mark's part was over. I like it when a writer's not afraid to leave a good character behind for the sake of the story.
No such artistry here. The only character who really gets left behind is Lillith, Ross's first love, who was not developed at all. So when she ended up making out with some other guy in some dark corner of a bar and obviously breaking Ross's little heart, I for one felt nothing, even though this was supposed to be the seminal moment in the movie that sent Ross off on an entirely new path in life. By the way, it's pretty obvious that at some point in his real life, Merendino had a girlfriend and caught her making out with another guy, because the same scene happened to Stevo in the first movie. Does this happen that often in reality?
Also missing from this movie was any kind of counterpoint to the youthful rebellion that is punk. Christopher McDonald as Stevo's father in the first movie was a vital (not to mention hilarious) representation of the kind of vapid, money-motivated society that punk kids want no part of. But what are the kids rebelling against here? There's one nonsensical scene in which the female lead Penny runs into her father at a gas station and he slugs her in the nose for drinking and carousing. But how the hell did that happen? They were taking back roads all over Utah and they just happened to pull up at a gas station where her redneck father was getting gas? Very contrived. There were a lot of parts of this movie that were obviously contrived, which is, again, disappointing.
Still, I enjoyed the movie for nostalgia's sake. It was good to see Bob narrating from the afterlife. Unfortunately it kept reminding me that the first movie contained some real substance. I actually cried when Bob died in the first one.
Overall, I'd recommend it for people who loved the first SLC Punk. I can't imagine, though, the boredom that would probably be felt by someone viewing this movie as a stand-alone comedy-drama, with no frame of reference from the original. It really isn't even in the same category. The original SLC Punk was a very insightful commentary on the conflict between youthful idealism and the reality of transitioning to adulthood. This movie? Just a road trip to nowhere.
I'm giving it 5 stars. I don't want to encourage or discourage anyone about seeing it. Those who saw the first one won't need any encouragement, and those who didn't should probably stay away.
