Own the rights?
46 out of 63 people found the following review useful: Love Kills, 8 February 2006 Author: madcow42 from United States
This movie is not historically accurate. Let's get that out of the way right off the bat. This is not about the history of the Sex Pistols. Details don't matter, this movie is about feeling. Two misguided, deluded outcasts who are so completely, desperately in love, that they won't leave each other, even though they are probably the worst people in the world for each other. They spiral into heroin addiction, (which is NOT glamorized. Some of the scenes with them bunkered down in the Chelsea Hotel are downright disgusting) and one of them is killed, although no one knows how exactly how. Punks are usually the unsentimental type, so they tend to give this film the two-finger salute. Well, screw them. It is a beautiful film, which speaks more honestly about love and addiction than any Oscar-grabbing shite that I can find in the New Release section. Gary Oldman and and Chole Webb are excellent, inhabiting their characters right down to marrow. The era is evoked wonderfully, and the film is littered with gorgeous, iconic images, the best of which being Sid and Nancy kissing in an alleyway while garbage rains down on them from above like rice at a wedding. Also, most people ignore how FUNNY this movie is, despite it's heartbreaking subject matter. This is an enjoyable movie, not a punishment, or a slog through the mud. After seeing this movie, a friend of mine was so moved, she packed up everything she had and moved to London, where she lived on the streets for a year, trying to form a punk band. I'd recommend this movie to anyone, not just punks or Sex Pistols fans. It's appeal is much more universal than that. To me, this movie exemplifies my idea of true love. It isn't always pretty. It can drag you over glass, lead you to your grave, debase, humiliate, and destroy you. But it's a connection so strong that you can't deny it. And it's so beautiful that you really don't care if it kills you.
47 out of 74 people found the following review useful: Intense and well acted but ultimately depressing and unrevealing look at the infamous punk rock couple., 3 August 2000 Author: lordguano (lordguano@aol.com) from Flushing, New York
The brilliant performances of Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb in the title roles propel this bleak and depressing look into the calamitous relationship between Sex Pistols bass player Sid Vicious and American punk rock groupie Nancy Spungen. The characters are introduced to us in tragedy right from the opening scene, casting the rest of the film with a fatalistic sense of impending doom. These are two tortured souls in communion who seem at odds with just about every facet of society -- even the extreme punk rock counter-culture to which they both ostensibly belong.A major problem with the film (and all the more reason to tip our hats to the two leads) is that Sid and Nancy are written as such abrasive and disagreeable characters, one is hard pressed to relate to them on any meaningful level.And while the re-creation of their reckless and volatile rebelliousness is quite detailed and credible, we never get a sense of how they came to be so angry and tortured to begin with. Even the smallest glimpse at their inner turmoil would have gone a long way in creating sympathy and concern from the audience. Instead, director Cox relies on the pureness of their genuine love for each other to provide that hook. That strategy succeeds to the extent it does ONLY because of Oldman's and Webb's amazing transformation into these parts.If you own a DVD player, try to get a hold of the Criterion Collection edition of this film. That disc contains some excellent, revealing footage of the REAL Sid and Nancy that was shot for a contemporary documentary on the Sex Pistols ill-fated 1978 tour of the USA. If nothing else, the footage will increase your appreciation for these two splendid performances.
31 out of 47 people found the following review useful: Masterful performances by Oldman and Webb, 23 June 2003 Author: saska-3 from Redmond, WA
When I was 15, I loved this movie because I loved the Sex Pistols and everything punk. Now that I am twice that age, I love this film for its unflinching portrayal of two people's lives, despite how uncomfortable it makes us, how little we sympathize with them as people, or how hard it is for us to comprehend the choices they made. I personally believe at least part of the discomfort comes from the fact that at some level, we DO understand Sid and Nancy, their love for each other, and the choices they make beneath the haze of addiction.I realize, seeing it with adult eyes, why my parents were so shocked I was watching this film in 1987. But ironically, it was the best anti-drug message I could have seen in my teenage years. In performances so masterful they make me wince, fight off nausea, and weep for their misfortune, Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb constructed characters no one would ever want to be. The supporting cast deserves accolades as well - in particular, Andrew Schofield turns in a seamless portrayal of Johnny Rotten, who, unlike Sid, knows full well Malcolm MacLaren created him.Having read "And I Don't Want To Live This Life" by Debora Spungen, and having seen more than a handful of documentaries with live footage of the band throughout the years, what impressed me most was the consistency of tone that Oldman and Webb bring to their performances. They are spot-on, not just in stupor and excess, but in tenderness and rare moments of clarity. The movie's ending was unique among biopics where the truth is in dispute, in that it did not profess to know the answer to that burning question (did Sid kill Nancy?) any more than Sid knew himself.Why watch a film about a couple of junkies who came from unremarkable backgrounds and disappeared into the bleakness of drug addiction? We seem to want our films to be about something loftier than ourselves. I view "Sid and Nancy" more as a play than a movie - we allow our plays to be about uncomfortable subjects and unhappy people, but seem to think that celluloid must be as bright as the projector light behind it. This film is a study in love and dysfunction; its characters are painfully imperfect but perfectly portrayed and we cannot help but respond, even if our response is the deep, squirming discomfort that leads us to say we disliked the whole experience.I rated this film a very rare 9.
54 out of 94 people found the following review useful: Convincing portrait of the wasted and the talentless., 18 May 2003 Author: Peter Hayes from United Kingdom
Recent social history is very hard to capture through drama and Alex Cox must be grateful to have such a good plot device (a far from standard love story) to carry us through this difficult and much misunderstood period of history.Punk rock was born to be a cult. Through all the headlines and publicity the central music barely scrapped the US charts: The Sex Pistols one studio album only just crept in to the American top 100 and they were viewed more as a novelty act than the next big thing. Only when the whole thing was tamed and popified did the thing take off, by then renamed "new wave" to differentiate between the new and old school.(By this time the Pistols had long since self-destructed.)In the beginning, the Sex Pistols were more a private party than a band, indeed they often played them instead of more normal gigs. The original punks were anti fashion and anti everything, attracting misfits of all kinds and colours; although art and fashion students made up the majority. This really was an open house with prostitutes, homosexuals and exhibtionists being equally welcome.(This is accurately depicted in the movie.)Sid and Nancy were from this hanging-on group and although joining the group as bassist and groupie respectively (Nancy tried to get it on with most of the band) they were never more than window dressing. The Pistol sound was Lydon/Rotten's voice and Steve Jones's power chords. Sid never even played on the records.It is notable that many icons manage to have an icon haircut (Elvis, Rolling Stones, Beatles all set hair fashions) and amazingly SV even managed one himself with his perfect spikes. His look, his life and his early death made him a cult, but he didn't leave a legacy behind other than a series of half-hearted drunken rants.Hard to see how Oldman could do more to be Vicious other than lose a few years. SV died at 21 and Oldman is clearly older (28 at the time of filming), but that is my only quibble. Chloe Webb (as Nancy) is also good, but annoying, like a dog that won't shut up barking and chewing the furniture, until you just accept it. A life consisting of drugs, sex and TV - often consumed all at the same time.Alex Cox's direction (possibly because he knew the punk movement first hand rather than through the papers) is first rate - like Quentin Tarantino lite - but he is just as much a flash-in-the-pan as Sid and Nancy himself. He can't make a mainstream movie, because all he is interested in is man's ugly underbelly and without major acting talent these things look self-indulgent and even amateurish.However this is a moral look at drug taking - not the "fun before it gets serious" moral - the "its never a good idea full stop" one. Sid is a child, Nancy is barely any more than a child, but more street-wise. Too lazy for work she used oral sex like most people use a credit card.I like this film because it has something to say about undeserved fame, what you do (or the few choices you have) after your fifteen minutes is up and how empty headed people with no agenda get treated in this big bad world. Whether you want to spend time learning all this is up to you, but it is very well done if you do.
23 out of 36 people found the following review useful: Cox's intelligence and potential are evident in an uncompromising film…, 18 December 2005 Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Given the discipline of a strong director, Alex Cox has revealed overwhelming ambition, and a ferocious imagination in his films…"Sid and Nancy" was impressive, turning the dirty and depressing true story of Sid Vicious and his lover Nancy Spungen into a surprisingly moving romance…Clear-eyed in his cautious celebration of the punk movement's rebellion against the oppressive realities of Thatcher's Britain, and similarly lucid about the difficulties of sudden fame, Cox never glamorized his drug-addict protagonists; nor, even more remarkably, did he condemn them for their idiotic, anti-social, frequently pathetic odyssey towards self-destruction in New York's Chelsea Hotel…Sadly, the film's tense, gripping authenticity of atmosphere and performance was to be repeated neither in the indulgent, unfunny spaghetti Western spoof "Straight to Hell," nor in "Walker," an uneven, allegorical satire on American imperialism in the form of a l9th-century colonialist who sets himself up as tyrant of Nicaragua…
9 out of 16 people found the following review useful: please read the book, too..., 10 November 2006 Author: MarieGabrielle from United States
The book was entitled "And I don't want to live this life". It is primarily about Nancy Spungen, prior to meeting Sid Vicious, disenfranchised, bored young people; Vicious is more from the wrong side of the tracks. Spungen's biography describes how she had attended the University of Colorado, tried to make something of her life, then met Vicious, and transiently lived in London for awhile. While the movie was good, it tends to glamorize the rebel ideals (just a bit) There is really no glamor in dying of an OD at the Chelsea Hotel. Chloe Webb and Gary Oldman are believable (for some odd reason I imagined Coutney Love in this role). If you are really interested in the story without glamorized visuals read the book.You will get several perspectives from the family. It is not a moral majority issue, but does open one's horizons to the fact that actions had consequences, in this story. 8/10.
8 out of 15 people found the following review useful: A very dreary movie, 10 December 2006 Author: Terry Walker from United States
Despite two superb performances from Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb this movie simply failed to hold my attention. There was no exploration of the relationship between the two and other people in Sids life were virtually ignored. John Lydon was a school-pal yet you would think from this movie that there was no friendship between them at all. Sids mother was a major influence on what made him who he was but no reference was made to her whatsoever. Maybe the threat of legal proceedings from her influenced the directors objectivity.In the end Sid was made to look like a stupid victim of Nancy yet other chronicles reveal that he truly did have strong feelings for her. This film gives no indication as to why and demeans him as a person. Sid may have been many things but he wasn't an empty shell.The sad fact is that a young boy of 21 died through drug abuse and I feel this movie simply romanticizes it and tries to make it look cool.Hopefully one day someone will make a movie that realistically captures Sid, the sex pistols and England as they really were at that time. (Yes, I was there).
Great leading performances but a missed opportunity, 6 April 2009 Author: PatrickCLF from England
I think i should start off by saying that i am big Sex Pistols fan, But i'm an even bigger fan of Johnny Rotten, Which proved a disappointment as the film didn't give the audience an insight or enough time to eider Rotten (Lydon), Cook or Jones. But despite that Sid and Nancy is an entertaining biopic with great leading performances by both a young (and hard to recognise) Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb. But what this film captures the most is a great viewing of 1970's England and delivers a fantastic view of 1970's LondonSo overall Sid and Nancy has a great costume, make-up and interior design which gives the viewers a spectacular insight in the era of punk. So with the great insight and two very well done performances, but it could have been better so i hope it won't be the last film about the sex pistols and that the next film will be more focused on the band itself. But Sid and Nancy is still a pleasure to watch
Sid and Nancy, 21 June 2007 Author: milkyway9494 from United States
While the movie may have not been entirely factual, no one can argue that it was well done. Good acting, good music, good overall feel and no long boring parts like many movies. One complaint was that Johnny Rotten was portrayed as stupid and annoying, but from what I have read and seen pictures of he did not seem like that. Their story was actually pretty tragic, and despite everything, they really were in love. They needed each other and could not live without each other. Read the book by Deborah SPungen to see that. But anyway, its my all time favorite movie, and very romantic, like the garbage scene, and a good anti drug film too.
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Even Gary Oldman can't save this., 21 October 2007 Author: jeff light (mykungfuistrong@aol.com) from Florida, US
How does this movie have a 7/10 score? I wanted to like it, I really did. Gary Oldman is my favorite actor, and he's in fine form here, although his "Sid Vicious" accent degenerates into a kind of generic Brit accent by the end of the film. I was interested in the story of Sid and the Sex Pistols, but true to the title, the film focuses squarely on Sid's relationship with Nancy. The film assumes a general and broad knowledge of the life and events of Sid and the Sex Pistols. You get tidbits of reportedly 'real' happenings from infamous stories, but it plays out as a disconnected series of events, without any framework to ground you in the lives of any of the characters. The dialog is mostly semi-coherent drug-induced babbling while stumbling blindly from one downtrodden location to another. In short, the film, much like Sid's life, is a train-wreck. Is this intentional? Trying to capture the feeling of what it was like? Maybe, maybe not. But it's a moot point. The film's main fault is in failing to create any sympathy for it's characters. Unlike other films which show the unglamorous cycle of drug dependency such as Trainspotting and The Basketball Diaries, Sid & Nancy shows not one redeeming value in its 'protagonists'. I was actually grateful when Nancy is no longer a focus of the story because I couldn't stand hearing her whining and screaming on the screen anymore. I thought the end of the movie might pull it out and make the whole thing worthwhile now that the focus was squarely on Oldman. And what do I get instead? A meaningless sequence where he dances with children before a magical cab pulls up to escort him and his newly revived love off to Never-never-land. (Yes I'm aware the disco on the radio had meaning.) Well, this sequence is certainly a happier note to end on than what happened in real life. And why not toss in another sequence glorifying a destructive, co-dependent relationship based on drug use? Yes, the film has the audacity to imply that this is real love. If you're 13 and looking for a film to romanticize and justify your rebellious anti-everything feelings, and you have a lot of knowledge and fascination for Sid Vicious, you might enjoy this film. For everyone else, stay away. The details are fudged and fuzzy, the script is misguided, the directing is slipshod, and unless you just HAVE to see Courtney Love's first role, the acting isn't worth sitting through the film.
Add another review
