The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) Review

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER (2012)
Director: Stephen Chbosky

Writer: Stephen Chbosky

Producers: Stephen Chbosky

Editor: Mary Jo Markey

Cinematography: Andrew Dunn

Music: Michael Brook

Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Johnny Simmons, and Paul Rudd

Best Credit: Chelsea Zhang as "Shakespeare Girl"

Runtime: 1 hour 42 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (mature themes, drug use, sexual content)

Genre: Drama, Romance, Indie

Release Date: October 12, 2012

Intro: When I first heard about this movie, I just discarded it as, to quote Anthony Bourdain, "hipster crap." I thought it was a movie that only the kids listening to unnecessarily obscure musics would like, since everything I saw about it indicated that's exactly what it was. Then the other day, I was at a friend's house and my group of friends decided to watch it, so I went along with it, mainly for the sake of hanging with my friends and writing another review. It turns out that it was more than I thought it would be. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, despite its indie-ness and somewhat lack of originality, is a very well-made movie with excellent acting, a great script, and an emotional roller coaster of a story.

Plot: Emotionally troubled14-year-old Charlie (Lerman) has just started high school after a rough middle school and finds it even worse. He is very shy, has no friends, and the other kids pick on him. He soon meets a bullied senior named Patrick (Miller) and his friend Sam (Watson) who introduce him to their group of friends and take him under their wing and teach him how to live in the moment and make it through high school and his emotional problems.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There's a lot of references to sex, but there's nothing explicitly shown or anything. Also, there are some physical confrontations and several references to drug and alcohol use by underaged people. The most disturbing part of the movie is the backstories and the stuff that happens off-screen, since all of the characters have a very bad time and have dealt with a lot of serious problems. The movie was initially rated R, but it won the appeal. This definitely isn't one to take small kids to, even if there's not much violence.

What was Good/What I Liked:

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: This was clearly the thing the movie emphasized and where it succeeds the most. All of the characters are very scarred and have had terrible things happen to them, and this gets emotional at times. Also, if you've ever been lonely and friendless in high school, you should definitely feel for Charlie at the beginning of the movie.

     -Directing/Cinematography: The movie was the complete vision of Stephen Chbosky, who directed, wrote, and produced the movie based on his own novel by the same title, which came out in 1999 and was a New York Times Bestseller. To say Chbosky did it all would be a bit of an understatement. And for a novelist, the guy isn't bad at directing. There are some interesting visuals and camerawork, though they are not the focus of the movie and aren't as dazzling as the kind of stuff you'd see in Prometheus or Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Indie-related picture. And completely true.

     -Acting: Very good acting. Everyone gives a good performance in their respective roles. This is actually the first time I'd seen Emma Watson act, since I haven't seen the Harry Potter movies (I read the books, so I don't need to), and I must say, she's pretty good. Also, Logan Lerman gave a fine performance as Charlie, the main character. The rest of the cast was great as well.

     -Script: Very good script. It was well-written (it should be considering the author of the book wrote the screenplay) and had several memorable lines. I think there are already blogs and stuff with quotes from the movie on them. The script could also be inspiring to some who are looking to be inspired to live life in the moment. Personally, that's not my type of thing, but for some people it would really strikes a chord. 

    -Story: The story and stories told in the movie and how they all worked together were very good and engaging. The overall story was very interesting and well-told. The stories themselves were interesting, but somewhat predictable (See originality).

     -Music/Score: A good score, from what I remember. There are also a lot of connections to indie bands and a lot of that type of music was played. I'm not a huge fan of indie bands and most alternative music, but it did work well with the movie.
     -Humor: There were some nice funny touches in the movie, and the comedic moments were welcome comic relief from the heavy drama.

What Could Have Been Better/What I Didn't Like:

     -Originality: I felt a few of them ended kind of predictably, or at least went in predictable directions. I like a movie that keeps me guessing what's going to happen. When I see a movie, I also want to experience something I never have before, and though Perks of Being a Wallflower was good, I felt it didn't provide this. Many of the themes and storylines seemed like things I've seen before.

     -The Indie-ness: I'm the first to admit I'm not a hipster or a lover of indie films. The movie clearly plays to this audience, though its appeal is more broad. It just seemed like it was being intentionally artsy and making the hipster crowd seem like the cool ones and the way to go. I don't have a problem with this way of thinking, but its pretentiousness kind of annoys me, and I see some of this in the movie. This is just a matter of preference, though. This style works better for some people than others.

     -Action/Suspense: There was emotional tension, but hardly any action. Don't see this movie if you want to be thrilled. If you go in seeking an action flick, prepare to be disappointed. This doesn't detract from the movie, and there is emotional tension to make up for it, though.

     -Intelligence: You really won't get a deeper meaning out of the movie by thinking. This doesn't detract from the movie, but you really don't need to think to hard to understand everything.

Final Score: While maybe Perks of Being a Wallflower wasn't everything I heard people saying it was, the movie was very well-made and, for the most part, engaging to watch. Though it wasn't the most original and the indie-style and emphasis may not be everyone's cup of tea, I would recommend seeing it just due to how well it is made. It's definitely a cut above what the stereotypes for indie films, coming-of-age stories, or high school-centered films are. 

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page.

Django Unchained (2012) Review

DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Producers: Shannon McIntosh, Michael Shamberg, James Skotchdopole, Bob Weinstein, and Harvey Weinstein

Editor: Fred Raskin

Cinematography: Robert Richardson

Music: Various artists

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson

Runtime: 2 hours 45 minutes

Rating: R (violence, language, some nudity)

Genre: Western, Action, Drama

Release Date: December 25, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: Watch this trailer for the blaxploitation/grindhouse flick from the 70s called Boss N*****. Tarantino has explicitly stated that this is one of the movies he based Django Unchained on, and there are some obvious similarities.

Intro: I have never seen a Tarantino movie before, but I have heard a lot about them. I have also heard how violent they are. I first heard about this movie when I looked on IMDb to see what Leonardo DiCaprio was doing next (I am a fan of his). I was intrigued. Then when it came out and it started getting rave reviews, I decided to go see it with a friend. Django Unchained, as I guess is expected from Tarantino, is incredibly and over-the-top violent, but very well done otherwise with stylized directing, great acting, good writing, great music, and lots of intense action.

Plot: A former dentist turned bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Waltz) finds a couple of slave owners looking for a slave named Django (Foxx), hoping he can help him find his previous owners, who Schultz is hunting. Schultz teaches Django to be a successful bounty hunter. After a while, the two get caught up in finding and freeing Django's wife named Broomhilda (Washington), who was sold off at the same time Django was. The search leads them to a Mississippi plantation called Candieland owned by the ruthless Calvin Candie (DiCaprio). Django and Schultz must try and free Broomhilda and escape Candieland unscathed.

Things people may find “objectionable”: Be warned before watching the movie that it is incredibly violent. If you are at all uncomfortable with blood, violence, and people being shot, this is not the movie for you. Aside from that, there is a ton of swearing, a lot of which is racial (it's period-accurate though) and there are a couple quick nudity shots (not in a sexual context), but the main thing is the massive and over-the-top amount of violence.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 10/10. This is the first Quentin Tarantino movie I have seen and I now know why people like him so much as a director (and a writer). The directing is really good and it's full of interesting shots. I definitely want to see more of his movies now.

     -Acting: 10/10. The acting was fantastic. Everyone was great in their respective roles. Jamie Foxx was great as Django and I'm guessing he'll probably be nominated for Best Actor (but won't win because of Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln). Leonardo DiCaprio also plays a great evil character. I've always seen him as a protagonist, but he is just so evil as Calvin Candie in the movie. Samuel L. Jackson is also great as always.

     -Writing: 9.5/10.

          -Story: 9/10. Very good story. It was both original and interesting, though it did not have any plot twists. My only complaint is that I think it went on a bit too long. The ending was good and satisfying, but I saw several different and earlier points at which I thought it could've ended.

          -Script: 10/10. Tarantino can write! I have a feeling this is a strength for him considering how quoted his other movies seem to be. I liked the script a lot, in a nutshell.

     -Special Effects: 9/10. Not a huge part of the movie, aside from all the gunshots and blood and stuff from that, but what there was of it was good. 

One of the main movies Django Unchained was based
on, just with a more appropriate Spanish title. See the
trailer link up in the "Before the Movie" section.

     -Music/Score: 10/10. I loved the musical  choices. Tarantino picked great songs to accompany the movie and in some cases it helps ratchet up the tension.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. The most powerful emotion the movie evokes is the horrors of slavery. It shows the ugly side of racism and slavery and makes the audience feel bad for anyone in that situation. As for the characters, more of the feeling comes out in the adrenaline than it does for care for the characters. There are no real heroes in the movie. While Schultz and Django are technically "good guys," they are anti-heroes, and this makes them harder to feel compassionate for than other characters, though you do feel bad for Django, since his life has been torn apart by slavery and racism and you can understand his hatred of white men.

     -Adrenaline: 10/10. The movie gets extremely intense at times, especially in the last 45 minutes or so. Though the most intense parts are supposed to be the action scenes, I think the tension is highest in the talking scenes in Candieland.

     -Intelligence: 6/10. You could probably understand and get as much out of this movie if you were an MIT phd grad or a high school dropout. This isn't a bad thing, it just isn't that much of a thinking man's movie. It seemed to be relatively historically-accurate, though I really wasn't paying attention to that stuff. As long as you understand how horrible slavery was and the kinds of things that happened to slaves, you should be able to fully comprehend the movie.

     -Humor: 6/10. Though a lot of the movie is serious and intense, there are some truly hilarious moments. The scene with the KKK meeting killed me. It's absolutely hilarious. Aside from that, there are several witty lines throughout the movie.

     -Best Credit: Amber Tamblyn as "Daughter of a Son of a Gunfighter"

     -Final Score: Though on the surface, Django Unchained may just look like 2 and a half hours of senseless violence, the movie is extremely well-made and enjoyable if you don't mind blood and people being shot (I'd be willing to bet the body count is higher than Macbeth and Hamlet combined). I'd recommend Django Unchained to anyone who is a fan of Tarantino, who likes grindhouse or blaxploitation flicks from the 70s or someone who wants to see a very well-made movie and doesn't mind blood and violence.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) Review

WRECK-IT RALPH (2012)
Director: Rich Moore

Writers: Phil Johnston, Jennifer Lee, Rich Moore, and Jim Reardon.

Producers: John Lasseter, Clark Spencer, and Monica Lago-Kaytis

Editor: Tim Mertins

Cinematography: See the animation department list from IMDb.

Music: Henry Jackman

Voices: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, and Alan Tudyk

Runtime: 1 hour 41 minutes

Rating: PG (rude humor and mild violence)

Genre: Comedy, Family, Animation

Release Date: November 2, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: It would be nice to have an at least basic knowledge of older videogames before watching the movie, since they make so many references to them, and you'll miss some of the jokes.

Intro: I first heard about this movie over the summer at some point, I think when I saw Brave. The concept intrigued me, but I didn't have a lot of interest in seeing it. While animated movies can be good, they are not my favorite, and it seemed like the movie wouldn't be anything special. I also didn't have the gamer motivation to see it that a lot of my friends do. I like playing videogames, but I never get around to playing them and I definitely don't obsess over them. Anyway, a few of my friends invited me to go, so I went and saw it, with average expectations since it had good reviews. It turned out that the movie exceeded my expectations. Wreck-It Ralph, though it may not appeal to everyone, is very entertaining, completely original, funny, and a very cute movie that pays great attention to detail and is probably the best animated movie this year (I really can't say though. Brave is the only other one I've seen).

Plot: Sorry this may get a little lengthy, but it's a complex plot. Ralph is the villain in a retro arcade game called Fix-It Felix, where he wrecks a building and Felix fixes it again. Felix (McBrayer) gets all the awards and love, and after a while, Ralph (Reilly) feels rejected and wants some recognition. Unable to get any from his own game mates, he decides to leave his game in the arcade and try to he a hero in others to show them he, the bad guy, can be a good guy. He goes into a first-person shooter called "Hero's Duty" to get a medal. After getting it, he gets into trouble by piloting a spaceship out of the game and crashing---with the alien from the other game---in a candy-related racing game called Sugar Rush. He loses his medal and it gets taken by a character in Sugar Rush named Vanellope (Silverman), who uses it as a coin to enter the race she had previously been prevented from racing in, since she glitches. Ralph soon realizes he and Vanellope both want some recognition in their respective games, so he teams up with her so he can get his medal back, since the winner of the race gets all the coins, including Ralph's medal, in winnings. Soon, Ralph begins to endanger his game along with Sugar Rush, so he, along with Felix and the commander, Calhoun (Lynch) from the first-person shooter, need to save both games from ultimate destruction, which is being unplugged.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There's a little violence, especially in the scenes involving the first-person shooter game, but there's no blood or gore at all. The violence is all pretty mild. There's also some toilet humor, which shouldn't offend anyone. You really shouldn't worry about any of this unless you have a kid under like 6 years old.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Animation: 9/10. While it isn't as visually gorgeous as Brave and went for the more unrealistic look, Wreck-It Ralph featured some pretty good animation. It was more subtle, but you could tell especially with the scenes with the first-person shooter that the animators knew what they were doing. It was also cool that at times the filmmakers transitioned between classic videogame 8-bit graphics to the computer-animated graphics. What was also neat is having some characters move exactly like they would in their game, like they did with the residents of the building Ralph always destroys. The way they made characters glitch was also really cool.

     -Acting (Voices): 9/10. Good voice acting. They definitely chose good voices for each character. Vanellope's voice got a little annoying at times, but otherwise I had no complaints, and I think that's not even the voice actor's fault. I think the editors heightened the pitch a little. There's no way Sarah Silverman talks that high in real life.

     -Writing: 9/10.

Ralph at a Bad Guy-Anonymous meeting. It's subtle jokes and references
like this that make the movie so enjoyable.

          -Story: 10/10. A reason I liked Wreck-It Ralph is its originality. I'd have to say that this is one of the most original plots I've seen in a new movie for a while, when every Hollywood story is an adaptation of something else or slave to some formula. It's really refreshing to see new ideas in Hollywood. It was also nice to see how unpredictable the story was. As I've probably mentioned many times in reviews, I think this is one of the most important qualities a movie should have.

          -Script: 8/10. Not a half bad script. Wasn't the best ever written, but it was decent. They wrote in some funny lines too. for example, one character says, "Ralph can't be serious," which is followed by a cut to Ralph saying, "I've never been more serious about anything in my life."

     -Music/Score: 7/10. Pretty good, but didn't stick out to me, probably because it was often overpowered by dialogue and/or sound effects.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. You do feel for Ralph and the other characters, especially at the beginning. The characters are pretty relatable and likable, since the goal of both Vanellope and Ralph is just to be recognized and liked, which are things nearly everybody wants. You also feel for ralph when he has to make decisions

     -Adrenaline: 7/10. Animated movies tend not to thrill me as much as live-action ones, but Wreck-It Ralph does a pretty good job with this.

     -Intelligence: 10/10. Probably my favorite thing about Wreck-It Ralph is all the references it makes to videogames or other things. It adds a nice layer of deeper humor intended to entertain the parents as well as the kids. For example, one character has a glitch and she explains this to another character by saying she has, "Pixlexia." It's offhand comments and references like this that make the movie as enjoyable as it is. I think I laughed at as many if not more of these jokes than I did the main humor.

     -Humor: 8/10. The movie wasn't strictly a comedy like Airplane, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Blazing Saddles are, but it had some pretty funny moments. Like I said earlier, the funniest moments come from all the subtle jokes and references written into the script to entertain the older audience. This is probably the second-funniest movie I've seen all year only to Ted. It's sad that there aren't that many new, great comedies coming out any more. It seems new comedies go for dumbed down bedroom or gross-out humor and/or make fun of pop culture. While these things can be funny in the short term, the great comedies in movie history all have smart, universal humor. I'm glad to see Wreck-It Ralph try for this type of humor. If only all comedies would. Anyway, that's my two cents on comedies. Moving on...

     -Best Credit: None. All of the minor characters in Wreck-It Ralph are cameos by famous videogame characters, so none of them have original names. 

     -Final Score: Wreck-It Ralph is a very cute and enjoyable movie. It's one of those great movies that is pretty universal, as it can entertain both kids and adults, providing smart humor for both audiences. While Wreck-It Ralph isn't the best movie of the year (See Avengers, Argo, Lincoln, and Skyfall), it's definitely worth viewing. I'd recommend this to anyone who remotely considers themselves a gamer or wants an animated and/or family movie that is universally appealing. This is definitely one of, if not the best animated movie of the year.

Enjoying my Reviews? Like my Facebook Page.

Lincoln (2012) Review

LINCOLN (2012)
Director: Steven Spielberg

Writer: Tony Kushner

Producers: Jonathan King, Daniel Lupi, Jeff Skoll, Steven Spielberg, and Kathleen Kennedy

Editor: Michael Kahn

Cinematography: Janusz Kaminski

Music: John Williams

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, David Strathaim, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Runtime: 2 hours 30 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (war violence, war carnage, and language)

Genre: Biopic, Drama, History

Release Date: November 16, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: It may help to quickly read up on the Civil War, especially the last months. It isn't necessary for the enjoyment of the movie, but it allows you to pick up on who's who and what's what a little better.

Intro: From the time I heard they were making Lincoln, I knew it couldn't be bad. Steven Spielberg is a great director who does a fantastic job at historical movies, and I saw they assembled a pretty impressive cast. When it came out a week ago and got good reviews, I was encouraged even more to see it. As if I needed any more encouragement to see it, my AP Government teacher told my class that we'd get extra credit if we saw it. And that was the nail in the coffin and I went to see it earlier today. Lincoln was pretty much as advertised and as expected. It had incredible acting, especially from Daniel Day-Lewis, a great script, and was slow at first but was very engaging by the end. There is almost no doubt it will be nominated and win several Oscars in February.

Plot: The movie tells the story of President Lincoln's last 4 months in office in 1865, focusing on the passage of the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery, and the negotiations with the South to end of the war. The emphasis is on the 13th Amendment, as the movie tells the story of how Lincoln and his supporters won the necessary votes in the House of Representatives to get the Amendment passed. There's not a lot I can say here without giving a full-on history lesson. If you want to know more, I suggest googling some of these topics.

Things people may find "objectionable": The main thing is language. There are 2 usages of the F-word, along with some other mild language. There is also one war scene at the beginning of the movie that is intense, as it shows people fighting and getting shot and stabbed. There is also a scene or two that shows the carnage of the battles, which involves a lot of corpses. Other than a couple instances, the movie really isn't bad at all in this department.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 9/10. Subtle but solid directing. It didn't stick out as much as Spielberg's directing usually does, but nonetheless it was very well shot and the visuals were good. If nothing else, you expect good directing when you see a Spielberg movie.

     -Acting: 10/10. Phenomenal acting. There's no doubt that Daniel Day-Lewis will at least be nominated for Best Actor and will likely win. He was really fantastic. The rest of the cast was no slouch either. I really respect Tommy Lee Jones and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as actors, and they both do a great job. This is easily the best part of the movie. Not to say everything else was bad, it's just that the acting was that good.

     -Writing: 10/10.

          -Story: 10/10. Can't really grade this on the story since it's history and not fiction, but I can grade the selection of the story to make a movie about. It's about time someone made a good biopic of Lincoln. It's really about time. And no, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter doesn't count.

          -Script: 10/10. Very good script. It was solid and produced a lot of good lines. This and the acting were the best parts of the movie.

After seeing Lincoln, I was inspired to make this teaser trailer for a fake biopic about our 

9th president, William Henry Harrison. In case you don't get the joke, he died after 31 days in office.

    
     -Special Effects: n/a. Not needed at all. Lincoln was a movies that would have functioned just as well if it were a stage play.

     -Music/Score: 9/10. The score was subtle, but good. Is it possible for John Williams to write a bad score? I mean, seriously.

     -Power/Emotion: 7/10. It started off relatively slow and I slowly felt more and more for the characters. Even after seeing the movie, I am still feeling for the characters and the situations they were in. The movie is slow in the beginning and then begins to suck you in, and I think becoming more engaged with the characters and situation help this a lot.

     -Adrenaline: 5/10. Not as much as I would've liked. The tension was slow and took a while to build and also wasn't constant like it was in Argo. It's also kind of sudden. You somehow subconsciously become engaged. This was the weakest point of the movie, though in Lincoln's defense, its point wasn't to thrill you.

     -Intelligence: 9/10. The movie really makes you think and is pretty intellectual. It taught me just how much corrupt bargaining and haggling the Lincoln administration had to do to pass the 13th Amendment. One reason I like Spielberg movies is that when he does historical movies like Saving Private Ryan or War Horse, he likes to get the facts straight. As a total history geek, I really enjoy and respect this, and it was cool to get some of the historical references in the movie.
     -Humor: 4/10. There were actually some pretty funny moments worked in. The majority of the movie was serious, but the comic touches were nice. In my opinion, it's always good to have at least some comic relief in any serious movie.

     -Best Credit: None. The problem here is that since it's so historical, nearly every character you see is an actual person. And for those who weren't actual people, their roles had boring names like "Congressmen" and so forth.

     -Final Score: Lincoln was exactly the type of movie I thought and hoped it would be--and that's a good thing. It will undoubtedly win multiple Oscars, probably at least for acting or writing. It will also be in contention with Argo for Best Picture. If I had to pick a Best Picture winner between those two, I would probably pick Argo, but both movies are deserving. If you like historical movies or want to see an extremely well-made movie, see Lincoln. While it starts off slow, it becomes great by the end.