Thor: The Dark World (2013)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)

Director: Alan Taylor

Writers: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely, Don Payne, and Robert Rodat

Producers: Victoria Alonso, Louis D'Esposito, Alan Fine, Nigel Gostelow, Craig Kyle, and Stan Lee

Editors: Dan Lebental and Wyatt Smith

Cinematography: Kramer Morgenthau

Music: Brian Tyler

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, and Christopher Eccleston

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense sci-fi action & violence, some suggestive content)

Genre: Superhero, Action, Fantasy

Release Date: November 8, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: It's really not necessary to see Thor or even The Avengers before watching the movie. Everything is fairly easy to pick up.

Intro: Sorry for not posting more often. I'm in my first quarter of college and it's been a little crazy adjusting to things. Anyway, it's easy to convince me to watch Marvel movies. Though they are not the pinnacle of filmmaking excellence, I always find them entertaining and fun. This one was no different. Thor: The Dark World does exactly what it is intended to do: thrill and entertain as a superhero movie. While it isn't perfect, it is saved by Loki, its humor, action, and visuals.

Plot: Years ago, the Dark Elves sought to bring darkness to the universe, but Asgard and other worlds stopped them before they could dominate. 5,000 years later, after they are all presumed dead, the Elves begin to resurrect under their leader Malekith. When Earth, Asgard, and 7 other worlds in the universe are threatened by the elves, it is up to Thor (Hemsworth), his earth girlfriend Jane (Portman) and his evil brother Loki (Hiddleston) to save everyone.

Things People May Find Objectionable: There's a lot of violence and a couple of mild swear words, but that's pretty much it. It has the same level of content as any other superhero movie.

What was Good:

     -Directing/Cinematography: The movie looks good. There's no denying that. It's a really good piece of eye candy. I was pretty impressed with the directing too. You can actually tell what is going on with the action sequences, which is always a plus with action movies.

     -Action/Suspense: Plenty of action to go around. This is another thing Marvel never disappoints with. It's definitely an exciting movie.

     -Humor: The movie had some seriously funny moments in it! The wittiness was one of the things that made it so enjoyable. It seems like Marvel movies are getting progressively funnier. This is a good thing, in my opinion. The funnier a movie is, the more enjoyable it is.

The poster looks good, but it's almost exactly the same as the Iron Man 3
poster. Lack of creativity, eh Marvel?

     -Loki: Tom Hiddleston as Loki pretty much steals the show. He is in all the memorable scenes of the movie and provides great comic relief, but is also very good in the dramatic scenes. Pretty much any scene with him is better than all of the scenes without him. Not that those other scenes are bad, it's just Loki makes them better. I would love to see a Loki-centric movie. I think it would work really well.

     -Special Effects: Really great. Marvel never disappoints with the visuals. It's hard to distinguish between actual sets and the CGI, aside from the whole alien world thing. It was really convincing. It's a testament to how good CGI has become these days.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Script: Not a great script, but it was ok. The comedic parts were really well-written, but sometimes the dramatic lines seemed a little weak and cliché. It doesn't ruin the movie by any measure, but it feels like the script could've been stronger. You'd think they could do that between 5 screenwriters.

      -Characters: Except for Loki and somewhat Thor, the characters were al relatively flat. The side characters were just that: on the side. Not much attention was paid to their characters.

      -Pacing: The movie moves very quickly. Hardly ever is there a dull moment, but sometimes it seems if as the movie moves a little too fast. It felt like they kind of glazed over some storylines in favor of moving the plot along. My question to the filmmakers is, why include some storylines at all if you're just going to skim over them? I felt like the movie might have functioned better if there wasn't so much involvement with Earth. I think it would've functioned just fine as solely a space opera.

Worth Noting:

     -Story: Look, it's formula, same as pretty much all superhero movies and definitely all Marvel movies. You're not going to get anything groundbreaking story-wise. As far as the way it's told, there's not too many obvious plot holes, though some things are not as well-explained as they should have been. Sometimes you'll get a "wait, what?" moment, but it doesn't make the story hard to understand. It's just some small details that go unexplained.

The Verdict: Thor: The Dark World is a perfectly good and entertaining superhero movie, but not a lot more. It has great visuals, a lot of action, and a surprisingly good performance by Tom Hiddleston, but has cliché writing and weird pacing. I'd almost be willing to say it was as good if not better than Iron Man 3. Anyway, I would recommend this one for a fun and entertaining movie. If you like Marvel's other stuff, you should like this one.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Pacific Rim (2013) Review

PACIFIC RIM (2013) REVIEW
Director: Guillermo Del Toro

Writers: Travis Beacham and Guillermo Del Toro

Producers: Callum Greene, Jon Jashni, Mary Parent, and Thomas Tull

Editors: Peter Amundson and John Gilroy

Cinematography: Guillermo Navarro

Music: Ramin Djawadi

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, and Burn Gorman

Best Credit: David Fox as "Old Man on Beach"

Runtime: 2 hours 12 minutes
Rating: PG-13 (sci-fi violence, brief language)

Genre: Sci-Fi, Monster Movies, Action

Release Date: July 12, 2013

Intro: I'm going to be honest here. I wanted to see this movie for one reason and one reason only: director Guillermo Del Toro. I loved the Hellboy movies and Pan's Labyrinth has become a favorite of mine. I love his inventiveness as far as monsters is concerned and his movies I've seen have been pretty compelling. Pacific Rim isn't a perfect movie by any stretch, as it's pretty cliché-ridden and the writing is weak, but the movie never fails to entertain. It has interesting visuals, good special effects, plenty of action, and a nice dose of humor and it is a nice homage to classic monster movies.

Plot: One day, a giant monster named a Kaiju rises out of the bottom of the ocean and attacks and destroys San Francisco. After a few other attacks, the humans choose to fight back and create giant robots called Jaegers to take on the Kaiju. When the Kaiju begin getting stronger and more numerous, the Jaegers begin to be less and less useful. Earth's last defense is Hong Kong, where the best pilots out there are recruited to defend the planet from the Kaiju.

Things People May Find “Objectionable”: The biggest thing is violenc. However, most of the violence is between giant monsters and giant robots and not between two people. Still, there's a lot of it and this isn't one I'd recommend showing young kids. Other than that, there's some mild swearing, but nothing much and it isn't pervasive at all, and there's one more f-bomb contained in this review than there is in the movie.

What was Good:

     -Directing: The visuals were all pretty spectacular. Del Toro made a lot of good choices when it came to what colors were used where. Visually, the movie looks great. Also, I love Del Toro's imagination when it comes to dreaming up monsters like the Kaiju. This is seen in other movies of his like the two Hellboy movies and Pan's Labyrinth.

     -Music/Score: I liked the score. It seemed kind of similar to other blockbuster scores I've heard in the recent past, but I still liked it and it added to the movie.

     -Action/Suspense: Plenty of action to go around. It felt to me like I was watching an upscale Godzilla movie. There were giant monsters fighting each other and, as expected, it was pretty exciting.

     -Humor: Though the movie wasn't a comedy by any stretch, it was fairly tongue-in-cheek and there was a good dose of humor throughout. It was a refreshing aspect of the movie. Usually movies like Pacific Rim run into trouble because they take themselves too seriously.

Pretty accurate description of the experience of watching Pacific Rim.

     -Special Effects: Definitely a strong part of the movie and where most of the budget probably went. And it showed. All the monsters looked impressively realistic. Then again, special effects are almost always an essential part of any large-scale production like Pacific Rim.

     -Acting: Decent acting. I think all the lead actors did an adequate job, even though there were no Oscar-winning performances to be found. It was interesting seeing Charlie Day of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia doing a semi-serious role, since he's known for comedy, but he does a good job.
     -Homage to Godzilla Movies: It's pretty clear that Pacific Rim is a love letter to old Godzilla movies. It feels like a Godzilla movie while watching it because the plot structure and action sequences all seemed like the types of things you would find in one. As a classic monster movie fan, I really enjoyed this about the movie.

What Could Have Been Better:
     -Cinematography: Though the movie looked very good, I must critique the cinematography. During a lot of the fight scenes, the cuts were too fast and the camera zoomed in too close and things happened so fast that it sometimes became difficult to figure out what was going on. This is maybe just me being picky, but when there's an action sequence, I like to know what is going on, even if the filmmakers are trying to convey the insanity of the situation. I think comprehension should come before anything else when piecing together an action scene.

     -Story: The story made sense and there were no obvious plot holes, but it really wasn't very strong. It was very cliché-ridden, and it took a lot of predictable turns. It just seemed like a story that's already been told many times before and it didn't seem that special.

     -Script: Really not a great script. The lines were pretty cheesy and cliché. It's pretty obvious that writing isn't the forte of this movie.

See, I'm not the only one who thought it was like a
Godzilla movie.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: The characters were pretty flat and weren't the emphasis of the movie. Look, the emphasis of this movie was giant robots and monsters fighting, not good, round characters. Just don't go into this movie expecting a lot of character development because you aren't going to get it.

Worth Noting:

     -Intelligence: This is just a movie where you walk in, shut your mind off, and enjoy. It doesn't require much brainpower to enjoy.
     -Originality: It's an homage to old Godzilla movies, so it was using a lot of the same clichés and scenarios from those, so I can forgive it somewhat. Having said that, the writing is very cliché and nothing new or fresh.

The Verdict: Pacific Rim was definitely a lot of fun and entertaining if nothing else. The writing was really not the best, but the action, visuals, and tribute to classic monster movies make up for it. The movie will not go down in history as one of the greatest ever made and it may end up as a flop for Warner Brothers. Even so, it's damn entertaining and I think worth a watch, especially if you're a fan of Godzilla movies.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

The Lone Ranger (2013) Review

THE LONE RANGER (2013) REVIEW
Director: Gore Verbinski

Writers: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, and Terry Rossio

Producers: Jerry Bruckheimer, Johnny Depp, Gore Verbinski, Ted Elliot, Eric McLeod, Chad Oman, Eric Ellenbogen, Terry Rossio, and Mike Stenson

Editors: James Haygood and Craig Wood

Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli

Music: Hans Zimmer

Starring: Armie Hamer, Johnny Depp, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, and Bryant Prince

Best Credit: Margaret Bowman as "Fat Lady"

Runtime: 2 hours 29 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense action and violence, some suggestive material)

Genre: Action/Adventure, Western

Release Date: July 3, 2013

Intro: Well, I went into this one with an open mind. This wasn't a movie I was going to go out of my way to see, but a couple friends were going, so I was like, why not? I could be in for seeing a western version of Pirates of the Caribbean, since that's what it seemed like it was. The Lone Ranger is far from flawless and its writing and lack of originality really drag it down, but it's still fairly entertaining thanks to the visuals, humor, and sometimes the action.

Plot: When district attorney John Reid (Hammer)'s train out west is attacked in order to free an outlaw on death row, Reid gets involved and with the help of an Indian slated for execution named Tonto (Depp), he manages to save the rest of the passengers on the train. Afterwards, they go their separate ways. Reid joins his brother, who makes him a Texas Ranger and takes him out to help find the refugee outlaw, Butch Cavendish (Fichtner). After things go badly for the rangers, Reid is reunited with Tonto, and they decide to pursue Cavendish together. Soon, they get mixed up in the ongoing conflicts with the provoking Indians, the railroad empire, and Butch Cavendish's gang of outlaws, and it's up to them to save the town and Reid's family.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There is a lot of violence and people getting shot and bleeding and so forth. This is surprising coming from a Disney movie, since the company is famous for family movies. Anyway, there isn't much of any objectionable stuff outside of the violence and blood, it's just there's a lot of it.

What was Good:

     -Acting: This was a bright spot for the movie. I really like Johnny Depp as an actor, as he can just disappear into roles, and I feel that he does so with Tonto. Armie Hammer is good as the title character and everyone else does a pretty good job, but Johnny Depp steals the show.

     -Music/Score: Pretty good score. As I've mentioned before, I don't think it's possible for Hans Zimmer to write a bad score and he is one of my favorite film composers. While this isn't his best work, it's better than your average movie score.

     -Directing/Cinematography: Not as visually striking as, say, a Star Trek: Into Darkness, but it definitely had decent visuals and some cool shots. The movie definitely looked good if nothing else. Gore Verbinski definitely knows how to direct.

Why we all love Johnny Depp

     -Action/Suspense: Well, you can't say there wasn't action in The Lone Ranger. It's even debatable that there was too much and that they should've spent more time on character development and the plot. Still, the action sequences were, for the most part, exciting. They probably could even have cut out a couple and shortened the movie slightly. In short, the action was good, but there was too much of an emphasis on it.

     -Humor: This was definitely a bright spot in the movie, and it mostly came from Johnny Depp. There were some very funny moments here and there, but not throughout the whole movie. The movie probably could have benefited from even more humor, as that's one thing it had going for it. 

     -Special Effects: Good special effects. Normally a western doesn't require many special effects, but this one was pretty heavy on them. Everything looked pretty realistic, and the visuals in general were a strong part of the movie.

What Could Have Been Better:
     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: Not the best. I feel like the characters were pretty flat. The filmmakers focused only on the action and in the process, forgot to develop the characters as much as they should have.

     -Story: Pretty cliché-ridden. It seemed to just follow a formulaic Western/Action plot with the typical conflicting natives and the greedy railroad bosses and the outlaws and so on. There really wasn't anything special here. There are also some mystical native american elements that fit in awkwardly and seem to be just thrown in there for the hell of it. The narrative they used also seemed unnecessary.

     -Script: The lines all seemed very cliché and cheesy. Tonto's lines especially seemed really cheesy and generic. It seems like the screenwriters just watched every movie with Native Americans in it and cut and pasted all the most stereotypical lines together. I don't know. It was just really unoriginal more than anything else. I feel I've heard most of the lines or variations of them before.

     -Originality: Sadly, there was very little. Everything was pretty formulaic and cliché. I wouldn't go see this movie and expect any innovation whatsoever. It seems like just another action-filled western.

     -Intelligence: This one's a no-brainer in that brain power isn't at all required. This is a movie that a brain-dead person could enjoy. This doesn't detract from the movie a whole lot, but don't go see it expecting to have your mind blown.

Final Score: I wouldn't say that The Lone Ranger is a great film in any way, shape or form. Having said  that, it is fairly entertaining. My advice is save your money and wait and watch it when it comes to Netflix, Redbox, and TV. It's entertaining and if you want a brainless action flick, fairly worth your time, but I wouldn't go out of your way to see it in theaters.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page .

Man of Steel (2013) Review

MAN OF STEEL (2013) REVIEW
Director: Zack Snyder

Writers: David S. Goyer (screenplay and story) and Christopher Nolan (story only)

Producers: Christopher Nolan, Jon Peters, Lloyd Phillips, and Thomas Tull

Editor: David Brenner

Cinematography: Amir Mokri

Music: Hans Zimmer

Starring: Henry Calvill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, and Russell Crowe

Best Credit: Malcolm Scott as "Tractor Repair Shop Owner"

Runtime: 2 hours 23 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (sci-fi violence, some language)

Genre: Superhero, Action, Sci-Fi

Release Date: June 14, 2013

Intro: This is a movie I was intrigued to see, if nothing else because Christopher Nolan had a hand in it, and I thought he'd bring an interesting side to Superman into the franchise. Well, I was half-right. Man of Steel is a very inconsistent movie. The effects, music, and character development are very good, while other qualities lack. The biggest problem it has is keeping what's good and original going throughout the whole movie, as the story and action are both fresh and original, and formulaic.

Plot: During the final days of the planet Krypton, General Zod (Shannon) led a coup on the leaders and caused a civil war. In a society where people are born like test tube babies and born for specific tasks, Jor-El (Crowe) and his wife have had the first natural-born child on Krypton in years. Jor-El sends his newborn son to Earth to escape Zod and the end of Krypton, and Zod and his team are imprisoned. On Earth, Clark Kent (Calvill) has to adjust to being different from the other humans and try to control his extraordinary powers so the people of earth don't freak out. Soon, old enemies of his parents return and it is up to Clark, along with Lois Lane (Adams) to save the human race.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The main thing, as with any superhero and/or action movie, is violence, and there is a lot of it. Otherwise, there's nothing much.

What was Good:

     -Music/Score: This was probably my favorite thing about the movie. The score was really interesting and powerful and added a lot to the movie. Composer Hans Zimmer is one of my favorite movie composers, and this score is as good as you'd expect from him.

     -Special Effects: Very, very good. The effects were really great and were probably the strongest part of the movie. This was obviously emphasized by the filmmakers. Then again, it's hard to have a good superhero movie without good special effects.

     -Characters: This is kind of funny because the filmmakers do a really good job with the characters  but they shy away from it big time in favor of action. It seemed to me that there just wasn't enough character development, especially since this is one thing the screenwriters really had going for them. At times, I almost wanted to see some character development instead of action. It was well done, there just wasn't enough of it.

     -Acting: The cast all did a pretty good job. The filmmakers definitely did a good job at casting. Henry Calivill was, I thought, a great choice to play Superman. This, I felt, was a strength of the movie.

Superman-related and funny. I recommend
checking out the tumblr blog it's from too.
There's some funny stuff on there.

Good and Not so Good at the Same Time:

     -Originality: It was original for a while, but got trapped in the superhero formula once the bad guys showed up. The first part of the movie, where Clark grows up and hides his identity and so forth is a new take that was kind of refreshing and interesting, but unfortunately they were not able to keep it up and they eventually resorted to formula.

     -Story: The story was interesting, but it definitely had some holes. A lot of stuff seemed to happen just because the filmmakers needed it to and a lot of stuff about how something comes to be is just kind of glossed over without any real explanation. Still, the story was interesting and engaging, despite its holes.

     -Action/Suspense: It's a superhero movie, so this is kind of a necessary element. The action is all pretty good and exciting, though you know it's almost impossible to kill Superman, so you're not incredibly worried for his safety, which decreases some of the suspense. The action was inconsistent though. There were some very exciting moments and some action sequences that seemed new and fresh, and there were others where it felt like I'd seen something similar before. Also, some of the action moved so fast, it was a bit hard to figure out what was going on. Overall, it was exciting though.

     -Script: Inconsistent. There were some good lines but there were also some cheesier ones. Not bad though. Everything worked, so I guess it succeeded in that regard.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Directing/Cinematography: I wouldn't say it was bad, but the directing could've been better. I am no fan of the shaky cam (unless it's a found footage film) and I like to know what is going on for the most part in the action sequences. Director Zack Snider is guilty of both. Not all the time, but for several scenes there seemed to be shaky cam or movements that caused confusion where it was really unnecessary. Also, as I mentioned before, sometimes the camera moved so much it made it hard to figure out what was going on in some of the action sequences.

     -Intelligence: Not really a thinking person's movie, but this doesn't detract much from it. Don't expect to see this and have to think too hard.

Final Score: Man of Steel, where it's good is very good, but it has a hard time staying consistent. Still, for superhero fans, this is definitely one to see. It's far from a perfect movie, but nonetheless it's still pretty entertaining as long as you don't go see it expecting another Dark Knight or Avengers. I recommend seeing it if you're into superhero movies or just want to watch a fun summer blockbuster.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page.

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.