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.

From Prada to Nada (2011) Review

Even just looking at the title and the poster
should tell you something about
the quality of this movie.

FROM PRADA TO NADA (2011)

Director: Angel Garcia

Writers: Fina Torres, Luis Alfaro, and Craig Fernandez

Producers: Deborah Del Prete, James M. McNamara, and Ben Odell

Editor: Brad McLaughlin

Music: Heitor Pereira

Starring: Camilla Belle, Alexa Vega, Luis Rosales, Adriana Barraza, Wilmer Valderrama, and Nicholas D'Agosto

Runtime: 1 hour 47 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (brief drug use, a sexual situation)

Genre: Romance, Drama, Comedy

Release Date: January 28, 2011

Before Watching the Movie: First of all, I want to apologize for not getting any reviews out lately. School has kicked in to high gear and my life has been kind of crazy of late. I'm going to try and get more reviews out soon, as I've started to see some movies again. Secondly, allow me to introduce a new term that may apply to some of my reviews. This term shall become known as the HM factor. HM stands for "heterosexual male," which I am. It refers to the slanted view of more female-centered movies (AKA "chick flicks") that I possess because I am a heterosexual male. In other words, these types of movies don't really appeal to people like me, so the HM factor points out the fact that I may rate some of these movies lower just because of my perspective. See visual representation below.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The main thing here is language. Though it is all mild (no f-words), there is a fair amount of usage. Also, there is one implied sex scene, but absolutely nothing is shown. There is also apparently a scene in which a character smokes pot, but I honestly don't remember that part at all. Either I just plain missed it or it must have happened while my friend and I were making fun of the screenwriters.

Intro: It's a wise and old saying that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. There are, however, some cases in which this saying does not apply. This movie happens to be one of those cases. Take 3 seconds to glance at the title and the poster. Now think to yourself: does this movie really have any potential to be anywhere near a cinematic masterpiece whatsoever? Your answer is correct if you answered with "no," or "yes, but very little," or something like those. Why, you may ask, did I watch a bad chick flick? Well, my spanish teacher actually showed my class this, since it deals with Mexican culture, which is a culture that speaks spanish. We were then to discuss the movie after we were done watching it. I don't know why he picked this movie of all the movies out there that are in spanish or relate to the culture of spanish-speaking countries (How about Pan's Labyrinth?), but he unfortunately did. Anyway, From Prada to Nada takes what little potential it has and squanders it with an overly formulaic plot, cheesy dialogue, and failed attempts at humor despite pretty good directing and music.

Plot: Two rich, spoiled, Mexican-American sisters living in Beverly Hills are living fairly carefree lives and are getting caught up in their rich, luxurious lifestyle. One day they go to their dad's 55th birthday party at his mansion. While dancing with the sisters, he dies of a heart attack. After the funeral, the sisters found out that their father lost all their money, so with nowhere else to go, the sisters move in with their aunt in East L.A. In East LA, the two sisters Nora (Belle) and Mary (Vega) must adjust to a new way of life and reconnecting with Mexican culture. Meanwhile, both try to make it back in the world as they pursue serious relationships with guys.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 7/10. This was really kind of a bright spot in this movie. The directing is really pretty good. I feel sorry for Angel Garcia because he didn't get a better movie to direct. He's maybe the only person aside from the composer that may actually be going somewhere.

     -Acting: 5.5/10. No Oscar-worthy performances here. The acting wasn't horrible, but it definitely wasn't great either. Some line deliveries felt kind of wooden. Then again, that might also be the fault of the screenwriters and their cheesy lines.

     -Writing: 2/10.

          -Story: 1/10. About as predictable of a story as you can get. Absolutely no unpredictability at all as far as plot and character development were concerned. If this movie were a murder mystery, you could probably figure out who the murderer is in the first 10 minutes in the movie. Yes, it was really that predictable. It was predictable to the point that as I mentioned earlier, my friend and I were making fun of the screenwriters.

          -Script: 3/10. AAAAAA!!!! The cheesiness!!! Make it STOP!!!!! This sums up my reaction to the writing in this movie. Was the writing as bad as that of The Last Airbender? No, but it was definitely getting there. It was extremely formulaic and in that regard matched the story pretty well.

     -Special Effects: n/a. It was clear that the movie had a small budget. There are no special effects to speak of, and I think the most expensive things on any set in the whole movie were the cars the girls owned in the beginning of the movie.

     -Music/Score: 7.5/10. The movie actually had a pretty good original score. It consisted mainly of music with Latin-American themes, which was pretty fitting since the story was mainly set in East Los Angeles and all the characters were Mexican-American.

You tell 'em, Spidey! This is an accurate visual
representation of the HM factor.

                                                                 -Power/Emotion: 2/10. I really didn't care about any of the characters at all. While the HM factor is alive and well in this rating, I really don't see how anyone could care too much about these characters, especially considering how predictable the plot was.

     -Adrenaline: 1/10. Pretty much no action at all except for an incident at the very end, and even through it, it was clear that the character(s) (Even though it's a crappy, predictable movie, I still want to keep my reviews spoiler-free) would end up fine in one way or another.

     -Mind-Bendingness: n/a. Only mind-bending if you think of it in terms of how mind-bendingly formulaic the writing is.

    
     -Humor: 3/10. A for effort, D for execution. I didn't find the movie overwhelmingly funny. There were a couple kind of funny moments, but that was really it.

     -Best Credit: Susana Altamirano as "Cubicle Head."

     -Final Score: From Prada to Nada is not a great movie. Though it's not great, I do have to defend the filmmakers on this one as they had very little good material to work with coming from the writers. The lazy, formulaic screenwriting and storytelling ruin the movie for sure. I would not recommend this movie, even to those who love chick flicks or movies like this, or even those who are immune to the HM factor. If you're going to watch a chick flick, at least do yourself some good by picking a halfway decent one.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page.