In Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Gist

Smartly scripted but poorly paced, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," the directorial feature of Stephen Chbosky--the author of the source material, will not feel overlong, but it will feel long. There's something about the film's tendency to be "quiet" and too sensitive that didn't sit well with me, but the lessons are deep and still relevant even to adults and the film itself is a bit of a charmer even if it may seem too teen-deep at times.

The Good

• Strong performances by Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller
• The serious tone of the film and its tendency to tackle issues with sensitivity and tact makes it feel more mature than its genre would normally allow
• Smart script and good casting

The Bad

• May feel long, pacing is not as flawless as the script
• Like most teen movies, it can get teen-deep
• Has a tendency to be too quiet and too self-involved, like its lead, not allowing you insight on what the characters think.

Synopsis

Charlie grew into highschool awkwardly. As a freshman, he finds out that the best way to survive high school is to keep to himself. Unfortunately, that only works to keep him out of trouble and admittedly he needs a friend to survive the loneliness of American high school. But as an awkward and unpopular kid, Charlie finds out that getting friends is not as easy as getting A's. As he struggled to keep himself from going back to depression due to events in the past he'd best leave forgotten, he soon finds himself tangled in the company of high school misfits--not so popular high school kids who are just like him and love him for what he is. And just as things get better for Charlie, his past finds itself slowly surfacing to the foreground forcing an unwanted confrontation.

Not Another Teen Movie

Teen movies, there will always be one every year, and every generation would always have one teen movie to summarize them: in the 90s, it was Clueless, 2000s, it's Mean Girls, and for the 2010s, it would be ...Perks. And my common complain for these teen movies is the same: how they portray teen problems in a way that only teens can relate to. I am not sure if I've just grown too old to appreciate them, but I feel like the way they portray teen problems in serious movies such as Perks.. is a bit overblown. Sure, the awkward feeling and needing to belong when you're a teen is a sad thing, but with the way it is romanticized here. For one, I find it hard to believe that girls won't take a liking to Logan Lerman. Sure, he's a nerd, but come on, he's way more decent than any other freshman, and definitely than any other nerd in campus. And if you think about it, all this feeling of not belonging would have been solved had he spoken up and tried to reach out to people. But instead, he sat alone in the cafeteria, waiting for the world to approach him. I know people like that, and they still stay alone in their cafeteria corner.

Out of Reach

I have to give it Chbosky for translating his novel into film with such finesse and sensitivity even at the cost of pacing. For most of the movie, I was able to make do with the pacing even if it hindered me at times. Similarly to my previously reviewed film, Perks has a very quiet lead. Although this one speaks, Charlie (Lerman) is rather too introverted.

I can not guess how they couldn't make them like Juno anymore--it tackles a serious issue but it allows its viewers to know what its characters think and is paired with a lively narration. And that is my problem perhaps with Perks. As it was apparently hiding a secret, it needed to keep the tone down to not spoil the surprise--and it didn't help people know what everyone is thinking. And I learned a thing or two about hiding secrets from your audience, it must be a have a big pay off for it to work. In this case with Perks, it did work, but the way it was narrated and handled afterwards wasn't so refreshing. It lacked something that would've given the ending more oomph.

The script has deviated from the book here and there and I do not completely understand why Chbosky felt this was necessary. If anything, I expected it to be a straight out translation, but that wasn't the case. Many funny dialog were missing from the film, and certain beautiful quotes were omitted. The performances that came with the script were pretty effective, giving life to the quotable lines and making them memorable. Sam's (Hermione Granger, I mean, Emma Watson) confrontation with Charlie before she goes for college is perhaps one of these years most memorable and heartfelt scenes, and I'd say the performance and the build up that lead to it were to blame. If anything, Watson's performance in Perks shows that she can do stand on her own better than her two Harry Potter co-stars and that she refuses to remain under a smart witch's shadow. Charlie was effective in playing a reserved-often-disturbed teenage boy with a chip on his shoulder. And Ezra Miller may have to be the scene-stealer in this film, having an arc and personality that only him owns--and of course the acting prowess to back it up, though it's unfair as he might be simply playing himself in this movie, still it's amazing how he gives life to Kevin and his quirkiness.

If anything, the quite silent treatment with powerful lines and performances worked for the message Perks... would like to impart--not sure if it did the same for storytelling. It was tender enough and not too in the face for its target audience, yet deep enough for adults to relate to. In a sense it is a movie that would like to let everyone know that we belong somewhere, and it is our job to find that place and that's only possible if we take action--and everything else should follow if you reach out.

I am divided with this film as I felt it sometimes tend to dwell on some things that are too teen deep, dwell in a way teens would only know how to, but isn't this what this movie is about and is made for anyway? Ultimately, I get the message and I enjoyed the empowerment it tries to send across. And it has it's charm, mostly worked on by the quirky Miller. The problem I have was with the way storytelling, which is made up for by above average performances of its cast and the solid script. So I guess

My verdict:

May feel too serious and quiet for something paltry, yet universally true and empowering with great performances--I know, contradicting. Couldn't give this movie a 4, but a 3.75 is warranted.

3.75 out of 5 stars. Passed.

In Review: My Week with Marilyn

The Gist

Williams' glowing transfiguration to Monroe will leave spell-bound throughout the whole movie and that alone is enough reason to watch and recommend the movie.

The Good

• spell-binding performance by Michelle Williams
• perfectly cast, with Redmayne, Caine, Brannagh, Dench, and Watson doing solid work all the while allowing Williams to completely shine

The Bad

• would need you to suspend your disbelief in the events that happens (as this is a memoir of Colin Clark), lest, take it as a fan fiction of sorts.
• though is pleasurable to watch, does not completely achieve a climax

Synopsis

Colin Clark, 23, applies to be a production assistant in Olivier's production of The Prince and the Showgirl. During the course of things, Olivier and Monroe's professional relationship are marred by Monroe's stage-fright and Olivier's impatience. Feeling a need to help Monroe, Clark "takes sides" with Monroe and in the process, spends a flirtatious week with her. The movie recounts that week.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

My reaction when Williams was cast as Monroe was apprehensive. Sure she's blonde, American, a female, and has full lips, but that's about it. Williams is a good actress, but a bit too far from looking like Monroe, much more carrying her charm and allure. This is me coming from watching her in "Blue Valentine" where she played a sappy housewife who couldn't seem to attract even the flies. And remember how pathetic the housewife she played in Brokeback Mountain was? That, plus the fact that if anything, Williams does not in any bit look like Monroe. But alas! Williams manages the impossible: she recalls Monroe from the dead and becomes her! Complete from accent, diction, speech, gait, and allure. She even managed to be really sexy, though not Monroe-sexy. That transformation alone got me hooked throughout the movie's 1 hour and 40 running time. I believed it was Monroe I was watching the while time.

Seems legit

Whose Side are You On?

Marilyn explains the kind of behavior that Monroe brings to the set, which is consistent with the literature written about it: habitually late, difficult to work with, struck with stage-fright; albeit, I find it all too condensed that one will have to imagine how she became lovable, how she became the most famous woman on Earth. The movie does not bother to explain it in length, but assumes you have a basic knowledge about Monroe before you jumped in to watch the movie.

The script is fair enough, with Williams squeezing the most potential out of it. Some may bemoan the lack of depth, but it didn't really bother me as I am taking this as a biopic for which witty dialog do not really suffice or happen often, but when they do, they do. What really brings the work to life is Williams' channeling Monroe into being. It is impossible to imagine anyone playing the role. As mentioned above, she got everything spot-on, from the raspy, breathy speech pattern to the flirtatious gestures. She brings Monroe to full life when she performs a dance routine number that Monroe played on The Prince and the Showgirl. Branagh's and Dench's performance of Olivier and Thorndike were laudable, too, while Redmayne, albeit outshone by Williams, did relatively well, too.

Costume and set design were also great and add to authenticity of the movie, while the pacing is fluid and simple, which helps a lot to enjoy the movie. There are great sparks of comedy in the movie and like most of Marilyn movies, this one is light, with the darker areas mostly reflecting on Monroe's inability to cope up with her stage-fright and being near impossible to work with. It is however impossible to decide which part of the film is the climax. For most of it, the film goes on to become delightful that there is no discernible climax, but rather a series of playful scenes during the whole filming, guided by Curtis' tight direction.

My verdict:

A biopic, albeit dubious but a really enjoyable one, powered by a glowing transfiguration of Williams into Monroe is not something you'd like to miss. A passing and recommended mark of 4.5/5.

In Review: Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows

The Gist

If you can forego little character development, use of incredible foresight and other improbable plot devices, then A Game of Shadows will prove to be a palatable popcorn movie, rife with action and thrills and an effective chemistry between its leads, that course perfectly served after the draining holiday offerings of the past film fest.

The Good

• fast-paced and action-packed
• Downey's charm and Law's dead-on timing and effective humor wagon for Downey is still easy to appreciate and has not yet trudged the lines of annoyance.

The Bad

• almost cartoonish improbability of some plot devices and scene progressions
• little use of other cast members; largely non-nefarious villain

Synopsis

Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) traces a sequence of bombing and assassinations to one man, Prof. James Moriarty (Harris), whom his lover-adversary, Irene Adler (McAdams) is working for. As this early part of the plot unravels, Holmes requires the services of his assistant and dear friend, Dr. Watson (Law), who is to marry. Unfortunately, Watson refuses to participate and Holmes seems to rest his case, even offering to bring Watson to his "stag party," which is apparently a visit to a casino where one of the clues to his new case is at in the form of a gypsy fortune-teller, Madam Simza (Rapace). As Holmes digs deeper into his case, the newly-married Watson is forced to join his friend in a case big enough to start a world war.

Bad Bromance

Like the first installment, on-screen chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law is familiar to that of man and wife, which is to say that they're both effective and believable. While often Watson has to play comic relief on which Holmes pulls his tricks on, he is shown to be more hands-on in this movie, being allowed to use his own form of deduction he grew from watching Holmes; Holmes on the other hand is shown to be a more devoted friend than a jackass as he is shown in the previous installment. This is the case perhaps because Holmes does not have any lady in this film. Watson marries here, but for most of the time, he does not endeavor in any on-screen romance with his wife, either. So what it lacks in romance, Guy Ritchie fills in with action and brotherhood. I do not mind, I like the burger better without the cheese.

19th Century Fringe Science

It is both a blessing and, er, a curse that Shadows was shown late here in the Philippines due to the annual Metro Manila Film Fest. What's good about that is that you get to see reviews ahead of watching the movie, what's bad is you'd get spoiled. For weeks, I instead just watched the tomatometer (in Rotten Tomatoes) for this movie to battle it out for freshness. Unfortunately, the movie has bordered the rotten territory and I eventually lost interest, given how not enthralled I was with the first film. Now that I have seen it for myself, I do not understand why the critics were not pleased. What I will do is attempt to discuss probabilities why they did not like it all while reviewing it.

First (and least important) of all, the musical score was not really memorable, albeit for an action flick such as this, it does not always need be, as long as it plays at the right time and helps build up the thrill. During the holidays, I've seen some old movies myself and what I noticed is that films back then rely heavily on dialog and acting. There is little to no musical score unless the film itself is a musical or comedy, and even then, most scenes are left out without any background music, especially if it has a dialog. For modern movies, however, music is key albeit it is most of the time not noticed on first viewing. For a casual moviegoer, music is merely a natural addition, the salt to the dish, that if left out, may make the dish bland. Did Shadows have enough music? Not that you'd notice. It's mostly noise, explosions, grumbles, and bantering.

Second, while Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. were terrific in their roles and have a convincing chemistry, they barely had anything bright to say. Unlike the first movie where wit is present and the jokes are actually based on smarts, this one goes more for banter and a bit of slapstick. Don't get me wrong, the dialog is not bad, but if you compare it to the previous installment, this one falls flat on the smarts department. Funny, yes. Smart, I have my reservations.

Third, If you'd give props to Downey Jr. and Law, the rest of the cast inspires your ho-hum. You wouldn't particularly like Watson's wife (I actually didn't), nor will you find Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) irresistible. He does not provide any good insight as the Mycroft Sir Arthur Conan Doyle painted. He was instead depicted as streaking government official with minor importance to the storyline. Another troubled character is that of Madam Simza's. The writers did very little for the audience to like her and she is also not blessed with a good character development. Noomi Rapace, who appeared in the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels, was wasted in this film. Her facial expressions were either angry or pondering angry. Given that Sim is quite an important character in this film, she could've been given more character depth. Although I find it relieving because I dislike her based on the trailers as she's replacing Rachel McAdams as the movie's dame. And speaking of McAdams who plays Irene Adler, I actually personally like her; There is something charming about her, something charming about the way she plays Irene Adler. Then boom, she is given very little screen time! Injustice! And last for this barrel: Jared Harris who plays the main antagonist, James Moriarty. While you couldn't fault Harris' acting, there is something about the way the movie played out that didn't seem to make him menacing at all. You will know he's the villain, but you couldn't hate him so much. He's just not that detestable. He suggests that he lacks a soul, but he does not show it so much. The way his character was written just did not allow that. It's possible that his character's screen time is sacrificed to focus much on Holmes and Watson. But either way, Ritchie should have made him more menacing, more cold, more nefarious. He just didn't become any of those. He's just that. A token villain.

Fourth and last, this Sherlock is possibly a psychic who has insanely inhuman foresight. That plus the several practically improbable plot devices running throughout the film, which can be excused as passable.

Luckily for me, I was able to look beyond those and enjoyed the film thoroughly. If the film had any dragging moments, they were very few and very little to be noticeable, to destroy the movie. The real challenge perhaps is the suspension of your disbelief, which more often than not can be accomplished if you get too engrossed with the movie. Gladly, the movie is engaging enough that you can easily forgive its various flaws if it does engage you. If it doesn't, I think you can still appreciate the fight scenes, the destruction, the trickery, and some semblance of play on logic in the film. Ultimately, I find this film more memorable than the last one as this one just makes you wish for a third installment while the first one makes you wish that that's about it.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.