The Perks of Being a Wallflower can take us to adolescent places we either know or bear in mind well: the heart-fluttering first crush or the high-school obsession with an SAT report.
Yet regardless of the familiar material in The Perks to be a Wallflower - materials which will be especially recognizable to those people who have read the young-adult novel which it is situated - the disjointed but refreshingly earnest movie eventually establishes itself as a charmer.
While Stephen Chbosky - directing from his screenplay, based on his 1999 e book - occasionally leans just a little hard on the overtly sentimental, he succeeds at the most crucial element in any film about this bumpy course from pubescence to adulthood: He makes us feel young. Charlie (Logan Lerman of Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief), having recently lost his best friend to suicide, is joining high school without acquaintances no notable romantic history but an enormous appetite for making blend tapes and reading every classic work of fiction that his affable English tutor (Paul Rudd) slips him for extra credit. When Charlie matches Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson) - seniors, stepsiblings and self-defined misfit playthings - he suddenly sees himself with two soul guides eager to usher him into an environment of Rocky Horror Picture Show screenings, marijuana brownies and the first glimmers of unrequited love. You can argue that Chbosky adheres to his original work a little too tightly; there are moments in Benefits when scenes stream abruptly from one to the next, as though the filmmaker is sporting to squeeze the most crucial plot factors into a 103-minute working time. Still, the shows by the charismatic young stars - particularly the uber-confident Miller - compensate for any missteps. The other legend of the movie is the soundtrack, which, in keeping with the early on-'90s environment, spills forth a parade of melodies from the Cocteau Twins, Cracker and the Smiths. That makes Perks a film designed both for nostalgic Decades and the text-addicted kids of today. It is a movie for anybody who has ever before ridden in an automobile beside his closest high-school friends along with his wild hair whipping in a liberating weekend-night wind flow and his center filled with a sense of the infinite.
According to Charlie, since the dawn of movies, music has played an integral part of the cinematic experience. Prior to the advancement of "talkies", music quickly became a necessary tool to aid the narrative. These conventions have become moviemaking criteria and are still used today. The use of music is a vital part of a movie. It helps create the feelings in the audiences; while a film without music would be toned. Not only is it used to convey the feeling but to: heighten dilemma, establish time, improve the storyline or even mislead the visitors. Since the movie the perks to be a wild rose was written in the overdue 90's, the directors choice in music was well suited for the movie. For example, in the arena where in fact the trio gets into the tunnel and Sam (Watson) stacks up; suddenly the melody "Heroes" by David Bowie come on the air and later or ends up being blasted through it. This melody is significant there because Sam was taking a stand in the automobile while coming into the tunnel, which gives the viewers the feeling that even for just one day they may be heroes and fans. If another song was enjoyed instead of that, it could not need created the same feeling. Similarly, the track "Asleep" by Smiths is one of the numerous songs that Charlie likes to listen to. This song works with well in this movie because the lyrics of the song duplicate itself, as it does in Charlie's playlist.
Acting is similarly or even more important than sound. Just because the sound is fantastic doesn't make much difference if the stars and the acting is not there. The jobs of Sam, Patrick and Charlie are played out equally talented young adults. Sam played by Emma Watson was an outstanding performance by her. Ms. Watson is well known for her persona, Hermione from the Harry Potter Series. Although she's an highlight, she worked on it and strived to sound like any old American teen. Emma Watson was a great choice for this role because of her short wild hair; she fit the type as a rebellious, "doing whatever they need" kind of teen. Logan Lerner performs the role of Charlie, a lonely soul, does a fantastic job in playing in playing the part. He is famous for is fantastic role in Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Charlie is a fragile character and must be portrayed in a delicate manner. Although, other tasks were important, the most critical role in the movie is the fact that off Charlie's. Mr. Lerner's identity must quickly gain attraction and become likeable by the audiences; usually the movie would appear pointless. Another major personality in the movie, Patrick played out by Ezra Miller, is to help guide the other people to final destination as they say. Miller's ability to be comical and serious matches the character he played. He does an outstanding job as a scene-stealing, impossibly cool, life-of-the-party, openly homosexual mature Patrick. The three celebrities did a extraordinary job at playing the part.
In my opinion, The Perks of Being a Wildflower is a fantastic movie that calls for me back to my senior high school days. I could relate with the movie because I too was a unhappy freshman entering senior high school, with the desires of earning one friend apart from my physics and mathematics professors. However, this movie falls into a whole lot of clich's. Just because this movie is set in the 90's, doesn't make the bells and whistle - gays and drug abuse, more superior to other movies in the same genre. The teen-film genre in regards to a teen trying to squeeze in with others is a favorite genre, but what made me like this movie is the non-public connection I felt with the type Charlie. Being one of his first films, the author and director of the reserve and movie, Stephen Chbosky, does a remarkable job at representing the book. Being based on a book, there are some differences between the two to a certain degree. For instance, in the book Patrick and Charlie's romantic relationship is a lot tenser than that portrayed in the movie. EASILY had to suppose, the director probably didn't have sufficient screen time and energy to have that world develop, or simply to truly have a more emotional connection to the director. Overall, this movie was fantastic and would recommend anyone to go watch. A very important factor I know for certain is the fact that I wouldn't mind watching it another or third time.
