The Great Gatsby

From a sensory standpoint, The Great Gatsby is an unqualified success. Director Baz Luhrmann has once again married a modern soundtrack to a retro setting in another anachronistic move that also highlighted Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! I don’t mind the contemporary soundtrack produced by Jay-Z. In fact the hip-hop songs help heighten the excitement of the party scenes. Each soiree is a sensational wonder of Art Deco style. Digitized glitter and streamers fill the screen in a hyperactive techno dazzle display that is a visual and audible overload for the senses – a heady cocktail of debauchery, flowing booze and loud music. The camera swoops and dives amongst the glittering party people. Cuts are fast and furious. Two people talk and there are 10 edits to fortify the exchange. But the flamboyant choices give the production the emotional depth of a commercial advertising Moët & Chandon.

The pace is frantic. We’re never really offered a chance to breathe and given the dramatic time needed to understand what makes these individuals tick. That party at Gatsby’s mansion is perhaps the most invigorating set piece in the entire movie. Although our main protagonist hasn’t even appeared yet. That’s a bit of problem in a drama called The Great Gatsby. Even when Leonardo DiCaprio finally does make an appearance, he feels more like a supporting character in his own story. Daisy Buchanan, as played by Carey Mulligan, is supposed to have inspired Gatsby in his lifelong quest to win back her heart. Unfortunately the narrative never presents a compelling reason why this woman has consumed his life.

What works in a book does not always work on screen. Luhrmann’s slavish devotion to the novel hurts its cinematic chances to engage. Tobey McGuire as Nick Carraway is not the protagonist, but rather the first person narrator. He, in fact, occupies more screen time than anyone. He registers his approval, disgust, admiration to the audience on everyone. His constant narration is observing and commenting on what he sees. In the book he’s a poetic way to frame the chronicle, but in a movie, he’s a killjoy. He seems more like an interference than as someone who is helping the drama along. Baz has decided to have Nick writing the story of The Great Gatsby from inside a sanitarium while being treated for alcoholism. See F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words literally jump off the screen in 3D as Nick types them! It would be a perfect way to illustrate song lyrics for a pop music video. In this context, the static effect only serves to remind us we’re watching a dramatization from a distance. The device does nothing to draw us into the saga.

The Great Gatsby seems destined to remain one of those unadaptable books. The beauty of Fitzgerald’s prose never seems to translate properly to the silver screen. Filmmakers have tried. This is the fifth adaptation of the classic work of American fiction. Published in 1925, The Great Gatsby is considered by many to be The Great American Novel. It details the acquisition of the American dream and the hollow facade behind those that have acquired it. Fitzgerald beautifully captured a cross-section of American society. He delights in capturing a time and place, namely the Jazz Age of the 1920s in Long Island, New York. Director Luhrmann certainly captures the look of an era. The art direction is beyond compare. The costumes are extraordinary. It’s without a doubt a technical marvel of resplendent opulence. But the attention to superficial details comes at an expense. The spectacle IS the story. The amplified style lacks any meaningful insight that would make these people interesting. It isn’t until a heated confrontation between Gatsby and Tom in a hotel that we form any connection to them as well as Nick, Daisy and Jordan – the rest of the primary cast. Sadly it’s near the end of the film. The production seems more concerned with minutiae like the large curl in Jordan’s black hair, than in what she is saying. “I just heard the most shocking thing. It all makes sense!” the golf pro coos early on at a party before disappearing without explanation. We’re supposed to care what she’s talking about. Strangely we don’t.

Spotlight on Scorsese: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (Fast Film Reviews)

Reblogged from Rorschach Reviews:

Mark Hobin is the man behind Fast Film Reviews and the second contributor to my Spotlight on Scorsese guest review series.  The second blog I ever clicked "Follow" on, Fast Film Reviews remains one of my go-to sources for reviews of new releases and more.  You can follow Mark's blog here or check out our blogger interview here.

Alice Hyatt, a recently widowed mother with a 10 year old son, is on the cusp of starting anew.

Read more… 627 more words

I've been a loyal reader of the nifty film review blog that Andy Swinnerton maintains over at Rorschach Reviews for some time. Recently he decided to spotlight director Martin Scorsese and invited his readers to contribute reviews on his films.

I made the somewhat unpredictable choice of Scorsese's fourth film Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Still well regarded, it's rarely included on the shortlist of his greatest films these days. Yet I still consider it one of his finest achievements. I think I make a pretty good case for it. Please check out my review on his site by clicking on the link above.

Warm Bodies

Warm Bodies is a “paranormal romantic zombie comedy film.” I know what you’re thinking, “oh great, another one of those.” But jokes aside, there is very little here that is original or clever despite the genre mashup of the premise. The story concerns a zombie teen that goes by ‘R’ because that’s all he can remember of his name. R is on a constant search for human flesh from the still living humans. He’s a particular connoisseur of brains as they allow him to experience the memories of the former owner. You see even though he is a zombie, he yearns to be human again. One day he meets non-zombie Julie and a bunch of her friends, including her boyfriend, Perry. R kills Perry, eats his brain and becomes immediately attracted to her. Instead of killing her, R rescues her from the attack. Can you guess what happens next?

The zombie twist notwithstanding, this basically plays out like the umpteenth variation of Beauty and the Beast. Except Belle didn’t take up with the Beast right after he killed her boyfriend. That troubling bit of logic is part of the reason why this romance doesn’t really work. Julie and R never function as more than a writer’s construct of what young impetuous kids in love are supposed to do in these films. We get lots of dewy-eyed stares from actor Nicholas Hoult.  Actress Teresa Palmer conveys sympathetic anxiety. There’s a ton of musical selections that intrude on the action at inappropriate times on the soundtrack too. The movie could easily be chopped up into sections and run as videos on MTV. I mean, that is if MTV still played videos. One “wacky” music montage actually has the two adolescents trying on different pairs of sunglasses. I wish that was meant to be satirical, but sadly it’s done with utter sincerity.

Warm Bodies is pleasant but not perceptive. William Shakespeare did this way back in the 16th century when he wrote Romeo & Juliet (another influence). Even The Bard of Avon was borrowing from earlier traditions. “Love Conquers All” is the timeworn concept. Simply adding zombies to the mix is just a lazy technique to make this generic material seem fresh. “We’ve kind of done vampires to death so let’s concentrate on zombies now,” is the impression I get from the way the story pitch went. Additionally the illogical plot contrivances further irritate matters. If someone killed my sweetheart, I’d run in the other direction, not date them. Warm Bodies is based on the debut novel of author Isaac Marion. Not having read the source text, I’m not sure how much of the script contains the root of Marion’s ideas. Unfortunately the screenplay adaptation feels more like the result of a focus group than the outcome of genuine inspiration.

Amour

An austere, unflinching portrait of an elderly Parisian husband and wife facing the difficulties that precipitate aging.  Becoming older is the subject of this heartfelt film – specifically the physical and mental breakdown of a man’s spouse as she falls ill. The script treats the issue with sensitivity and there is a surprising warmth to a chronicle with which director Michael Haneke is usually not associated. But the filmmaker, whose oeuvre was described by one author as a “cinema of cruelty”, hasn’t really changed that much. Sentimental accounts are not his bag and true to his sensibilities, there are aspects that highlight this as a drama done in his quintessential style.

Georges and Anne are retired music teachers in their 80s.  They’re attending a recital of one of their previous students near the beginning of the picture. When they return home, they discover they have been robbed. The minutiae of their conversation informs us that they have a comfortable ease with each other that only a long-time married couple would have. The next morning as they’re sitting down to breakfast, Anne begins staring off into space and doesn’t respond to his questions. Georges is concerned and he arranges for her to see a doctor. He determines she requires surgery. It isn’t successful once completed. This all happens in the first 15 minutes. As the narrative develops her capabilities slowly deteriorate over an extended time span. We are essentially confined to their apartment. With the exception of a few scenes featuring their daughter played by Isabelle Huppert, these two carry the entire movie. The action is claustrophobic and agonizing. At one point about halfway through, he’s getting ready for bed for the night. There’s a knock at the door. Let’s just say what happens next is a good example of one of those intense moments.

At the heart of Amour are two engaging performances that are tantamount to our connection to this story. Jean-Louis Trintignant is an internationally recognized French film star with films darting back as early as 1956. Anyone who has ever seen A Man and a Woman will remember him in his 30s. Ditto Emmanuelle Riva who starred in Hiroshima, mon amour back in 1959. As Georges and Anne These two actors are essential to our “enjoyment” of this production. I use quotes because enjoy is such a strong word.  The actors are warm and genuine, but the mood is chilly and remote. The central couple are equally genial and sweet. They could be our grandparents. We are drawn into their plight because we care about them. Once you do, there is no turning back as you descend a path of gradually building despair. Haneke’s traditional use of extremely long static takes is particularly effective here. They present the developments as real life, without artifice. There’s no score, another Haneke attribute. These qualities lull the audience into a state of depression. It is startlingly unsentimental. The lack of visual or audio cues is refreshing in it’s presentation of an idea often manipulated with such indicators. This is Haneke’s version of a disease-of-the-week TV movie. It’s not a reassuring portrayal, but it is sobering and honest.

Rust and Bone

Ali is a penniless man with his five-year-old son Sam to take care of. While crashing at his sister’s place, he gets a job as a bouncer at a local nightclub, relying on his abilities as a former street fighter. Stéphanie is a woman who works as a killer whale trainer at a marine mammal amusement park. They meet at the club where he works after she is attacked in a bar brawl. Nothing of consequence occurs between the two. He leaves his number and they part ways. Then, following a tragic accident that leaves her disfigured, she calls up the derelict man out of the blue and the two enter into a relationship of sorts.

On the surface Rust and Bone is an uplifting drama detailing the triumph of the spirit, but that horribly clichéd phrase doesn’t even come close to doing this movie justice. It’s raw, sexual and completely without pity, much like our male protagonist Ali. Impoverished and nomadic, he is a brute force that inexplicably meshes with the more emotional and financially secure Stéphanie. Although both have imperfect lives that need fixing, she would appear to have little in common with Ali. But at this very low point in her existence she reaches out to him and his response gives her renewed faith and a will to live.

At the heart of Rust and Bone are two really powerful performances from Marion Cotillard and Belgian actor Matthias Schoenaerts. The nature of their relationship is akin to something Tennessee Williams might write about. Marion Cotillard tries to subvert her beauty to embody the grit behind a woman who has all but given up on life. She’s incredible, we’ve come to expect that from her at this juncture in her career . What’s surprising is relative newcomer Schoenaerts who matches her for intensity. He garnered indie praise as the star of Bullhead which was the Belgian nominee for best foreign film in 2011. That picture raised his profile, but this should be an even bigger breakthrough. He’s charismatic in a way that has people already inviting comparisons to actors like Tom Hardy or Jason Statham. The story is equally focused on him, actually more so, and his shocking lack of sympathy, but undiminished desire, is reassuring to her.

Jacques Audiard, who was responsible for 2009’s much lauded A Prophet, wisely knows when to have his stars minimize theatrics and let the moment speak for itself. One of my favorite scenes is indicative of the attitude of the film. In one particularly brutal bare knuckle fight, Ali is badly beaten on the ground, face bloodied from being hammered. Sitting on the sidelines, Stéphanie watches helpless from the car. As he’s being pummeled, his eyes catch the sight of her stepping out from the protection of the van. One anticipates her to come barreling from the parked vehicle, hysterical and sobbing uncontrollably. You foresee Stéphanie throwing herself over the combatants in order to stop the bout. But she does none of these things. The lower half of her legs are in view as they step forward out of the car. She walks calmly toward the two men, and then stands, like an inspiration to her man. Galvanized by her presences, he is inspired to summon what little strength he has left to fight back.

Rust and Bone is the most unsentimental sentimental picture I saw this year. It’s also the most romantically unromantic. It’s a tale of contrasts and it’s those contradictions that make the chronicle so unpredictable. It’s a narrative that is not easily categorized because its outlook is rather unconventional. It subverts the conventions of a traditional (read Hollywood) romance at every turn. Theirs is not a typical love story. However it emphasizes the need to be loved and the physical passion that goes along with that love. As the melodrama begins to pile up near the end, one setback after another almost – almost! – threatens to derail a saga shaded in nuance. Thankfully, that doesn’t happen. This remains a thoroughly engaging portrait of two disparate people who oddly need each other.

Les Misérables

Les Misérables is an achievement, the cinematic realization that fans have waited almost 3 decades. The stage musical is a global sensation. It opened in London on October 1985 and has run continuously since. The Broadway rendition debuted 2 years after the West End debut and became the fourth longest-running show in U.S. history. The road from stage to screen has been a long journey with a storied development beginning in the late 1980s. It’s safe to say expectations were very high. Under the direction of Tom Hooper, the production is realized as a thrilling success, with minor caveats.

It is the story of Jean Valjean, a peasant who serves 19 years in jail for having stolen a loaf of bread for his starving family. He’s prisoner 24601! With the blessing of a sympathetic Bishop, Valjean breaks parole to start a new life as an honest man. He makes good on his promise and becomes a benevolent factory owner and mayor full of kindness and understanding. Unfortunately he is still relentlessly pursued by police inspector Javert who is beholden to the law. We’re also introduced to a large company of various individuals all set against the backdrop of the French Revolution .

In any drama with a large ensemble, there is a danger that the production can become cumbersome or scattered as more individuals begin to pop up. What impresses is that director Tom Hooper deftly handles the large ensemble of actors giving us an intimacy with each one that benefits their character and our sentimental attachment to each story. He makes the questionable decision to film the singing live ostensibly to make the story’s emotional component more of the moment. There’s definitely an immediacy to the proceedings, but at times the vocals suffer. The time-honored movie musicals have always relied on the perfect take. As this is a movie musical and not being performed on stage, why not take advantage of that fact. Wouldn’t it have been smarter to studio record and enhance the clarity of the vocals? Nothing against Anne Hathaway’s stunning portrayal of Fantine, but when she’s sobbing uncontrollably all throughout the famous number, ‘I Dreamed a Dream’ it really is a bit of a buzzkill. I usually tear up every time I hear that majestic song with it’s high notes and sweeping strings. Yet when she sang it, I didn’t. As a performance she’s incredible, however.

And speaking of performances, Hugh Jackman is quite simply extraordinary. Rarely have I seen an actor combine the vocal chops with acting ability to create a moving achievement that is among the most accomplished in film musical history. What’s so extraordinary is that he finds a vibrancy that immediately draws you into his story as if you’ve known him all your life. Russell Crowe isn’t anywhere close to his match as Javert, his nemesis, but he does provide a counterpoint to Jean Valjean. I’ve seen the play twice performed on the stage, in 1990 and again this year 2012. I understood Crowe’s character arc better in this production than I ever have before. What he lacks in vocal strength, he more than makes up for in raw emotion.

They’re skillfully energized by a strong supporting cast. There’s much too many parts to detail individually, but I should mention Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen who provide wonderful comic relief as corrupt innkeepers The Thenardiers. Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, the student revolutionary, whose vocals are just as powerful as they need to me. And I most assuredly must highlight Eddie Redmayne as Marius and Samantha Barks as Éponine. Éponine’s unrequited love for Marius is surprisingly one of the narrative’s most affecting moments. Her song ‘On My Own’ was a floodgate of emotion for me. The ‘In My Life/A Heart Full Of Love’ is another high point, both of them singing along with Amanda Seyfried as Cosette, the harmony of their voices overlapping like some heavenly trio. Their hymn, one of love discovered, the other of love lost, is heartbreaking.

Les Misérables isn’t perfect, but it’s an absolute joy to anyone who’s a fan of Hollywood cinema on a lofty scale. And why shouldn’t it be grand? The chronicle is based on the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo. Perhaps because it feels as if the musical has always been with us, it’s difficult to imagine a time when adapting the somber tome of French literature into a musical was actually a radical concept. This is rather depressing stuff but in the hands of director Tom Hooper, it is an emotionally involving, monumental saga in the timeless tradition of classic movie musicals. The story is sweeping, the vocals are (mostly) impressive and the lavish production is a marvel – the kind Hollywood was known for in the 40s and 50s. I love that this version made me see things I never noticed before. Les Misérables is paean to the beauty and romance of Victor Hugo’s well known French tale and indeed of grand filmmaking at its most epic.

Anna Karenina

Salt & pepper, peanut butter & jelly, Keira Knightly & period pieces. These pairings go together as if they were designed to be united. I must admit I’m a bit biased in Keira’s favor when it comes to these types of costume dramas. She has a timelessness that seems to fit theses epics like hand in glove. Alright enough with the similes. Anna Karenina is an adaptation of the 1877 Leo Tolstoy classic, a tour de force of Russian literature. It’s a book of enduring popularity, beloved the world over.  Having been dramatized many many times, most famously in a 1935 version starring Greta Garbo and Fredric March, the question must be asked. How to make the text appear fresh and new for a modern audience?

Joe Wright has a singular vision. The English director has made the fascinating decision to lens the film in its virtual entirety on a single soundstage in an old abandoned theater. You might think this would be severely limiting, but surprisingly this is far from the case. The achievement is a set designer’s dream. The colors, costumes and cinematography complement a production that is so deliberately lavish in its presentation, I stopped breathing at moments it was so impressive. Italian composer Dario Marianelli composed the score, and it’s suitably lush romanticism complements the gorgeous visuals. I dare say, there is a carefully studied artistic expression here that I have rarely seen since Black Narcissus or The Red Shoes. High praise that I do not bestow lightly.

This is director Joe Wright’s third collaboration with leading lady Keira Knightly following Pride & Prejudice (2005) and Atonement (2007). By now the two clearly have a simpatico relationship that benefits the other. He utilizes her to full effect taking advantage of her strengths in the title role. She has a quality that suits any age, perfectly conveying the emotional depth the part requires. She isn’t the most likeable heroine. In fact I didn’t sympathize with Anna much. Given the hypocrisy on display, I think I was supposed to. However she is mesmerizing. The idea to cast Jude Law as Alexei Karenin, her stodgy husband, is an inspired choice. Normally Jude Law would be too young and handsome to depict a man 20 years her senior, but he sports a tremendous moustache and beard to hide his countenance. I quite enjoyed his portrayal as he comes across as rather sympathetic and not as stuffy as Karenin is often portrayed. He actually seems a pretty forgiving chap the way he puts up with her infidelity. Aaron Taylor-Johnson plays the dashing Count Vronsky. There is a slight narcissism in his performance. His posturing suggests he just might be as enamored with himself as he is with Anna. The youthful actor is virtually unrecognizable in blonde hair and blue contacts as the affluent rogue who sweeps her off her feet.  It wasn’t until after seeing the picture that I googled his (new) name and realized this was in fact the same star of KickAss and Savages.

Anna Karenina is a cinematic feast. Director Joe Wright’s re-envisioning of the cherished novel treats the material with the reverence it deserves, but represents the production in a hyper-realized theatrical treatment that beautifully befits the story. Wright does a masterful job at condensing Tolstoy’s 800 page monolith into a manageable 2 hour feature. He expertly juggles a large cast of characters giving each the time they’re due without taking away from the central plot at hand. I was completely wrapped up in Anna’s story. And the way he renders the narrative, is genius. It is a sumptuous sight to behold that embraces the super-stylized construction of a play. Office workers stamp papers in staccato unison to the music like percussion, and then uniformly stand and sit in succession. When Count Vronsky and Anna first waltz on the dance floor of an elegant ballroom, the resulting movement is a meticulously choreographed ballet. The dancing couples remain frozen then move when Anna and Vronsky pass by them. Its conceptual style may not enrapture some, but the cinephile in me was entranced. I enjoyed every shrouded whisper, every conspicuous glare, and every angry declaration. Anna Karenina is a celebration of the medium. It is the very reason why one escapes into the fantasy of a movie and out of the reality of everyday life.

Silver Linings Playbook

On the surface, Silver Linings Playbook looks like a generic romantic comedy. But you would be sorely mistaken. The individuals contained within are anything but your standard, mainstream-friendly crowd. These people are “crazy”. Ok so crazy isn’t exactly a PC word.  Pat Solitano is severely bipolar. So much so that even the very sound of the song “My Cherie Amour” is a trigger that will set him off into a violent rage. Mental illness isn’t a particularly easy subject to mine for laughs and not make the audience feel uncomfortable. But it is a very real issue that is often misunderstood. For a while Pat’s smug, self-satisfied tendency to say whatever pops into his head, is unpleasant. At first it’s difficult to embrace the character. Actor Bradley Cooper has often traded on these attributes in movies like The Hangover films where he’s meant to be glib and overconfident. Here however his easily excitable and smartass demeanor makes him a rather unlikeable bloke.  But interesting things happen in Silver Lining Playbook. As the story develops we start to slowly realize he cannot control these loathsome qualities and he becomes something of a tragic figure. This might possibly be Bradley Cooper’s greatest achievement in acting as it plays to his strengths.

Enter Tiffany Maxwell, played by Jennifer Lawrence, an equally damaged soul also in need of repair. Hiding behind a protective facade of harsh honesty and unrepentant attitude, she isn’t quite the sweetest peach on the tree either. She’s getting over the recent death of her husband. Following a bout with promiscuity that has the whole town thinking of her as the local harlot, she is trying to rebuild her life when she meets Pat and the two strike up a friendship. Pat still wants to reunite with his wife whom Tiffany sees occasionally. She wants a partner for a regional dance competition. The two agree to help each other out and a camaraderie of sorts is begun.

Silver Linings Playbook was directed by David O. Russell. Coming off the success of 2010’s The Fighter, he is clearly on a career defining high. This is his second outstanding feature in a row. I am finally willing to forgive him for I ♥ Huckabees. In addition to actors Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, both rising stars giving arguably their best performances to date, it also boasts Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker and Julia Stiles in one of the most impressive ensembles casts of the year. The script’s odd mix of mental illness and humor can be a bit off-putting in the beginning, but as the narrative wears on, the story takes root, and the personalities engage. It all builds to a satisfying and winning conclusion that manages to combine an obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles football team and a ballroom dance competition. Despite a foundation in genre conventions, this is anything but your typical rom-com. David O. Russell’s adaptation of Matthew Quick’s novel turns these archetypes on their ear. These people aren’t cute, they’re abnormal. Silver Linings Playbook remains an altogether winning slice of life concerning argumentative but brutally honest characters that don’t care whether you like them. The shock is that we surprisingly do.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

This review is not for anyone already an avowed devotee of the Twilight series. Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is very much a companion to the last film and will satisfy those who are transfixed by the relationship between Bella, Edward and Jacob. However if you’re a fan of acting, storytelling and drama, then this is not your movie. In other words, if you loved/hated Part 1, you’ll love/hate Part 2.

As its title suggest Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is a continuation of the events of Part 1. Bella is now a vampire. She’s stronger, her senses are more acute, and she can move – really, really fast. Bella and Edward Cullen have a new addition to their family, newborn daughter Renesmee – half human, half vampire, she is growing at an alarming rate. We soon learn that Jacob has imprinted on their daughter, which is sort of the equivalent of becoming her soulmate. I don’t know about you, but the idea that Jacob tried to woo Bella, didn’t succeed, and now he’s after her daughter is more than a little creepy. But I digress. The Volturi, a powerful coven of vampires that enforce the laws of the vampire world, have learned of the child and are now out to kill the Cullen clan. They believe her to be an immortal and extremely dangerous to them. Her very existence is something of a crime which must be punished.

Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is shockingly devoid of any excitement save for the ending. That’s the problem with stretching a single book that could have easily been a 1 hour TV show into 2 films that comprise almost four hours combined. But ah yes there’s money to be made. Anyway what do I know? Obviously, the filmmakers have properly catered to their audience because this earned a boatload of cash. It takes a long time to get to the point of the story, the impending threat of the Volturi. Before that we watch Bella put on contacts, arm wrestle Emmett and zip around in a gray blur featuring surprisingly bad special effects for a major Hollywood production. I dare you not to laugh at the infant Renesmee’s face that is hilariously expressive for a newborn baby. Director Bill Condon seems to finally fully embrace the camp value of this series, although it doesn’t really help. It all builds to a climatic battle that is as ridiculously over-the-top as the rest of the movie is lifeless. I mean the number of bloody decapitations are so numerous they kind of lose their impact.

The actors in Breaking Dawn – Part 2 do not act, they pose. Each scene is composed of beautifully airbrushed models that preen for the camera. CGI is utilized to make them appear even more beatific as they gaze blankly at each other. Like mannequins in a department store window they exhibit a beautiful display of fashion and hairstyles. The lack of action is dreary. There are seemingly endless scenes where people just stand idly by and stare. Once in a while they deliver vapid pronouncements uttered in flat American accents supposedly representing the youths of Forks, Washington but sound more like the denizens of L.A. Everyone broods giving boring exposition that explains the history of various tribes as they gather witnesses to the fact that their daughter does not pose a threat. There is no passion befitting the dialogue. Michael Sheen is the lone actor on hand that gives a performance. As the leader of the Volturi speaks his lines with the self importance that belies his position. At one point he lets out a delighted high pitched squeal that has more personality than the sum total of everything said in the entire production. I perked up a bit at that moment. Then fell back into a lethargic passivity that matched the rest of the cast.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Unless you were captain of the football team or head cheerleader, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is going to resonate on some level with you. How much is debatable, but this is without question, one of the most poignant dramas concerning high school life since the golden era of John Hughes. Teen angst is a subject often mined in the cinema. The subject arguably hit a commercial peak in the 1980s with generational classics like Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink. But Perks goes much deeper. It’s less humorous and more warmly accessible. An updated version of those films circa 1991 but made in 2012. The story is involving because it seems timeless – not of any particular time or place but of an experience and that experience is high school. Though fashions and music may change, the attitudes remain familiar. Insecurities are laid bare and exposed in a way that is both believable and at times heartbreaking.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a novel written in 1999 by Stephen Chbosky. Frank and mildly provocative, it has appeared on the list of most frequently banned books in libraries and schools, but so has Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill A Mockingbird, so I suppose it’s in good company. The author takes the old adage “if you want something done right, do it yourself” to heart as he not only adapts his book into the screenplay, but directs the entire movie. Who better to convey the teen angst of the source novel that the author of the actual words? Surprisingly, he proves to be an adept director as he extracts honest performances from his young leads. Actor Logan Lerman is Charlie, a sensitive and withdrawn freshman unskilled in the social scene of high school. Sharp moviegoers might remember him at the titular character in Percy Jackson & the Olympians. As acceptable as he was in that adaptation, he completely nails the personality here. He is likeable and sweet and despite his better than average looks, still conveys the miserable sad sack that is required here. He eats lunch alone, gets bullied by his peers. He wont even offer the correct response in class when he clearly knows the answer.

Logan Lerman is matched by two key co-stars.  Taking the same shop class is a senior named Patrick played by Ezra Miller. As the sassy best friend he dazzles in a showy role that deserves to be his breakout. An eccentric personality, he likewise doesn’t quite fit with in-crowd and the two of them strike up a friendship. Completing the trio they form is Patrick’s stepsister Sam portrayed by Emma Watson. She subverts her English accent here to play an American teen. I’ve seen the competent actress in eight Harry Potter movies, yet I have never witnessed her give a more emotionally impressive performance than the one she gives in this film. They share a camaraderie that is incredibly touching. Watch them boogie down when the three of them unite at the homecoming dance. It’s awkward but tender.  You might even wish you were part of their inner circle. Charlie is soon introduced to their cohorts and this “island of misfit toys” becomes sort of support group for him.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is about a journey. The trek of a young freshman as he navigates high school saddled with his emotional baggage from the past. His befriending of these seniors that are outcasts as well, allow him to get through this incredibly difficult episode of his life.  True, the script is admittedly highlighted by some well worn tropes often found in literature. Charlie, Patrick and Sam could all be identified as familiar character types. However to label them as such is to reduce their impact. This is a an affecting take on high school life that feels authentic and sincere. The sentiment is real. You may not identify with these people, but you can certainly appreciate the dramatic weight of their pain. This is for anyone who has ever navigated the horror of high school. In other words, it’s for pretty much everyone.