Sunday 16 December 2012

Problems I had with 'Perks'


Yes, I have now seen the new teen-angst hipster movie, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, based on the book by Stephen Chbosky, who also directed the film. And if you haven't guessed from the title, it fell a little flat with me. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great. Really, the only compliment I can give it is that it's competent, and even that is stretching it a little. Basically, it just could've been so much more, but I didn't connect with it. And I would like to examine why that is. If you did like it, good for you. Maybe you could answer some of these questions that interrupted my viewing of the film. Yeah, I can't be bothered and I don't have time to right a full review. And I'm just going to guess that most of you know the plot. If you don't, watch the trailer. Gives you enough information on it. Oh, and they aren't in any particular order.


1. Did they seriously not know that David Bowie song?

Okay, this is just me being a little nit-picky and annoying, but this frustrates me. During a tunnel ride, the song "Heroes" by David Bowie is playing on the radio, but for some reason, none of them recognise it. Now I know that the song didn't create that much of an impact when it was first released, but by the 90s it had gathered a lot of respect, and had appeared on about 6 best of CDs by 2002. The only explanation I can come up with is that the three main characters' musical tastes is so alternative that David Bowie has somehow slipped their radars.

2. What happened to Patrick?

Halfway through, after his big emotional breakdown, Patrick (Ezra Miller) just kinda disappears from the movie. And we don't hear anything else about him. We get no closure for the character! How does he overcome his depression? Does he find someone else? What the fuck happened to him! I guess this just shows how little invested I was with the main character that I desperately wanted to know what happened to one of the supporting characters.


3. Was there any point to Joan Cusack being in this?

I mean the actor, not the character. Didn't think so. It's just distracting to see her pop up five minutes before the end of the film.

4. We needed more Melanie Lynskey and Aunt Helen

I really like Melanie Lynskey, ever since I saw her in Heavenly Creatures. And it's nice to finally see her in something other than Two and a Half Men. But the flashbacks involving her character are so brief that she might as well not even be in it. And it would be really helpful if Aunt Helen got a bit more screen time. Whatever we do learn about her is more implied than outright said, and it's just bloody frustrating rather than intelligent. And it brings me to my next point...

5. The final twist is not clear enough to have an impact.

Yes, this movie has a twist. There will be spoilers. I know that it's better to show than tell in films, but the final part of the film really shows Chbosky's inexperience as a director. Because what Aunt Helen did is never explicity said, I was left with an implication that came out of nowhere. This is why we needed more scenes with Helen, so that this twist would fit in more with what we would have learnt from her character. Because we don't learn anything, the twist becomes confusing. Also, because it is presented so incompetently, it doesn't have the impact it was meant to. Plus, it seems to be fairly exploitative, pulling a child abuse back story straight out of its arse. Which brings me to my next point...


6. The movie tries to hard.

Yep. It really does. All the teenage characters are indie, they're outside the group, but all that we know of 'popular/normal' is what the movie deigns to show us once in a while. It tries so hard to tug at your heart strings and relate to you that it loses a lot in terms of plot mainly (see previous point).  And it falls into so many cliches of other teen films without bringing anything that different. There's an inspirational teacher, there's a falling out of friends halfway through, there's the standing up to bullies. In all honesty, it's boring. The one good thing about the film, and I wish they had spent more time on this, was Charlie's family. They were there for him, concerned for him all the time, they helped him through his problems. And I'm not talking about just his parents, his siblings are there too. It's the only refreshing thing in the movie.

And now my last point.

7. When the fuck was this film set!

I'm serious! This pissed me off more than anything! We never got a fucking year! Is it too much to ask for! I think it was set somewhere in the 90s, but it could've been the 80s, or even early 00s. Please, if you do reply to this, please tell me what fucking year this is set in!


Anyway, that's it. I know I should've done a review, but I'm guessing those who wanted to see it already have, and won't care what I think about it anyway. With Christmas coming, hopefully I'll get another one up during the week (if I don't procrastinate and watch Christmas movies all day). This one should be Christmas themed. Until next time, readers.

No comments:

Post a Comment