‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower’ lacks perks on the big screen
Published: Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Updated: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 00:10
“Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a heartfelt and beautiful, but average movie. At some parts, the movie is better than the book.
The movie follows Charlie and his first year of high school. Through his struggles, he becomes close friends with Patrick and Sam. Charlie and his friends have adventures, break-ups, and grow-up together.
The entire movie is average. Nothing new, nothing but the story stood out. However there is nothing utterly bad about the movie. The filming was ordinary. There are no outrageous effects. Flashback scenes are simple, rapid cuts. In scenes were Charlie gets high, it was done in a creative way, but it did not have the “wow” factor. The scene could have been fast or colorful, but it lacked.
On-screen talent is not a big stand out either. The audience adored one of Charlies’ best friends, Patrick, played by Ezra Miller. He is the comic relief in the movie. The big promise for acting is Emma Watson because she is well known for her performance as Hermonie Granger in the Harry Potter movies. Watson did a believable job and her American accent was well done, but her acting left no impact. Charlie, played by Logan Lerman, did not give a ground-breaking performance either because he was bland. It is a disappointment since he is the main character.
Compared to the book, the movie was better in some parts. The author, Stephen Chbosky, is the director and screen writer for the movie. When the author is close to the movie as the screen writer, the movie will usually do the book justice.
Chbosky kept the greatest details in the book, but took out the trivial specifics. For example, Charlies’ relationship with his friend is more developed in the film, which is good because it is important to the story. In the book, the reader knows about Charlie and his family plus his friendship. His relationship with his family is a detail that is interesting but not needed in a condensed movie.
The ending in the movie is an improvement compared to the book. The movie ending is more definite rather than the book, which has an assumed ending.
The story is the best aspect of the movie. It stayed close to the book so the audience that read the book would be pleased. The audience may leave the theater impacted, but not by the movie itself. The filming and acting is nothing special. The movie is good, but do not expect to be blown away.
We give this movie three and a half out of five paws.