JayDee's Movie Musings

You know it baby! JayDee - rep whore and proud of it!


Conversaely I think you're being overly harsh. Though as I said in the review I was unsure if I was perhaps over-rating it a little just because of how positive it felt compared to the first two films. In fact I think originally my feeling was to go slightly higher with a +. Perhaps something in between our two ratings would be appropriate.

And I do agree with most of what you said despite the difference in our scores.

__________________

Plot - Set in the South two years before the Civil War, Django Unchained stars Jamie Foxx as Django, a slave whose brutal history with his former owners lands him face-to-face with German-born bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Schultz is on the trail of the murderous Brittle brothers, and only Django can lead him to his bounty. The unorthodox Schultz acquires Django with a promise to free him upon the capture of the Brittles - dead or alive. Success leads Schultz to free Django, though the two men choose not to go their separate ways. Instead, Schultz seeks out the South's most wanted criminals with Django by his side. Honing vital hunting skills, Django remains focused on one goal: finding and rescuing Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), the wife he lost to the slave trade long ago.

As I've laid out several times on the forum I'm not as enamoured with the work of Quentin Tarantino as the majority of people seem to be. I think he undoubtedly has a lot of talent but too often his ego gets in the way in my opinion. He started his career by directing two excellent films in the form of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, and contributing to another with True Romance. Since then however I'm of the opinion that it's been a case of diminishing returns as far as his work goes, with QT delivering films that are increasingly bloated and narcissistic. For about the first hour of Django Unchained however I felt that Tarantino may be on his way to delivering his best and most entertaining film since he exploded on to the scene in such startling fashion. It was funny, it was entertaining and it had a lot more energy and life about it than many of his more recent efforts. It was a lively and breezy opening which moved along at a fair clip, certainly compared to a typical Tarantino film which never seems to be in much of a rush. The odd couple, buddy-like relationship that develops between Schultz and Django is very entertaining, and I actually found the film to be very funny; and not just in the usual Tarantino fashion of eliciting laughs out of violence and very dark comedy. It's really quite playful, verging on slapstick stuff on occasion as embodied by the flabbergasted reactions of people to seeing a 'n**ger on a horse', the bobbing tooth on top of Schultz's carriage, Django's flamboyant blue outfit and the fact that Schultz's horse, Fritz, bows whenever he is introduced. However the absolute highlight in terms of humour would have to be the brilliant scene depicting the costume woes that the Ku Klux Klan are experiencing with their new hoods. I'll admit that I'm perhaps being a bit of a hypocrite on this as it's usually the type of unnecessary scene that offers nothing to the story that I would criticise Tarantino for. But I just found it damn amusing.

So it was all looking very promising for that first act. And then my early enthusiasm started to slip away with the introduction of Leonardo Di Caprio's Calvin Candie. Now I'm not saying that it was through any fault of Di Caprio himself, I actually thought he did a very nice job. It's just that all of a sudden Tarantino seemed to fall back in to his old ways which have irritated me in films like Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds. In that first hour I felt that Django was a much more lively and fluid film, aided by taut storytelling and tighter editing that resulted in shorter scenes. When Django and Schultz arrive at Candyland however Tarantino's ego seems to kick back in to play. I always get the feeling that he is just so proud of his creations, that he finds his characters and dialogue so precious that he can't bear to leave any of it on the cutting room floor even if it would be to the benefit of the film. I found that during this long stretch the film fell into a real lull. Scenes become unnecessarily overlong, resulting in a film that I feel is way too long as it approaches a running time of three hours. As I feel has been the case with many of his films I think there might be a really great film hiding in here that gets suffocated under its length. In this instance I think there could be an excellent two hour film here, but instead we are given a merely very good two and half hour plus film.

The second act wasn't a complete loss however, there are still some real treats to be found in there. Chief amongst them are some very intriguing characters that Tarantino created. Calvin Candie is a slave trader and the owner of the Candyland plantation. He seems like a man with great aspirations of class and a high standing but he doesn't really seem to have the required intelligence to accomplish it. This is highlighted in the fact that he is enamoured with France and its people, and likes to be referred to as Monsieur Candie, but he doesn't actually speak French and an attempt to converse with him in the language would embarrass him. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed, relying very heavily on Stephen (his house slave). He is taken in by the ruse perpetrated by Schultz and Django, not seeing through it until Stephen points it out to him. This despite a few clear warning signs that he doesn't take heed of. One thing I found really interesting about his character was his attitude towards black individuals. There were numerous occasions where Django says something that you think is going to provoke an angry reaction from Candie, but instead he seems intrigued and even entertained with him 'stepping beyond his limitations' as a black man. It's a similar case with Stephen who speaks in quite a confrontational and 'uppity' manner to Candie at times, a manner that you imagine will result in a whipping, but Candie not only tolerates it but appreciates it. Despite his detestable standing as a slave trader, Calvin Candie actually seems a very charming and affable man, and even worryingly likeable. He sort of reminded me of Hitler in a way. I've heard it said that one way he was able to convince so many people to commit such inhumane acts was that he was a very charismatic individual. There was even a documentary on TV here in the UK quite recently called “The Dark Charisma of Hitler” I think it was. And yet side by side with this engaging side to his character is a much darker streak of hatred and violence that Di Caprio unleashes. It may sound strange given his standing as a slave trader and a plantation owner but for much of the time I didn't feel that his emotions were inspired so much by actual racism as much as a sense of ownership. When the slaves disobey or try to escape him I didn't always feel that he was angered that 'a black' would do this, so much as someone he owned would. I mentioned Candie's house slave Stephen there and he is the other character I found very fascinating. In many ways I actually found his character even more detestable than Candie; you expect it from someone like Candie but for Stephen to co-operate feels like such a betrayal of his race. He also turns out to be a very sly, cunning individual. At the end when confronted by Django he throws down the cane he has been using, his limp disappears and even his demeanour changes from his rather jokey, simple-minded character to a much more intense and apparently intelligent man. This throws up a couple of interesting theories; perhaps he has faked his injury to escape from mandingo fighting or working in the fields, perhaps the injury and his more jovial manner were all an act to obtain work in the house.

While both Di Caprio and Samuel L Jackson were great with these respective characters, it was the later performance that I was really joyed by. Back when I was writing my review for Con Air I think it was, I mentioned how I admired the fact that Nicholas Cage is always shaking things up in terms of performance when compared with some actors who seem content to trot out the same performance time and time again. While I didn't name any names one actor who did pop into my mind was Samuel L Jackson. A lot of the time in the last few years it has felt like he's just phoned in his performances and that it's just been a case of Samuel L Jackson simply being Samuel L Jackson. While that has still been entertaining and good enough for the most part it's nice to see him really show up and 'act' again. And he's fantastic. Oh and a great make-up job on him as well. While Jackson may run him close however, taking home the award for the film's MVP would definitely have to be Christoph Waltz. He is an absolute blast as Dr. King Schultz, the dentist turned bounty hunter. He displays great charisma and great comic timing and just seems a perfect fit to deliver Tarantino's colourful dialogue. Waltz's performance made me all the more pissed off about the rather unceremonious fate that befalls the character. After contributing so much to the film he is disposed of and all but forgotten for the film's closing stretch. Oh and in a minor role early on Don Johnson is a whole lot of fun.

I think that Jamie Foxx does a very solid job as the titular Django although the character makes it very hard for him to break out and really make the kind of impression that Waltz, Di Caprio and Jackson are able to make. As a result he gets rather overshadowed in their company. His Django is very much the strong, silent type which means that he rarely gets the chance to really express himself. To be fair to Foxx, on the rare occasions where he is asked to convey some emotions merely through his eyes he does a fine job. The character I feel highlights what I saw to be one of the real flaws of the film, particularly the longer the film went along. The main thrust of the whole film is supposed to be the romance between Foxx's Django and his wife Broomhilda, played by Kerry Washington. Why Django teams up with Schultz in the first place, why Schultz trains him, why they go about the elaborate ruse to try and trick Candie, why Django goes back to Candyland for the blood-soaked finale; it's their love that is supposed to be the driving force for all of that which unfolds, that everything revolves around. And yet we never really get to know either character or see any evidence of their love. Given Tarantino's propensity for non-linear stories I was expecting to get a series of flashbacks to flesh out the relationship, but other than the odd glimpse here and there it never really transpired. We never come to really know Django other than on the most superficial and shallow terms; that he's very 'cool' and quite the bad ass. We know nothing of his backstory or his character. And the Broomhilda character fares even worse. Kerry Washington is given no chance whatsoever to make an impression, to create a character worthy of such devotion on Django's behalf. And we're never given any personal reason to care for the character, to root for her freedom, other than through a general sense of right. So despite being the central cause of everything their relationship is given no development at all. At the very best that would be disappointing but given Django's epic runtime I think it's approaching criminal that with so much time at his disposal Tarantino couldn't find the time to properly flesh out this important facet of the film. The film and Tarantino seem to get to caught up with the battle of wits between Candie and Schultz and drops the ball on this aspect.

Film Trivia Snippets - When Dr. Schultz is negotiating to buy the Mandingo fighter Eskimo Joe, he says that he wants to rename him Black Hercules. That was the real-life nickname of Ken Norton, the boxer who starred in the film Mandingo. /// Aside from films which listed the cast alphabetically (Celebrity and Don's Plum) Django marked the first occasion in 16 years that Leonardo DiCaprio didn not receive top billing. /// Throughout the production Jamie Foxx actually rode his own horse, Cheetah, during filming. /// Whilst at Comic-Con Tarantino revealed that the characters of Django and Broomhilda are intended to be the great-great-great-grandparents of John Shaft from the series of Shaft films. An overt reference to this can be found in Broomhilda's full name - Broomhilda Von Schaft. /// A riding accident during training saw Christoph Waltz thrown off his horse, breaking his pelvis in the process. To make him feel better Jamie Foxx presented him with a gift; a saddle with a seat belt. /// For the role of Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly (played by Laura Cayouette) both Zoe Bell and Lady Gaga were under consideration.

As far as his films go I actually found Tarantino's direction to be quite reserved by his standards. The only obviously noticeable little quirk is the camera's infrequent tendency to zoom in on a character's face for a reaction shot of some kind. It's not a smooth movement, it's rather jittery and comes across as deliberately quite amateurish. I assume that's it a move designed to mimic the original series of Django movies, and perhaps spaghetti westerns in general. I don't really have experience of either to know for sure. Visually the film also benefits from some lovely photography courtesy of Robert Richardson who handsomely captures some beautiful, sweeping vistas. Tarantino is often hailed as one of the most original directors in Hollywood, and while that may be true when compared with all the other directors in Tinseltown, is it just me or is he sort of making the same film over and over again these days? That may sound daft given the huge disparity between genres and eras in his films; 1800s western, World War II film, revenge film with a heavy Japanese influence etc. But they all feel very similar; largely revenge films with dialogue-heavy scenes that attempt to push boundaries with their violence. I'd love to see him try something truly different. Oh and can a friend of his or whoever please have a word with QT and convince him to stop cameoing. Fair enough you could argue that when he puts so much time and effort in as he clearly does he has earned the right to show his face. However it just reeks of ego and there's no getting around the fact that he cannot act, and whenever he shows up I just feel it hurts his films because it's so distracting.

As has been the case for just about every film that Tarantino has ever associated himself with, Django Uncahined arrived in cinemas with a wave of controversy. Well maybe not a wave so much as a smattering of complaints led by one man, namely QT's old foe Spike Lee who had a problem both with Tarantino's continued use of the word n*gger in his films and his treatment of the issue of slavery. Yes the dreaded 'n word' is used to a quite staggering degree throughout the film, but what exactly do you expect given the film's setting? Taking place in the South of the 1800s and set within the world of slave trading it would seem strange if it wasn't uttered constantly. If he had omitted the word's use Tarantino would have then received criticism for glossing over the truth so he couldn't win. It's a similar case with the film's violence. Some of the violence really is quite nasty and vivid, from the early occasions of mandingo fighting and a vicious dog attacks, to the final act which erupts into a blood-soaked massacre of quite stunning proportions. Particularly striking is the way that bullets produce such epic splatters and sprays of blood. I also have a problem with the fact that Spike Lee seemingly believes that he has domain over both that word and 'black issues' in general. He seems to find it offensive that a white man concerns himself with such matters, but surely it's just as offensive that he feels as a black man he can talk for and represent the whole race by himself. And as someone who once referred to Samuel L Jackson as a “house slave” I find it very unsavoury that he wants to criticise anyone about racism.

Even when it comes to the Tarantino films that I'm not keen on the one element of them that I've always been able to count on is that they're going to have a pretty awesome soundtrack. And it's a similar tale with Django Unchained. Part of what makes his soundtracks so great is that he goes with songs that are unexpected, that don't feel like they should be a good match for what is on screen, and yet when you see them in context they fit brilliantly. Here we get a mix of some great spaghetti western beats in a score featuring exerts from the back catalogue of Ennio Morricone mixed with a number of great songs from such diverse sources as John Legend, James Brown, 2pac, RZA, Richie Havens and Johnny Cash. The highlight of the whole soundtrack would have to be the brilliant main theme which is lifted from the original Django film of 1966. There were only one or two occasions where I felt that the music didn't work, namely when he employed rap music. It just felt like an example of Tarantino trying too hard to include something cool. Oh and any film that makes use of the music of Johnny Cash is alright in my book. For me his music has the same effect as dogs. If either of those is included then a film immediately becomes better.

Conclusion - Tarantino returns with a new film, but one that still has many of the same old problems in my eyes. However I did find it a much more entertaining and satisfying experience than many of his films of late. And I'm sure that lovers of his work will lap it up. It's probably amongst the most purely fun and accessible films that he has so far produced and has some excellent scenes, great performances and a fun soundtrack. While I've struggled to warm to a number of his films this is one I could see growing on me with a repeat viewing or two.

I tried to watch it again recently and basically just got bored and never bothered to finish it. Your score is about right this time, a reasonably entertaining way to spend a couple of hours but never getting the urge to rewatch.

I disagree with a lot of your criticisms of Django Unchained, but I'm glad to see that you enjoyed it overall.

__________________

I admit, I have not seen this movie and have no plans to see it. However you and I have similar tastes in movies, and it seems a lot of the criticisms of Tarantino (namely his need of an editor) seems to continue. Very informative indeed.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

After a slight hibernation over Christmas, Movie Musings is back up and running. And again it's with a queue-jumper. Might not be the best review and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an error or two to be found as I've churned it out rather quicky.











Plot - Walter Mitty (Stiller) is employed by Life magazine as a negative asset manager, putting him in charge of their photographic output. A real day-dreamer, Walter can constantly be found escaping the doldrums of his real life by disappearing into fantasy worlds that he concocts in his imagination; worlds where he is more heroic, more action-orientated and more confident that he ever is in reality, and where a frequent element of these fantasies is his co-worker at Life, Cheryl Melhoff (Wiig). Bad news comes to Walter, Cheryl and their fellow employees when Life is taken over and it is decided that the magazine will be wound up and become an internet only product. For the last ever issue, a photograph taken by famed photojournalist Sean O'Connell (Penn) is chosen to grace the cover, a photograph that according to O'Connell captures “quintessence of life.” One slight problem - negative 25, this special image, is nowhere to be found. Using the other photos as clues, Walter heads out into the real world in an attempt to track down the missing negative. Along the way he indulges in adventures that are just as grand, and indeed even grander than those in his imagination.

I had been greatly looking forward to this film. I thought the trailer was terrific and all the reports I had been hearing about it made it sound like something potentially special; hell Empire magazine was invoking the likes of The Apartment, It's a Wonderful Life and Life of Pi after seeing a preview of 15 minutes of footage. I was ready for something great. Well the good news is that The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a very nice little film. The bad news however is that, well, it's a very nice little film....but not much else. It certainly feels like a film that is aiming to be something special and life-affirming; aiming for the sweetness and sentimentality of a Forrest Gump or a Frank Capra movie without slipping into schmaltz. However I just felt it all seemed a little bit sterile and superficial, leaving me a touch uninvolved with its narrative and title character.

The film is a very loose adaptation of the 1939 short story by James Thurber. By making the film in this day and age it gives the filmmakers the chance to update the story to include some contemporary issues such as the recession, downsizing and redundancies at large companies, and how the digital revolution is making more and more print media obsolete. Those issues alongside the film's attempts at some musings on life means that there is the potential for some interesting topics to be covered, and I did appreciate the film's central declaration about not being afraid to take chances and risks and about living for the moment. It's just that I rarely found that the film was able to address these issues with any great depth. The whole thing just came across as a bit too slick and glossy for its own good. A feeling certainly not helped by the blatant product placement slapped across the whole film. In addition to the obvious involvement of Life magazine the film frequently feels like an extended ad for eHarmony. Every 10 to 15 minutes the film seems to take a break and indulge in an eHarmony commercial, taking me out of the film. I think the main culprit in regards to the lack of depth is certainly to be found in its clumsy script. In terms of both the story and its characters there are a lot of inconsistencies and unexplained issues. This is especially true of Walter himself. He is apparently a very cautious and retiring fellow and yet it doesn't feel that he really needs all that much motivation to head out onto this grand, globe-spanning adventure. And while he is apparently a bit of a frugal individual he is fairly quick to splash the cash to fund those adventures. There are also some things which just seem a little illogical and improbable which at times makes you question if what you're watching is indeed real or not. While another problem in the script is that its message about life really does try to pummel you into submission. It is constantly spelling it out for you just in case you somehow managed to miss it the previous 8 times.

The main attribute of Mitty is certainly to be found in just how lovely it looks. Filmed across the astonishing landscape of Iceland in some of the most visually dynamic of environments, Iceland both 'plays' itself in the film whilst also standing in for Greenland, Afghanistan and the Himalayas. It provides a wondrous, almost otherworldly array of immense mountains, vast oceans, steep valleys, glaciers, volcanoes and waterfalls. As well as providing some astounding images Iceland also proves to be a smart choice to fit the story. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty concerns itself with a man who finds more excitement in the world he creates in his head than in real life. So it feels very fitting that if anywhere on Earth was going to convince Walter that the real world can be just as intoxicating as his imagination then it would be Iceland. Stiller utilises these locales to good effect, coming up with some fine examples of framing and compositions. And these images that he creates are handsomely captured by the truly gorgeous cinematography of Stuart Dryburgh. An Oscar nomination for his work is surely nothing but a formality.

Film Trivia - A new, updated version of the film had actually been under consideration for close on 20 years, with various A-listers both in front of and behind the camera circling the project. Back in 1994 producer Samuel Goldwyn Jr., whose father had produced the original Danny Kaye version in 1947, had the idea of a remake with Jim Carrey in mind to take on the title role. The production moved on positively for a few years and in 1997 a first draft was in place and Ron Howard was in negotiations to direct. Howard was also set to produce the film alongside Brian Grazer and Imagine Entertainment. Howard, Grazer and Imagine Entertainent eventually left the project however in favour of making Edtv. The project bounced around for a few years with numerous rewrites and a lawsuit holding it up before Steven Spielberg signed on to direct in 2003, with Carrey still the preferred choice for the starring role. The following year however Spielberg dropped out. Life was again breathed back into the project in 2005 when Mark Waters was hired to direct. Carrey however had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts and was quickly replaced by Owen Wilson. Wilson himself would then drop out and be replaced by Mike Myers in 2007. Things then went quiet until 2010 when Sacha Baron Cohen accepted the role of Walter and Gore Verbinski agreed to sit in the director's chair. Once again nothing came of it, until finally in 2011 Ben Stiller became attached both as actor and director.

Also very visually impressive are the film's special effects. Bringing Walter's daydreams to life the CGI is tasked with covering a large breadth of ventures, from superheroic action to a daring rescue of a little dog from a burning building. And Stiller again does an impressive job when it comes to handling the special effects and the action sequences; something we had never really seen was in his wheelhouse up until now. He also has a lot of fun when it comes to clever and creative uses for text throughout the film. There were times however where I just got the feeling that instead of concentrating purely on this film, it came across a little like a calling card for his directing abilities, a chance for him to show off with as many little tricks as possible to try and get himself on the directing A-list. All of the daydreams are a lot of fun, and greatly help the film through a rather slow opening act. The highlight of these sequences would certainly have to be a brief little diversion where Walter fantasises a situation that plays off of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. That moments got a big laugh from both myself and pretty much everyone in the audience. While it is a very funny moment it does however flag up what I saw as one of the film's problems; its uneven tone. The film sets out its stall to be this powerful, life-affirming movie in the vein of Life of Pi. This doesn't sit all that comfortably alongside Stiller's predilection to return to the arena of broad humour where he is most comfortable. Moments such as the Benjamin Button sequence, Walter's encounter with a drunken pilot and battling a shark with a briefcase may provide laughs but I felt that it came across as out of place and just hurt the flow of the film, with the addition of a slight romantic comedy angle further heightening this.

While the film may mark a more ambitious stretch for Stiller in terms of his directing duties, when it comes to his performance he is sticking very much in his comfort zone. Throughout his career Stiller has had pretty much just two modes in terms of his acting. There's the obnoxious douchebag that we've seen in the likes of Dodgeball and Mystery Men. And then there's the rather neurotic sad-sack that we've seen in, well pretty much everything else! Most notably however in Meet the Parents, Night at the Museum, Along Came Polly etc. In the case of Walter Mitty we are firmly in the camp of the latter. What Stiller lacks in range however I've always found he made up for in terms of likeability. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but I've always enjoyed his films and I thought he gave Walter a rather endearing and awkward charm. Even if I struggled to find it, he certainly seems to have made the film with all his heart. With the film predominantly following Walter on his travels and adventures very few other actors get much of a look-in, however Kristen Wiig is able to create an adorable and beguiling character all the same despite the limitations imposed upon her. It's just a shame that her considerable talents were not further utilised; something that would also have helped to enhance the fairly flimsy romance. The rest of the cast also do a nice job, including Shirley MacLaine's as his mother, Kathryn Hahn as his kooky sister and small roles for Patton Oswalt and Sean Penn.

One thing I will say about the film is that I think it makes for a very good Christmas film. It's a nice, sweet little film that has its heart in the right place and a little splash of fantasy. I'm sure that whole families will be able to take a trip to the cinema this festive season, and every member of the family will be able to enjoy the film on one level or another, whether it be for its gorgeous looks, the humour or its attempts at profundity. And for people who are able to find the great depth in the film that I felt was lacking, they could very easily come away absolutely loving it. For them it may indeed prove to be the new Forrest Gump like some people are saying. Not for me though.

Conclusion - I feel I'm perhaps being a touch harsh on this film, a little bit of a Grinch if you will. It is a well acted and directed affair, and it looks spectacular thanks to some excellent cinematography. For all its stunning visuals however I just felt that the weak script struggled to match it, undermining a lot of the good on show. I would say that it's a pretty easy watch. It's not a film that I imagine I would actively search out to watch again all that often. However it's the type of film that I can see watching a number of times by stumbling across it on TV and just sticking with it. And I feel that I'll get plenty of opportunities for that because it's likely to become a staple of Christmas schedules and a bank holiday favourite for schedulers. Oh and something I forgot to mention, it's got quite a fun little soundtrack that is highlighted by the prominence given to David Bowie's Space Oddity.

I have no pictures made up for you this time, so I'm stealing hers.

Looking forward to Mitty. I just may be waiting for Blu-ray. There is so much at the theater I want to see right now. Good review Jay Dee.

__________________
Letterboxd

I laughed way too much at this

__________________

Nice review, JayDee.

I was kind of on the fence about seeing this movie, I think I'm leaning towards "No" now. Maybe when it hits DVD or Netflix.

Glad to see you enjoyed the movie. I will not be rushing out to the cinema to see it, but I might rent it when it comes available then.

Thanks for the review JayDee; I've found that I have been drawn to these types of movies lately. I won't see it until it's on DVD, but I'm glad to see that you enjoyed it.

Nice review. I saw the trailer for "Walter Mitty" when I went to watch "Gravity". The trailer was on for about 15 minutes, and included an interview with Ben Stiller. The film was being screened in the UK before anywhere else, as an exclusive promotion for Cineworld Cinemas. After watching the trailer two thoughts ran through my head: 1.) This film is going to be 3 star material at best. 2.) Get Ben Stiller off the screen, and put "Gravity" on, NOW!!

Plot - Based on the novel written by Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is about 15-year-old Charlie Kelmeckis (Logan Lerman), a shy and troubled outsider attempting to come to terms with the suicide of his best friend and his own mental illness. Some relief comes into his life when he befriends a group of self-described wallflowers that includes Patrick (Miller); a young gay man who is involved in a secret relationship with a popular athlete, and Patrick's stepsister Sam (Watson). These new connections brings some stability and happiness into Charlie's life. Before long Charlie beings to fall in love with Sam, but does not have the self-confidence to admit his feelings to her. The longer he spends with the group however the more confidence he gains as they take him under their wing and introduce him to the wider world. There are still going to be some dark times in his life however, including a revelation where we learn why Charlie has such troubles in the first place.

This film reminded me greatly of Zach Braff's 2004 effort, Garden State. Like that film I imagine that some viewers may not be all that taken with Perks, some perhaps even taking an active dislike to it. Like Garden State however I personally found watching this to be a very touching, moving and affecting experience. It's just one those films that I made a really personal connection to as I was watching it. This was largely down to how much of myself I could see in the character of Charlie. While my struggles may not have come from quite as dark a place as Charlie I certainly didn't have the happiest of experiences during my teenage years, especially when it came to my school days. Truthfully it was hell! Like the character of Charlie I suffered from social anxiety, was extremely withdrawn both in life and especially at school and for long spells I was deeply unhappy. So I was very easily able to place myself in Charlie's shoes and empathise with the character. There was one little moment in the film that just really drew me in. During English class the teacher (played winningly by Paul Rudd) is asking questions and getting no responses from the class. As he walks around the classroom however he notices that Charlie has been writing the correct answers in his notepad, but just didn't speak out in class. As I said it is a really tiny moment but it just worked for me on such a personal level. During class I would so often know the answer to something, but even if I was 99.99% sure I was correct I would never put my hand up in case I was somehow wrong or I did something stupid to attract attention to myself. I basically just tried my best to hide when at school.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based on the highly acclaimed debut novel of Stephen Chbosky, and with Chbosky behind the adaptation in the capacity of both writer and director, he ensures that the characters he created are treated with respect and tenderness and makes sure to focus on the messages that the film has to convey. There are a series of really lovely and touching scenes which I felt were just beautifully written and acted, while there were also some really lovely examples of dialogue, even if they could perhaps come across as pretentious to some (“We accept the love we think we deserve”). I felt that the film just captured so perfectly a number of facets of teenage life. It captures that great rush of excitement you feel when you discover a new song that you just absolutely love. You feel like it is going to change your life, and for the rest of your life you will forever associate it with a specific time and place in your existence. When you hear it on the radio it will just transport you right back. In a move similar to Stand by Me it highlights the close friendships you develop at this stage and how important they can be to your life. You really don't seem to ever form the same type of bond that you did as a kid or teenager; as was summed in Stand by Me with this quote that I love - “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?” I think the film also highlights that emotion of feeling like a freak when you're at school. You feel like you're completely defective and different from every other single person in the world. You later discover that at one point or another it seems that everyone felt that way.

I felt that the film was extremely well acted throughout; a great ensemble effort from such a young cast. In the lead role I found Logan Lerman to be impressive and really quite affecting, giving a very touching and honest performance. He perhaps doesn't shine as brightly as some of his co-stars but I think a lot of that is down to the character being a much more difficult prospect than those around him. While they get to revel in being loud or flamboyant or flashy, Lerman's character is much quieter and more reserved, necessitating a smaller, low-key showing. It doesn't stop him from delivering a really tender and likeable performance however. As his best friend Patrick, Ezra Miller is fantastic, giving a really charismatic showing. When you couple this with his darkly magnetic (and vastly different) turn in We Need To Talk About Kevin, it really does mark Miller out as a young actor to really watch out for in the coming years. He takes the potentially clichéd character of the flamboyantly gay best friend but breathes life into it with great comic timing and sensitivity.

Film Trivia Snippets - The legendary John Hughes actually wanted to write the screenplay after he read the novel. He did acquire the rights from Chbosky but never finished the screenplay. Hughes' vision was for more of dark comedy angle with dramatic elements, and would have marked Hughes' directorial comeback. As he was writing the screenplay Hughes was picturing Shia LaBeouf for the lead role of Charlie, Kristen Dunst for Sam and Patrick Fugit for Patrick. /// Ezra Miller actually did his initial audition for Perks over Skype, and proved so charismatic in the interview that he was cast within 5 hours of the audition. /// Stephen Chbosky knew he wanted to cast Emma Watson once he saw her in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the scene when Ron breaks her heart and Harry consoles her. Chbosky said: "She broke my heart in that scene. She is crying and I just felt that she had all of the vulnerability that Sam needed." /// During the director's commentary on the DVD and Blu-Ray, director Stephen Chbosky mentions that Dead Poet's Society and The Breakfast Club were two of his favorite films growing up and that they had a large influence on him. /// In the book, the tunnel song was "Landslide" by Fleetwood Mac but in the movie it was "Heroes" by David Bowie. Writer/Director Stephen Chbosky reportedly changed the song to something grander after seeing the footage of Emma Watson standing in the back of the truck.

And then there is Emma Watson as Sam, the dreamgirl that steals Charlie's heart. First off I have to ask, when the hell did little Hermione get so damn sexy?! Man alive I was just utterly transfixed by her from the first moment she appeared on screen. Like Logan Lerman she is most closely associated with a large kiddie-friendly fantasy franchise (Percy Jackson and Harry Potter respectively). And like Logan Lerman she proves here that she also appears to have some acting chops on her as well, perhaps indicating some potential for a career beyond Hogwarts. As I said the whole cast are really strong, delivering a series of very likeable and believable performances, with Mae Whitman and Nina Dobrev being particular stand-outs. Exploring the DVD extras I discovered that during the shoot all of the young actors stayed together in the same floor of a hotel and really bonded; all of the becoming really great friends. And I think you can certainly see that on screen. They all have a great chemistry together and its completely believable that they are the closest of friends and have been their whole lives.

As I mentioned Stephen Chbosky was both the writer and director of this film, with it being his debut on both fronts. And there are occasions where you can see it. He has apparently dropped a lot of material from the original novel, but I'd say that it perhaps isn't quite enough. A number of threads are included which don't really go anywhere and are left rather dangling come the film's end. While on the directing side of things there are a few shots here and there that are a bit scrappy. For the most part however I think he does a very capable job, one that is very impressive given his lack of experience up until this point. He delivers a series of nicely composed shots, aided greatly by some beautiful lighting. Some people may accuse the film of being a touch unrealistic in regards to the way that the young characters talk and the manner in which they interact with each other. And while there may be an element of that at work I don't think it hurt the film at all; if anything it was the exact opposite. In that respect I found it rather akin to John Hughes' seminal classic The Breakfast Club. On occasion both films may indulge in slight exaggeration, but they do so to create an overall feeling of being real, of being authentic.

While I don't believe it has made its way to our shores I'm aware of a campaign in America called 'It Gets Better.' It was a project started up to support and help young people in the LGBT community in response to high numbers of teen suicide and bullying; its aim is to provide hope for affected individuals and let them know that it does get better. If the group were to expand its goals to cover all teens who are having a tough time then The Perks of Being a Wallflower would be able to serve as a damn good poster child for the cause. It has a very positive, uplifting and life-affirming message about no matter how bad a place you are in, there is always a glimpse of hope. In the film Charlie's transition is conveyed by a sequence which sees the group driving through a tunnel listening to David Bowie's “Heroes.” As they do so he steps out onto the back of the pick-up truck, stands up and allows the wind to rush against him. It's a great expression of freedom and hope, and as they emerge from the tunnel out into the light his fortunes have been transformed. And I felt very buoyed by this aspect to the film as truthfully I still worry greatly about how my life is going to turn our and how problems are going to resolve themselves. Even though I'm a few years older than the characters portrayed in the film I think part of the reason I was so taken with it is that in a number of ways I feel I'm still at their level in terms of age and where I am in life.

Oh and lastly there's the film's soundtrack. A large part of the characters' lives and their friendships resolved around their love of music. And as such the film boasts a rather excellent soundtrack which sits comfortably alongside the similarly themed Garden State, Juno and 500 Days of Summer. It's a delightful mix of 90s hits (the film is set during the early 90s) and classic efforts from earlier decades which includes the likes of The Smiths, Dexys Midnight Runners, Sonic Youth, New Order and David Bowie. As well as just being a fun listen the soundtrack is also a nice fit for the characters and their relationships.

Conclusion - I really need to start doing more thorough investigations into the films that I'm interested in. It's becoming quite commonplace for me to go into a film with the wrong idea of what I'm in for. And this was another case. When it came to Perks I had been anticipating a more light-hearted, romantic indie-comedy in the vein of Juno, Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, 500 Days of Summer etc. Instead I was treated to a film that had a great deal more depth and substance to it, that was significantly more serious and lighter on laughs than expected, but was probably all the better for it. I found it be a well written, affectingly acted film that just really touched me on a personal level. You'll sometimes really enjoy a film but as soon as the closing credits begin to roll you immediately forget about it. This was the opposite of that. As it finished I just sat there for a while absorbing it, and it's stuck in my mind ever since. In fact if you combined this with Stand by Me and Garden State then it could act like a coming-of-age trilogy that mirrors my life (well of a sorts...I never found a dead body! )

Wow I actually had a very similar first impression of Perks of Being a Wall Flower being some kind of light hearted target to tweens generic crap. Seems I was very wrong in that regard. Might have to check it out.

I haven't seen it yet, but I think I'll add it to my watchlist.

That's it, enforced subscriptions are on their way! 4 reps for Perks of Being a Wallflower?!!! Pitiful!!!

Well if you two (Vicky and Gunslinger) do see it at some point I hope you enjoy it. And who knows GS, you may still find it to be what you originally expected; perhaps I'm just a tween at heart!

See this is one of the things I dislike about this. When someone watches a film because of my review and likes/loves it that's great. But I don't like dissuading people from films. You might eventually see it and be a big fan, then regretting you didn't see it on the big screen

Well Walter Mitty looks like it could be interesting, but I wasn't feeling overly compelled to see it and, except for Tropic Thunder, I've not been a fan of pretty much anything Stiller has done. I was already teetering on the edge of "No;" your review was just the tiny nudge I needed to say "I'll pass for now."

Besides, at the moment I'm just counting down the days until I get to see Her.

I really liked Perks of Being a Wallflower but, yes, I did feel it contained a lot from the novel that should have been left out. It would have made me a much more concise and focused movie. However it's still a very strong movie and it represented my high school experience very well.

I wasn't as crazy as you about Emma Watson. I could take her or leave her. It was Ezra Miller who was the standout for me and I have high hopes for him that he will make the transition into really good adult roles in the future.

I thought this was a way better movie than Garden State.