Perks of Being a Wallflower

Gone are the days of vacant teenage movies.  Modern high school dramas can no longer be all about finding a great date for prom or simply being unpopular. Like the comic book genre teen movies need to have a bit of wit and darkness about them. Perks of Being a Wallflower follows this mature trend and does it successfully.

The film is an adaption of the late 90s novel of the same name by Stephen Chbosky, who also wrote the screenplay and directed the feature. The story follows a quiet boy called Charlie as he completes his year at high school. During the year he goes through many phases we associate with being an awkward teenager: not fitting in; being bullied; falling in love; discovering yourself. But, on top of all this, the film tackles heavier content such as homosexuality, drugs and suicide. This heavy subject matter is handled with a compassionate touch that allows the audience to be moved by the situation without beating them over the head with how tragic it is. The film also doesn’t reveal everything all at once. Instead, some mystery is contained and audiences are left guessing right up until the end.

As with other films in this genre, Perks of Being a Wallflower will fly or fall on the backs of the main cast. Fortunately, this main cast is exceptional. Audiences will become emotionally invested in all three lead characters. Logan Lerman plays Charlie and is instantly likable. Although he may be socially awkward, Lerman shows that Charlie has a kind heart, an enquiring mind, and emotional maturity well beyond his years. Lerman portrays incredible vulnerability with Charlie’s character, having him always just a little bit away from snapping.

The other male lead is Patrick, played by Ezra Miller. Miller swaps the quiet control he used to play the title character in We Need to Talk About Kevin and goes for full comic timing with Patrick. Patrick is the comedic relief with his bitchy put downs and flamboyant nature that Miller is able to pull off with ease. But this character also has darkness that is explored in the film, mainly revolving around Patrick being gay. Although he himself is fine with it, which is refreshing in an adolescent film, there are still difficult issues revolving around being gay in a small community. Miller is able to switch between the lighter and heavier moments seamlessly.

The final lead actor probably has the most to prove. Emma Watson, of Harry Potter fame, plays Sam, Patrick’s stepsister and love interest of Charlie. Watson has not always been considered to be worth the large sums she has been paid. Like her Harry Potter co-stars she likely chose this role wanting to prove she can do more than just wave a wand.  With this film she made the right choice, and with a good script she shines. The character of Sam requires outward confidence, but a fragile little girl on the inside. Watson manages to balance the two perfectly making the love interest appear to be more than just the prettiest girl in the school. Sam’s brokenness is what attracts Charlie to her and is what attracts the audience’s affection. Watson also shows great chemistry with both Miller and Lerman, more chemistry than she showed with her male leads in Harry Potter.

Music plays a vital part in Charlie’s teenage awakening, so along with a great cast the film can boast an exceptional soundtrack. Set in the early 90s the film makes references to Rocky Horror, David Bowie, the Smiths, and many other indie bands of the time. It may not be the most up beat of soundtracks, but writer and director Chbosky handpicked them to add extra emotion to the story.

This is not just any old ‘teen getting through high school’ film, but one that has real heart and depth to it. In the same way Easy A made teen films more witty, Perks of Being a Wallflower makes them deeper.

Degree- 2:1

A witty film about being a high school outcast.

Maybe a little too saccharine or predictable for some,

but it is certainly a cut above most in the genre.

The Woman in Black and Shame

This week there is Daniel Radcliffe’s first film after Harry Potter as well as the large part that has everyone talking Michael Fassenbender in Shame.

 

The Woman in Black and Shame Podcast

 

Carnage

Listen to what I thought of Roman Polanski’s new film Carnage, which stars John C. Reilly, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz showing off their acting chops.

Carnage Podcast

Coriolanus

This week’s podcast is on one of Shakespeare’s lesser known plays Coriolanus. Click on the link below to have a listen.

Coriolanus Podcast

The Iron Lady & War Horse

I know I haven’t been reviewing as much as I usually do, but I have been making podcasts for another site and sadly they can’t be put on this one, but fear not, below is a link so you can listen to them yourself and not miss out on my pearls of wisdom.

The Iron Lady & War Horse Podcast

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

This may be a novel about spies, but with a cast that includes Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Gary Oldman no one should be expecting it to be the next Bond or Bourne. In fact ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ pertains to show audiences the actual reality of being a spy.  John Le Carre’s novel is based on his own experiences in MI6 and reveals it to be a boys club with its own code where office politics takes on a deadly role.

Taking centre stage is Gary Oldman’s George Smiley who has been brought out of forced retirement to find a Russian mole that has been placed at the top of the Circus (the code for MI6). Having not read the novel nor seen the greatly praised BBC mini-series starring Alec Guinness, it is difficult to comment how Oldman’s Smiley compares with past versions, but what can be said is that Oldman fits smoothly into the part he creates. This Smiley is a thoughtful, quiet man who appears to be happier at a desk than seducing beautiful women whilst driving an Aston Martin. Smiley is a real spy, one who is a keen observer, fiercely intelligent and able to do more than just look good in a tuxedo (or perhaps some tight fitting trunks).

Oldman’s controlled and minimal performance makes Smiley a difficult character to warm to initially. He only talks when he has to and always in a deliberate, purposeful manner. In fact there are only two occasions when he appears to lose this tight control and it is at these points that we see Smiley as a mortal man. This careful balancing of emotion really shows off Oldman’s skills.

The cast surrounding Oldman are the crème of British acting talent (at least the male side of it: there aren’t many ladies in the Circus). Colin Firth, John Hurt and Mark Strong play the old boys of the spy world and show off Britain’s great-established talent, whilst Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch are the younger members of MI6 and a new breed of up and coming actors. Although each actor steps up to the challenge and delivers, due to the streamlining of the book to fit into two hours audiences don’t get to know very much about any of them. It is isn’t clear what motivates them or what the stories are behind the older spies, which is probably not the case in either the book or the mini-series. So although the pacing is good plot wise and a lot happens to keep audiences awake, this may have come at the expense of character development.

Even though the film may lack the depth and detail of its source material, it should still be considered a successful literary adaption (unlike other releases this season cough One Day cough). For those who may not have the time to put into either the book or the mini-series, you should know that this is a worthy version that stands up in its own right. Even if you’re not fussed about the film, seeing Oldman at his absolute best is worth the ticket price alone.

Degree- 2:1

A great British film with a strong cast and engaging story

that sadly still suffers from the traditional flaw of not having

enough minutes to fit everything in.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

One Day

I have to admit straight away that I loved David Nicholls book ‘One Day’ and so can’t review its film adaptation from an unbiased view. However, due to the number of commuters I have seen read it, as well as the fact it sold over 83,050 books in the UK in just one week, I feel I am talking to a large proportion of potential movie-goers. In all honesty I was expecting ‘One Day’ to fall into the age old trap of losing its magic when transferred to the big screen, much like ‘Time Traveller’s Wife’ did, but I was still disappointed at how it turned out considering David Nicholls himself helped adapt the script.

‘One Day’ has the unique premise of following two characters, Dexter (Jim Sturgess) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) over twenty years, but only focusing on one specific day, July 15^th, also know as St. Swithin’s Day. We are shown a patchwork of both their lives as they intersect one another with enjoyable references to age defining fashions and technology. Due to this premise ‘One Day’ only has two central characters and with such a concept it is vitally important to get the perfect cast. In this aspect it unfortunately missed the mark, in one case at least. It is true that there are peripheral characters that appear in both Emma and Dexter’s lives that have been perfectly cast (Patricia Clarkson and Rafe Spall come to mind), but either Emma or Dexter are in every scene it is so important to choose the right people and the suits at Film Four sadly didn’t.

I feel bad for jumping on the ‘Anne Hathaway is too pretty’ bandwagon since she has played a plain Jane before very successfully in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ and could have altered the role a bit to make it her own. Unfortunately in the end Hathaway tried her best to bring to life the Emma readers knew, but it lacked the magic of Nicholls’ original writing. Her accent was all over the place ranging from cut glass clear to strongly northern and never quite settling down. She also lacked the contrasting mixture of high ambitions and strong cynicism that made Emma’s thoughts a delight to plunder and allowed Emma to pull off her sharp wit. Because of this many of her put downs and observations fell flat as often as they soured leaving Emma less of the independent, strong female character and more pedestrian.

Where Anne Hathaway failed to lift Emma off the page, Jim Sturgess was great at breathing life into Dexter. Somewhat of an unknown actor, which may be the reason Anne Hathaway needed to be brought in, Sturgess appears to be an actor who avoids the limelight. After being in films such ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ and ‘21’ Sturgess will go back into the shadows, which couldn’t be further away from Dexter who clings on to the spot light for a little bit too long. Although it seems Dexter is a far cry away from his on-screen character, Sturgess easily pulls off his arrogance and playboy charm while his character goes through the biggest ups and downs of the film. Both Sturgess and Hathaway are overall very likable and manage to  show clearly the when their characters say one thing, but mean another, but something about them ultimately feels about one dimensional and so you invest little in their trials and successes.

The final person requiring a mention was not in front of the camera, but behind it. David Nicholls both wrote the book and adapted the screenplay and he likely felt the pressure so maybe the mistakes he made are understandable. To his credit he did make some good calls and kept in many of the funnier lines from the book, which went some way in catching some of its original charm- for example Emma’s put down ‘What rhymes with Dexter…Prick. It’s a half rhyme’.  He also sensibly removes some of the less important or less loved characters in order to try and cut down the 448-page book into about two hours. However, his reduction of the book lost a lot more than just a few characters, it also removed a lot of the subtlety that added details and depths to both Dexter and Emma and to their relationship. A lot of the days felt a little too short and seemed only to be included because they helped follow the premise of one day over twenty years. It seems Nicholls was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. By taking too much out he lost some of the charm, but also by trying to make the film faithfully follow the book it became a half arsed project. Ultimately the book could possibly be called unfilmable, at least using present methods, because without the added insight into both Emma’s and Dexter’s minds their relationship with each other and the audience lacks the involving quality it does in the book.

In the end I have to admit that I am biased since I read the book before I saw the film. My sometimes contributor, Will Tooke has not read the book and said he enjoyed the film, so maybe he is a better judge.  However, in my opinion, if you have read the book then maybe not bother with the film as you will be disappointed and if you are tempted to watch the film then buy the book instead.

Degree-3rd

The film simply doesn’t live up to what the book

created and this is truly a real shame.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Never Let Me Go

Production companies 20^th Century Fox, DNA and Film 4 have recently taken on the difficult task of adapting a popular and highly acclaimed novel. This is always a challenge, but when your source material is Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’ which has been called the greatest novel of the decade by Times:London the task is made even harder. However, with the help of some great young British talent and a team clearly passionate about the story, director Mark Romanek has managed to pull it off.

The film, like the book, is broken up into three acts, each one set at different times at the end of the 20^th Century on an alternate timeline; before you make any wrong assumptions this not a sci-fi movie with space ships and chrome, but a sci-fi fable set in the English countryside. The science-fiction that is a crucial part of the story is simply used as a metaphor for what the film is trying to put across, which is not that medical advances are scary, but that life is fleeting and difficult.

The first part takes place in Hailsham boarding school and it is in this ‘Just William’ like setting that we meet the three central characters, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, as children; played by Isobel Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe and Ella Purnell, who must carry the film for the first third. All three are incredibly engaging and each give phenomenally mature performances. While at Hailsham all the children, are given everything they need: food, clothes, exercise, companionship, the lot, but there is also something sinister we are not told about. Many of the adults act uncomfortable around them, while those that don’t describe the children as special and use words such as ‘donations’ and ‘carers’, which is not made sense of till much later. In the second two parts the adult cast of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are used and the more grown up dynamics, such as duty, jealousy, love and despair are brought in as they all get close to their ‘completion’.

Ultimately story deals with the issue of growing up and realising how fleeting life truly is. It seems we only have a second or two with the ones we love before it is all over and this is what Romanek and Ishiguro are opening our eyes to. With watches and clocks in almost every scene the audience are constantly reminded how short life can be, especially for the poor students from Hailsham.  This massage is also made more tragic by having us watch young people grappling with ideas that they should not be grasping until they are 80-years old. Don’t go into the film expecting a rom-com, but this bleak drama is touching non-the less.

In order to work the film relies on the love triangle that forms between Kathy, Ruth and Tommy so it was the right move of Romanek’s to bring on such amazing British stars. Both Garfield and Mulligan show that they are worthy of the term ‘rising star’. Garfield’s performance has great passion and one of his scenes later on in the film will break your heart and send shivers up your spine. Mulligan gives a much more reserved performance that perfectly fits with her character Kathy who on the surface may seem to accept her fate, but is struggling against it as much as any of them. The two seem to have an adorable, down played chemistry that makes their relationship seem real and believable. Knightley is also exceptional as Ruth, the girl who is blocking Kathy and Tommy’s love. With ‘Never Let Me Go’ she increases her impressive literary pedigree by this time playing the unlikable character, so it credits her ability that she can make the audience sympathise and pity Ruth by the end.

Not only are the actors beautiful to watch but also the scenery surrounding them is stunning. With the film being shot all over England, Romanek captures some beautiful images of the countryside such as Holkam Beach and Clevedon Pier. To give the film an extra feel of strangeness the visual palette was made completely devoid of primary colours, leaving behind only muted browns, greens and blues. The purpose of this was clearly to add to the atmosphere, but it also makes the film seem very dreary, which was not helped by its slow pace. Although the fate of the characters is not explained right away there are enough clues for most to guess what will happen and this predictability, along with the slow pace and subdued colours, might bore many and have them miss the overall meaning that Romanek is trying to put across.  However, those that feel that way will likely have missed what really makes the movie effective. It tugs subtly at our emotions and the fact that Romanek avoids using obvious tear jerking motifs or crowd pleasers is to his credit.

The film sticks very closely to both the original message and dialogue of Ishiguro’s book. This may mean that it is not the right thing for some people, but for others it will be a delightful and haunting watch. Thanks to the superb acting of the leads and the layered source material, the experience will stick with you long after it has all ended.

Degree: 2:1

This is a film that will divide people, even I was umming and ahhing about

what to give it. In the end it is well acted, beautifully shot

and deserves to be recognized, even if the subject matter

isn’t to everyones taste.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Trainspotting

 

Surprisingly this film has nothing to do with the leisurely past time of spotting all types of trains on the tracks. The relevant part of Irvine Welsh’s  book of the same name, where characters Renton and Begbie meet a drunk who turns out to Begbie’s father, at an abandoned station, was cut from the final draft; Welsh himself is, however, lucky enough to get a cameo as low down drug dealer Mikey Forrester) With all that is left, however, there is enough for this small detail not to matter. At then end of the day there is no mistaking that this is a Danny Boyle film since it has everything that interests him:controversial topics; culture analysis; possibility for harrowing scenes; and at the centre of it all, an interest in humans and characters.

The film is set in Edinburgh during the changing times of the 1980’s and it centers on a group of working-class Scottish misfits. The protagonist and narrator is Mark Renton (Rent Boy) who is played by a young Ewan McGregor, a somewhat unknown actor who had only been in three films previously. To prepare for the tough role McGregor shaved his head and lost 18 kilos so that he would look the part of a heroin addict. Renton is a guy who saw what he could have and chose to reject it for a life of instant and extreme gratification that only a good ‘hit’ could provide. The others in the group are equally colourful; there is Spud (Eiren Bremmer) a well-intentioned but dim witted guy destined for failure; Sick Boy ( Jonny Lee Miller) the schemer and wannabe pusher; Begbie (Robert Carlyle) who is a violent sociopath that will fight anyone anytime; and finally Tommy (Kevin McKidd) who is the clean cut –jock who ends up being the most tragic character in the story. None of them are really particularly likeable, most seeming to try hard to do as little work as possible, but the whole cast is exceptional with each one making their characters stand out on their own.

The film, as with the original book, revolves mainly around the heroin that the group is addicted to. As the movie progresses Renton, through his narration, tries to glorify and justify the choice he made, claiming to be in control of it all. However, this is all a self-generated smoke screen that the audience cannot fall for since we see the graphic reality. The frequent drug scenes work well in depicting the brutal realities of heroine addiction. The grotty flats, unattractive appearances and tragic consequences show the audience the truth of this lifestyle. At a time where drugs seem to be the latest party accessory due to shows such as ‘Skins’ and ‘Shameless’ (thanks a lot Channel 4) it is good, possibly even healthy, to know that there are ways for people to see the harsh side of the ‘glamour’. There is certainly nothing appealing about the dead baby scene, which is one of the most shocking I have seen on a screen.

Saying all this Boyle does not directly pass any moral judgment on the characters and doesn’t lecture the audience like an after school special. In fact we are shown how society has its own acceptable drugs such as cigarettes, alcohol and (the middle class favourite) prescription drugs, which are just as bad for you, but legal so therefore ok. The audience is left to decide for themselves if addictions are an acceptable part of life or not.

There is more analysis in this story than just looking at drugs; it also looks at the entire city of Edinburgh during its ‘cultural boom’. In the 1980s Edinburgh was seen as culturally rich and diverse, but here are a group who are anything but those things. For the best Scottish film of all time it doesn’t portray the country in a very positive light, even describing the Scottish people as ‘…the scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization.’-not something the Scottish tourist board will be using anytime soon. The working class life-style of Edinburgh appears not to have caught up with the rest of the city and instead clings to its seedy bars, violent fights and attempts to avoid all sort of reasonability. As with Channel 4’s ‘Shameless’ we are most likely given an exaggerated version of reality, but these characters will have come from somewhere and represent some part of Edinburgh. In fact the film chooses to be brutally honest about Scottish national perception. So as well as looking at drug addiction, ‘Trainspotting’ is a cultural dissection of Scotland and its working class. It is such a shame then that this analysis takes a back seat to all the drug related plot line and story arcs such as the one concerning Renton and his under age ‘girlfriend’ Diane (Kelly Macdonald) are never fully finished.

Although the contents and issues of the film are dark and dingy, the film is shot beautifully. In this way it is like Darren Aronofsky’s ‘ Requiem For A Dream’, which also used great cinematic techniques to allow audiences to experience the same sensations as the addicts. The drug fuelled trips, cold turkey delusions and of course the famous loo metaphor are all creatively and expertly shot making the film feel just that little bit more special. Along with the visuals also comes a great 80s soundtrack that takes those who remember it straight back.

The film is certainly one that requires a strong stomach and nerves of steel, I would be lying if I said I didn’t hide behind my hands whenever a needle was shown, and trust me it happens a lot. But the rewards of seeing such a strong, hard-hitting film are worth all the ‘eek’ moments. I imagine that the book is a little less full on, many moments would be easier to read than watch, so if the story interests you it may be worth giving that a try, but you won’t get the same strong emotional reaction or reward.

 

Degree-2:1

Not a film for everyone by any means, but one that is well worth seeing.

It certainly lives up to the accolade of being the

best British film of the 1990s

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

 

 

It’s Kind Of A Funny Story

Released soon in January (7th to be more precise) this looks like a real heart warming film. Adapted from the book of the same name it follows 15 year-old Craig Gilner as he spends some time in hospital to deal with his depression. With Zach Galifianakis playing his usual absurd role, but with a lot more heart we could see the actor that was promised after ‘The Hangover’. The film also has the young stars Kier Gilchrist ( from the US show ‘The United States of Tara) and Emma Roberts (from ‘The Wild Child’) who both seem, at least from the adverts, to really pull their weight.