The Perks of Being a Wallflower

High school in movies is very rarely comparable to actual high school. It’s become a clichéd expectation. The Perks of Being a Wallflower doesn’t present that same glossy teenage experience. But it covers enough tough real life situations that teens watching can probably relate to one if not many of the stressful events. Perks stars Logan Lerman as Charlie, a shy high school freshman who carries some pretty intense middle school baggage. Though when he befriends two more expressive seniors, (Emma Watson and Ezra Miller) he begins to come out of his shell and experience high school in a positive way.

While Lerman has been around the film set a bit with parts in some mid-level blockbusters, (Percy Jackson, 3:10 to Yuma) this performance showcases his acting abilities very well. He masters a difficult character, who carefully balances between sulky, optimistic, and mentally ill. Even if the viewer doesn’t know someone like Charlie, the film will leave them thinking that they do. Watson’s big post Harry Potter role is also cleverly handled. Though after watching her eight film run in the HP films, the iffy American accent is very noticeable. Had she been an unknown, it may not have been as easy to notice. Miller rounds out the film’s lead trio with a quality performance as a character facing a tough set of circumstances. In fact, most of the characters face tough circumstances.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower at times feels like a laundry list of what could happen in high school to make things difficult. But to just sit back and watch the movie, it reaches the infrequent achievement of captivating an audience. It’s masterly crafted with precision dialogue and unmatched pacing. Director Stephen Chbosky, who wrote the screenplay and the original novel, has made a movie that deserves to go down as one of the great coming of age films of the decade. But if one more movie tells me that music sounds better on vinyl… I’ll probably do nothing more than come on W^M and complain about it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Pitch Perfect

I’m not one to take the awkwardness of movie characters singing to each other lightly. Out of the context of a full on musical, this can be quite jarring. Luckily for those invested in Pitch Perfect, the fairly unknown world of a cappella plays out awesomely in this comedic cinematic setting. Anna Kendrick plays Beca, a college freshman that joins a female singing group even though she doesn’t really want to. You see, Beca is a DJ and a rebel and doesn’t really want to play the whole college game. It’s not really necessary for her to fight joining the team like she does. It drastically slows the pace early on.

Even as the audience is waiting for the singing to feature more prominently, it’s really quite the surprise how funny the movie is. The trailers feature funny moments, but I’d be surprised if anyone expected Pitch Perfect to be such a success in that department. The humor tends to be a bit adolescent, but it’s consistent with college life. Then when the characters do get around to singing, the film does for a cappella what the Step Up franchise does for dancing. It’s just a very cool presentation that gives the audience a glimpse into that world.

Kendrick leads the film with a strong performance as the coming of age, jaded student. She’s unlikeable for a while, which is consistent with how the script wants it. Luckily, almost every other character (with the exception of the overbearing Aubrey, played by Anna Camp) is likeable and interesting. Even the film's villain from the rival group, Bumper, (Adam DeVine) is likeable in his own hysterically insulting way. Fans of the genre will come for the singing and stay for the comedy. Even though the singing performances are really well done, it’s tough to outdo the witty script that accompanies it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Trouble with the Curve

Clint Eastwood hasn’t been in front of a camera for a few years. But he’s back as an old, ornery baseball scout. Now does this man who spends his days watching baseball alongside his scout friends and evenings reminiscing with them at bars, need to be so angry and ornery? Probably not, but Clint plays angry, so Gus, his character, is angry. The film follows Gus as he goes on a scouting trip for a sought after prospect just before the MLB draft. But in addition to battling the threat of being replaced by a computer in his team’s front office, he finds out he’s losing his vision. So his daughter (Amy Adams) lends a helping hand on the important trip. Gus, of course, grumbles about this.

There is a great deal of time spent with Adams whining about her relationship with her father. The first few instances are used to establish the characters; the last few confront the issue head on. It’s those middle dozen or so times the audience is told about Gus being an unlikeable dad that are unnecessary. It’s not a very complex movie, the audience gets it. When Adams’ character finds herself in a slowly budding relationship with another young scout, played by Justin Timberlake, the film adds the new dimension it needs to be successful.

Baseball fans will enjoy the movie, as well as those seeking a lighthearted story with some drama mixed in. The rewards come in response to the challenges the characters face. The patient viewer will enjoy the film, but will need to endure the slow moments that occur fairly regularly throughout. In addition to the three leads, who give strong performances, the supporting players, John Goodman, Matthew Lillard, etc. help move the film along as well. Trouble with the Curve is an entertaining film with interesting characters, though its slow pace proves a strike against it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Hotel Transylvania

I was reading an article written by a supposed film expert, and they said that they expected Hotel Transylvania to under perform because Adam Sandler’s last few movies have underperformed. But this is an animated monster movie, so needless to say that writer is wrong. Hotel Transylvania does star Sandler, but as the voice of the animated Dracula, who owns a hotel resort for monsters to escape the taxing threat of human interference. The hotel also helps the overprotective vampire keep tabs on his teenage (118 year old) daughter, Mavis (Selena Gomez). So when a human (Andy Samberg) happens upon the place just when Dracula’s monster friends (played by Sandler’s real life acting friends) show up for Mavis’ birthday party, the Count is understandably paranoid.

The film may star the monsters you’re used to, but it’s quite family friendly. There is hardly an inclination of anything scary, except during one Dracula flashback to an angry mob. In fact, the angry mobs prove to be the main fear of all of the monster characters. They consider the humans to be bullies who threaten them without warrant. This isn’t a new idea. Even August’s ParaNorman used a similar anti-bullying, give monsters a chance premise. But this one is much lighter in tone with physical comedy, fart jokes and exploiting cinematic stereotypes, like Frankenstein (Kevin James) being afraid of fire. The laughs come often, even more so with the young viewers.

The monster hotel idea is a fun one, which the script takes full advantage of. However after that runs out, there is the standard Shrek-like ensemble sing along and Corpse Bride similar skeleton band, but you can’t blame them for going with what works. It’s a kid movie, which successfully caters to its target audience all in the two month confines of the plot mirroring Halloween season. Bingo!

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Looper

Looper is a new idea. The film has been highly praised for its innovative approach to a sci-fi genre which borrows heavily from itself. Though after screening the film, it’s worth noting that aspects of the plot are not completely original, but what sets them apart is their execution and commitment to the film’s internal themes. In the future, time travel is used by powerful criminals to send back targets to be killed and disposed of. The past assassins are known as Loopers. But when Joe’s (Joseph Gordon Levitt) latest target turns out to be the future version of himself (Bruce Willis), he hesitates and lets him escape. Will Joe find himself before the Loopers and Gat Men catch them both!?

While the main idea of the plot has been heavily advertised, the film gets really complex when Willis comes into the fray. In fact, the writing is some of the best this year. Acting wise Willis and Gordon-Levitt give top notch performances, though even with the prosthetic features, it is a bit difficult to buy that they are the same character. If I were director Rian Johnson, I would have jumped at having two such quality actors as my leads, as well. But the similarities aren’t quite there.

The film’s second half reveals a darker, more vital plot point than what had previously been the main conflict. This turns out to be incredibly intriguing and powerful on screen. The action is stepped up along with a more introspective look at the way the futuristic characters remain grounded in the wake of unchecked violence. Looper never pushes its limits by telling too much back story or revealing more than is needed to know about what their world is like. It’s a slow burn of a film that can even keep interest through the relaxed parts and have you on the edge of your seat without even knowing it. When it hits its peak and the credits roll, I didn’t even know what hit me, hence the silence during the first few moments of the credits. This movie matters, and the director wants to make sure we realize it.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Dredd

Let’s begin by talking a little bit about the title character of the new sci-fi bloodbath, Dredd. Played by Karl Urban, Judge Dredd is a futuristic police officer who acts as judge, jury and executioner in a crime ridden super-city overrun by drugs and strangely tattooed gangs. Then when he and his rookie partner, played by Olivia Thirlby, get trapped in a gang controlled apartment tower, they must confront a dangerous drug lord (Lena Headey) in order to escape. The odds that this film would be good, by any stretch of the word, were slim. Luckily I’d take those odds on a movie any day. So to the theater we go.

Urban plays Dredd in a way that would make the comic book purists proud. The audience doesn’t learn much about the character, but that’s the way he wants it. Among the corrupt, he represents the faceless arm of the law, which is apparently a bad ass, angry arm. Though even with the limitations on the character and the wardrobe, Dredd wears a large helmet that only leaves his mouth and chin visible, Urban carries the film with solid resolve and ideals that the audience can get behind.

The film looks firmly at its heavily stylized violence to keep up the tension. The results are mixed in this aspect. While the waves and waves of expendable henchmen getting mowed down fits with the few versus many premise, instances like a vagrant getting crushed by a heavy door for no reason are just for unnecessary shock value. Plus the use of the Slow Mo drug, which makes the world seem like everything is going really slow, proves a less interesting aesthetic choice the tenth time it’s used. But you can’t blame them for wanting to take advantage of the cool concept. Ultimately, that’s how the movie turns out, cool, if not a bit over-the-top.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.