Category Archives: 1990s

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Leave a reply

Usually, romances based on Smiths mixtapes and friendships based on vinyl collections* are on the list of things that annoy me most in movies. However, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” makes all these little obsessions feel authentic.

“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is based on a novel that I now feel the need to read. This is a rare adaptation that was actually written for the screen by its original author. This is also the directorial debut for author Stephen Chbosky, who should spend more time directing movies in his future.


“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” deserves to be mentioned alongside many great classics about misfits in high school, from “Rebel Without a Cause” to “The Breakfast Club.” Based on the music, a very prominent feature here, “Perks” takes place in Pittsburgh during the early 1990s. Charlie (Logan Lerman) is a Holden Caufield-type with real problems. After some emotional issues and time spent in a hospital, Charlie returns to the real world in preparation for his freshman year of high school. Before I saw this film, I forgot how much high school tended to suck: the immaturity, the propensity for hurtful nicknames, and the culture of cliques. On his first day, Charlie can’t even eat lunch with his sister Candace (Nina Dobrev). So, he becomes a wallflower.

While the complicated love story might seem like the central motivation for most of Charlie’s actions, it is the friendship formed with Patrick (Ezra Miller) that opens Charlie’s eyes for the first time. Patrick, who is called “Nothing” by his classmates, spends most of his spare time messing with his shop teacher as well as anyone else he can find. He is also the only openly gay kid in the entire school, at a time when being open was not accepted by all. Patrick is played with a manic energy by Miller, who always moves his body around and yells with excitement when there’s nothing to be excited about. It surprises me that everyone wouldn’t want to follow in his footsteps.

When Charlie has no one to sit with at the football game, Patrick has no problem keeping him company. Patrick then takes Charlie under his wing and brings him to his first party. There, he accidentally eats a brownie filled with weed that finally gets him out of his head, and his witty thoughts amuse the exiles of the school, who are appropriately labeled “the island of the misfit toys.” Most importantly, it is here where Charlie meets Patrick’s step sister Sam (Emma Watson) and is on the path to first love. Not before he finishes that milk shake, though.

“Perks” is much more about how kids affect each other, as opposed to just how adults affect kids. The adult characters are just there in Charlie’s life, and they are almost an alien species that he can’t properly communicate with. We will find out why this is so later on. His parents are never given names. Charlie’s one true adult friendship is with his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd). I have a feeling that the book delves much deeper into their relationship, as the film shows no conflict in it, except for the fact that Mr. Anderson is always giving Charlie books, which Charlie reads in no time. Despite that, I still really liked this element in the film. It is not just because Paul Rudd is an incredibly likable dude, but because it felt meaningful and never trite.

It is really the young actors that shine brightest here. Watson can now be known as more than just Hermione Granger. Her American accent seems shaky at first, but she ends up sliding into it comfortably and then embodying a character who is both proud of who she is and uncomfortable with who she once was. As Charlie, Lerman is memorable yet understated. Charlie is a complicated character to get down, but Lerman nails it. While the story is told from Charlie’s perspective, there is the feeling that there is information that Charlie is withholding both from the audience and himself. This might be the first film I’ve ever seen in which the narrator is unreliable because he is lying to himself. I think that’s a little more radical than people have made it out to be.

“Perks” feels like a scattered collection of someone’s journal entries and memories that sprung to life with vivid sound and color. The film brings an entire time period to life, and it makes feel as alive as the present day. Its sense of place is evident in a scene where Sam stands in the back of Patrick’s truck as they pass through a tunnel and onto a bridge. Shockingly, it makes Pittsburgh seem more magical than industrial.

The film finds its sense of time in its soundtrack. The music selected is so good that after seeing the film, I immediately listened to the soundtrack, and then listened to it many more times. In terms of creating nostalgia, the soundtrack is on the same level as “Dazed and Confused” and “Almost Famous.” In the same way that I will always associate Foghat’s “Slow Ride” with the ride to get Aerosmith tickets and Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” with a bus ride sing along, I will forever associate The Smiths’ “Asleep” and Dexy Midnight Runners’ “Come on Eileen” with mix tapes and such. The best part about a great soundtrack is when it can open your mind to new music. All I can say is that after first finding out the track listing, I had a lot more new artists to find on Spotify.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower Emma Watson
The exact moment that everyone who wasn’t already in love fell in love with Emma Watson.

Now, there might be some people who find the idea of friendships and romances based on a love of movies and music to be a little impractical. This idea was parodied quite well in “500 Days of Summer.” Yet, it does not feel pretentious in “Perks” in the slightest bit. “Perks” is not about a group of people showing how cool they are because of their taste. It is about the ability to bond with others over shared cultural experiences. Sometimes, the words we speak can only do so much. Liking the same piece of art as someone else can bring out so much about one’s personality that they could never even speak. And yes, if you don’t like certain things, I may be judging you.

But I digress. It is hard for me to speak to those who have read the novel, because they have a much greater wealth of knowledge of these characters and this world than I do. But I can speak to “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” as a film. Every emotional punch hits as hard as it was fully intended to. It pulls out a late in the story twist that I did not see coming. I believe this was a story that was made to be told on film.

Oftentimes, the purpose of great art can be to create characters who are suffering and who are lonely. I believe this provides catharsis to those who went through these emotions at one point or are currently experiencing them. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” will connect to everyone because no matter who you are, at some point in your life, you were once an awkward high school kid who didn’t quite know where you belonged.

*For the record (pun possibly intended): I like The Smiths and own a vinyl collection. I don’t know what that makes me.

“Her?”

Top 5: Movies I will Watch to Completion Whenever They are on TV

Leave a reply

You know that feeling. You’re cruising through the channels and suddenly, you come across a movie. Maybe the game is on in 10 minutes, or you’re just in commercial break from [insert reality show that everyone watches here] and it’s that one movie that you’ve seen so many times. You can recite every line to it and yet, you can watch it again and again. Even though it has been on for an hour, watching it to completion feels necessary. I would like to present with you now my list of movies that I will watch anytime I find them on TV. Some have been acknowledged as masterpieces. Others, meanwhile, may have you questioning my credibility. Read the complete list after the jump.


1. Goodfellas


“As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” “Goodfellas” has what is, in my humble opinion, the most flawless opening a movie has ever had. It is exciting, hilarious, and most importantly, captivating. It gives you enough information to get into the world, but not enough so you feel the need to find out more. Once you’ve started it, you’ll just want to keep watching. Even after seeing it so many times, watching the opening again re-invigorates the curiosity I felt the very first time I ever watched it. Good luck changing the channel now.


2. The Godfather (I & II)


The first two parts of the “Godfather” saga are over three hours a piece. With commercials, that puts both of them at close to five hours each. Once you’ve seen them, they are the kinds of movies you can pick up at any point and keep watching. AMC typically plays the first two movies every Thanksgiving, and “Arrested Development” marathons notwithstanding, I will always tune in.


3. The Big Lebowski


This spot nearly went to “Pulp Fiction,” until I realized that it was time to set limits on how often that movie could be discussed on this site. As “Lebowski” gets better on repeat viewings, it is fitting that I will always want to watch it on TV the whole way through. Like any great Coen Brothers movie, there is always more humor to be found in scenes that you never thought could ever be funny. And while I usually hate the way that networks censor movies, the infamous re-dubbing of “The Big Lebowski” is the stuff of unintentional comic genius. Unfortunately, I cannot find the footage online, but just picture the phrase “f**k a stranger in the ass!” being replaced with the supposedly much gentler “find a stranger in the Alps” and the weirdly fitting, if nonsensical ,”feed a stoner scrambled eggs.”


4. Anchorman


The collective viewing public has seen “Anchorman” enough times that it can recite the whole movie by heart. While it is not as funny as it was to me years ago, I will still drop what I am doing and watch “Anchorman” whenever TBS makes room for it in its busy Tyler Perry-packed schedule. I speak for the whole world when I say, that sequel cannot come soon enough.


5. 3 Ninjas


What has The Reel Deal come to? How do I begin with one of the AFI’s top 10 movies, and end with this throwaway family film from the 90s? It is hard to pinpoint one answer. Maybe because it brings back some very nice nostalgia. Or, perhaps it is still fun to shout “Rocky loves Emily!” repeatedly. While “3 Ninjas” contains plenty of the “nutshot,” perhaps the lowest point any comedy can sink to, there is something so infinitely watchable and hysterical about the break-in scene. I’ve laughed at it over and over again for nearly 20 years. When your film diet consists largely of foreign films, Martin Scorsese, and Charlie Kaufman, it is nice to have something like “3 Ninjas” to look back on, in order to keep your sanity and immaturity intact.

Editor’s Note: The 90s are underrated.

Why Do People Like This: Speed

Leave a reply

Why Do People Like This is a new segment where I discuss a thoroughly overrated movie.


Pop Quiz Hot Shot!

It is said that “Speed” was pitched as “Die Hard” on a bus. This is one of the most brilliant pitches ever made. Too bad “Speed” isn’t nearly as good as “Die Hard.”

When it comes to movies, I’m like Alvy Singer, in that I won’t see a movie in theaters if I am late. Even two minutes late. I like the credits, too. But it appears that I have broken some of my own rules for “Speed.” I like to justify it by putting into consideration the fact that I caught it on AMC on a Saturday night. AMC is known for playing both classic, and classically cheesy, movies.

In the pop culture lexicon, “Speed” doesn’t usually fall into the second category. In fact, if the ratings on the information option on cable are to be trusted, it gets three and a half out of four stars. So about the same rating as “No Country for Old Men” and “The Social Network.” “Speed” is an entertaining thriller. But a great one? Not even close.

For the longest time, “Speed” was on that list of movies that I am guilty of never watching. That list still includes “Top Gun,” “Trading Places,” and “A Beautiful Mind.” I can now take “Speed” off of that list, and relief washes over me in a wave of meh.

The premise of “Speed” is simple, yet effective: a terrorist plants a bomb inside a bus, and said bus cannot go under 50 miles per hour at anytime, or else it will explode. From the start, I had no clue how that bomb would be diffused. That is what drew me to the movie. Unfortunately, “Speed” goes for the most obvious conclusion possible.

First off, everything about “Speed” is absolutely ludicrous. Now, no movie can ever be truly, fully realistic. Even the ones that claim to be so are usually the most highly implausible (*cough* “Crash” *cough*). But really, are we supposed to believe that a bus can make it over a jump that large? I have never taken a physics class, but even I know that stunt does not look right. Usually in a Hollywood blockbuster, the coolness factor justifies the suspension of reality. This shot might have looked cool in 1994, but it has not aged well.

“Speed” was written by Graham Yost. Yost would go on years later to create “Justified,” which I am told is one of the best dramas on television. But there is something “Speed” lacks in its script. The potential of both comedic and dramatic bonding between the passengers on the bus is passed up so that each of them instead can be used to forward the plot. The only passengers to get some form of personality are Cam from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (Alan Ruck, who should be acting more) and the teacher with the annoying voice from “Donnie Darko.”

And lest we not forget the dull chemistry between the two leads: Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Bullock is charismatic when she chooses to be; Keanu doesn’t seem to have a choice. When he isn’t busy sitting on a park bench by himself, he is being the lamest actor to ever be called a leading man. Why are we made to root for this hero? What is he overcoming, and what makes him so special? He really should have stuck to movies more like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” Seriously, that movie does not get enough credit.

The end of this movie devolves into a big kiss between the two leads. However, Jack (Reeves) never seemed to be trying to save Annie (Bullock) out of love, but rather obligation. Bullock is able to get the second best line in the movie, when she says she lost her license because of speeding, just seconds after she is asked to take the wheel. The other best line is when Jack says that Howard Payne (Hopper) has “lost his head.” That sentence has multiple meanings.

Hopper is the scene stealer here as the psychotic and mysterious villain. He is strangely less over-the-top here than he usually is, and considering the fact that he once played Frank Booth. The small amount of screen time he gets certainly increases the intrigue in his villain, but I would have rather seen a movie completely about him than about anyone else here.

“Speed” is not completely horrible. There are a lot of thrilling moments and I will admit that I was afraid that the bus would actually blow up a few times earlier on. Then, I remembered if that happened, there wouldn’t be a movie. But that constant fear helps to keep the movie alive. However, this thrill is broken up by a lot of poor character development as well as an incessant need for a happy ending. “Speed” is a lot of great parts searching for a greater whole.

You can catch “Speed” on AMC about the same amount of times that you can catch “Wedding Crashers” and any Tyler Perry movie on TBS. Translation: A lot. 

Movie Review: Heavenly Creatures

3 Replies

Peter Jackson’s “Heavenly Creatures,” the breakthrough film from the director of “The Lord of the Rings,” might as well be in a genre of its own. Call it fantastical nonfiction. That is, it bridges the great divide between fantasy and a frightening reality that actually occurred.

In 1954, quite, rural New Zealand was shaken by murder. Two teenage girls had murdered one of their mothers in what one could describe as “a crime of friendship.” The two were caught, imprisoned, and later paroled on the condition that they would never see each other again. Jackson did not make a story about the trial but rather about the events that led up to the murder, based on what is true, what is thought to be true, and what can’t be true under any circumstance.

The events of “Heavenly Creatures” take place in and around the small town of Christchurch on New Zealand’s southern island. The two teenage girls, Pauline Parker (Melanie Lynskey) and Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) meet in Catholic school. The introverted Pauline is immediately transfixed by Juliet, and how Juliet will talk back to the French teacher without even thinking about it. The two soon become inseparable best friends. They frequently escape into a fantasy world that they created, one that brings them away from their dull, suppressed lives. The fantasy starts to become too real and while the girls are present physically in reality, they are mentally gone.

After feeling that their friendship is becoming unhealthy, Pauline and Juliet’s parents make the decision to separate the two of them. The separation does no good and instead drives the pair into bouts of insanity. They ultimately hatch a sinister plan to be together forever, one that, even they admit, could only end in tragedy.

“Heavenly Creatures” is a movie of many questions, and many frightening possibilities. The whole story is one giant question about who the driving force of insanity here is. Were Pauline and Juliet naturally troubled, or were their descents into insanity caused by their separation? In a society that stressed conformity and deemphasized creativity, perhaps madness and fantasy were the only means of escape. However, this in no way justifies the terrible actions carried out in the film’s terrifying finale.

A driving force in the narrative of “Heavenly Creatures” is the widely circulated rumor that the two girls in question were lesbians. This is not played for an exploitative purpose, or to create controversy, but rather it serves as a lens into the psyche of these two teenage killers. Could physical love have explained why they were so inseparable, and why they so despised both the religion and the adults who raised them?

“Heavenly Creatures” is one of the great underappreciated gems of the 1990s. Jackson showed the ability of a director who would soon be able to make great movies on a much larger scale. The fantasy world created in “Heavenly Creatures” is one that seems fake, yet so tangible. The creatures the girls create look like a cross between Play-Doh and those little green toy soldiers. The special effects, while dated by today’s standards, still look impressive for something made outside of Hollywood, and without a blockbuster budget. I can’t wait to see what else the other filmmakers of New Zealand can offer in the years to come.

“Heavenly Creatures” begot not only a great director, but also two great actresses. This was Winslet’s debut role, and from her performance one could see why she would later become an international star and an Oscar winner. She gets so into this role, and she is so sinister yet so innocent at the same time. Lynskey  unfortunately has not achieved the same level of success as Winslet. She has had bit roles in a few very good movies (“Up in the Air”) and a few very good TV shows (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”), but she never achieved real stardom. Her performance here is as subdued and creepy as her character. She acts mostly through her narration and her disgruntled facial expressions and most of the time, you can never tell whether she is about to scream or about to kill someone. Hopefully, Lynskey makes a comeback one of these days.

There have been a lot of scenes of violent cruelty in movies, but few have effected me as deeply as the ending scene of “Heavenly Creatures” did, despite being so quick and so sudden. What creates the impact is that there is 90 minutes of dread building up to it. Like in the ending of movies such as “The Conversation,” making an entire movie based off dread until the very final minutes is ultimately more rewarding. The more you wait, the more horrifying the crime feels. Peter Jackson is a master of suspense in disguise.

“Heavenly Creatures” should be seen for all of the reasons that people watch movies in the first place: to be transferred off to a place they normally wouldn’t be able to go to, to feel sympathy for people we shouldn’t feel sympathy for, and to simply be thrilled. We see both a foreign country in a time few of us would’ve known it in, and a world that exists entirely inside of two girls’ heads. Juliet and Pauline might be murderers, but they are also angst-ridden, isolated teenagers that anyone could relate to. It also shows a director’s admirable mission to painstakingly tell a difficult story right. And tell it right he did.