Some Flowers Just Need A Little Love

I've read a few books that were adapted into films for this year. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Hunger Games, The Hobbit (well, I read that one years ago but the film is due here very soon as of writing), and recently, The Perks Of Being A Wallflower. The difference between this book and the first two I mentioned is that while I think the book is on par or better than the film, it's a very different story with this story.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is an introverted kid who is just starting high school. On his first day, the only friend he makes is his English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd).

That soon changes when he meets two senior students, Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson) and is introduced to a world he never imagined he would be a part of.

So yeah, pretty much a “coming of age teen drama”. Not an easy thing to pull off well in this day and age. You need three things to make it work: solid writing, believable cast and kick-arse music.

First, the writing: well, the screenplay was adapted by the book's author, Stephen Chbosky, who also directed the film, so clearly this is a project near and dear to his heart. As such, he's had to pick and choose what would translate best to film. And it works. The dialogue feels organic, it's not cliche, and there's real feeling behind it. And a lot of the good lines go to Patrick, the joker of the group.

Which brings us to the cast. We should probably get this out of the way, since a lot of people would want to know: does Emma Watson deliver the goods in her role or does she distract? In my opinion, the former, by far. Her American accent is amazing and it's almost enough to make you forget she was even in the Harry Potter series. Her character is such a delight and if it weren't for almost everyone around her, she'd be the woobie of the cast.

Speaking of woobies, let's look at our main man Charlie. Between the book and the film, the performance is the key difference. In the book, due to its format (Charlie writes letters to an unknown person, and EVERYTHING is retold in letter form), Charlie comes across a bit... well, simple, for lack of a better word. And it all comes off as stiff and robotic. The film fixes that, not only by having a better grasp of emoting, but also by pushing the letter writing angle to the sidelines. It is still there, but nowhere near as prevalent as the book.

Because of this, Charlie comes across as more emphatic and likeable, and that's what we need him to be, since he's the outcast. He doesn't always pick up on social cues right away, like his scenes with Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman, who is awesome in this), but his time with Sam and Patrick helps him understand the world just a little bit more.

Patrick is the last of the trio (and here I thought I could go a whole blog without making references to Harry Potter beyond Emma Watson. Whoops) and is on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to Charlie. He's confident, attention-seeking and comfortable with who he is. This also makes him the most emotionally fragile, and Ezra let the character's vulnerabilities unfold naturally.

He and Emma are tied as the cast stand-outs for me, but throw Logan in and it makes the whole package complete.

As for the last aspect, the music? It rocks. One of the biggest pieces of praise I can shower upon the movie. It has Dexy's Midnight Runners, The Smiths, New Order AND David Bowie (more than once!) making up the soundtrack, what more do you need?
Not to mention the constant references to Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I will never demean anything that promotes Rocky Horror (except Glee, because I don't think Glee really understands half the songs it picks sometimes), even using footage from the movie itself.

Do I have issues? Yes. The movie's not terribly long, which isn't the issue. What is the issue is the removal of a subplot or two from the book, mostly involving Charlie's sister getting pregnant.

If I recall the book correctly, she gets pregnant to a guy who treats her badly. He hits her, Charlie witnesses this, and his sister says he is not to speak of it to their parents. Well, in the movie, that's the last time he's seen at all. He's mentioned twice after, but he's no longer a physical presence.

So... what was the pay-off for that then? If you weren't going to do anything with it, why bother including that part at all? That screen-time could have been used to fix the other issue I have.

That issue being: not enough screen-time for Paul Rudd! Seriously, both book and film, I loved his character! Hell, the movie doesn't even have the character's wife! He gets shafted from appearing near the end of the movie! And it's Paul Rudd playing a straight role. I mean, he's funny, but not “wise-guy” funny, like he normally is (though he's dynamite at that), and he doesn't do that a lot.

All in all, a nice movie, well worth your time. I prefer it over the book, but I still recommend the book too. 3.5/5