Currently my #3 of 2012. This is such a touching, honest and big-hearted movie with absolutely brilliant performances from the entire cast. Definitely a new classic of the genre and a film I see doing really, really well throughout the fall. I read the book shortly before seeing the film and my only complaint is that one storyline that I found incredibly effective in the novel involving Candace (Nina Dobrev) was excised. Other than that this is incredibly faithful to the source material. Lerman, Watson and Miller are all fantastic here and have great chemistry with one another. Lerman in particular delivers one of my favorite performances of the year so far. The entire supporting cast is also great - Mae Whitman is hilarious, Nina Dobrev is great in her scenes, Paul Rudd is very effective. It surprisingly doesn't shy away from any of the novel's heavy material despite the PG-13 rating potentially limiting it, and the final few scenes are incredibly tearjerking. A definite must-see. I loved it. A

^ Not a single mention of Ezra Miller?

I didn't love everything about this movie, but Miller was GREAT in it, especially considering how far removed this was from his equally great turn in We Need to Talk About Kevin.

Ah, okay. Still deserves a special mention.

I didn't like the casting for Logan Lerman initially but he was actually very good here. (and sort of adorable to be honest)

Ezra Miller was excellent, wish he was in it a little more. Emma Watson was kind of shaky at first but gets better as the movie goes along. Overall I thought it was a pretty good adaptation (not really surprised considering the author's the director). I loved the first 30 minutes or so but it drags a little in the last half.

To a certain extent, I respect this film. It is earnest. I am certain its goal is to move, inspire, and comfort teenage moviegoers and inspire nostalgia in the rest. However, it just does not soar as a film. The characters never ring true; their lows too low, their highs too high, their pleasures and woes too contrived, and, to be honest, their faces too beautiful, too bright, for a group of tortured schoolyard misfits. The film seems shot inside a snow globe, divorced from grit and reality, even though it veers now and then toward subjects such as child abuse and suicide. There are individual moments of grace and wit, but the pace is convulsive, and certain storylines and undercurrents are undernourished. The performances are decent and straightforward and tender.

A minor, but frustrating absurdity: the characters worship bands such as the Beatles and the Smiths and participate in a Rocky Horror Picture Show shadow cast, but are unable to figure out who sings "Heroes" for months on end. Eh?

C+

A wonderfully honest, insightful adaptation of the book. Captures the tone and spirit perfectly, which is no surprise considering author Stephen Chbosky is at the helm here. Logan Lerman is wonderful as the titular "wallflower" Charlie, Emma Watson convincingly sheds Hermione as the charismatic Sam, and Ezra Miller is superb as a character not the least bit creepy unlike his previous role. Among the supporting cast, Mae Whitman (long a favorite of mine currently doing great work on Parenthood) and Paul Rudd stand out. The story takes place in the early 1990s, a few years before my time in high school started, but it's especially relevant and easy to relate to. One of the best movies this year. A

Dug it.


15 out of 5.

This was so wonderful. The best film of the year so far. The leads were all superb but I thought Logan Lerman was especially amazing. He gives an Oscar-worthy performance. He is the perfect Charlie. I really don't think the film could have been cast any better.

This is the best film of the year so far and the best film I've seen about teens in ages. It is an instant coming-of-age classic and possesses a timeless quality.

Stephen Chbosky did a terrific job adapting his novel. Simply beautiful.

A+

I thought you were going to give this a C-

In the book the "tunnel song" is Landslide by Fleetwood Mac. I really wonder how this would have changed the movie, most notably the ending. I swear I probably would have felt like killing myself . It would have been seriously depressing. But I like depressing so maybe it would have been better . I think I prefer the use of "Heroes." Seems to fit better. But do wonder how it would have played with "Landside."

I love how these Beatles/Smiths loving music nerds who claim to spend days at a local record shop don't know "Heroes" by David Bowie or "Landslide" by Fleetwood Mac.

The song might as well have been "Stairway to Heaven."

GREAT film! So much better than I expected. One of my favorites of the year

I didn’t originally plan on seeing “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”. The trailers and title made it look like some generic “sympathy for unpopular high school kids” movie. However I’m glad I got around to it.

“Perks” is a great film about friendships and human relationships. The 3 leads Charlie, Sam and Patrick (played by Logan Lerman, Emma Watson and Ezra Miller respectively) are damaged and have been left without as much love from the world as they need. Only on each other can they depend and lean to try and fill these holes. Ultimately while the film is shown from Charlie’s perspective and how meeting Sam and Patrick save him from depression, Charlie also saves them just as much.

“Perks” is if anything the dream scenario for wallflowers or kids with mental disorders everywhere. Charlie meets some great friends, gets the girl and with a few bumps along the way, turns from a zero to hero. Despite the sense that all 3 leads will have to deal with their histories and damage in the rest of their lives, by the last scene of the film they are left living in the moment and being happy for a night. As a result I would call Perks leaves its characters in an optimistic and upward-pointing direction.

Much of the attention of the film has focused on the young lead cast-members. They are all impressive. I knew about Ezra Miller and Emma Watson’s talent after “We Need to Talk About Kevin” and the Harry Potter series respectively, but Logan Lerman is the key to the film, nailing Charlie’s internal struggle and emotions. Miller provides the most energy and humor to the film, while Watson begins her quest to be Natalie Portman 2.0 very likeably, with more depth to work with than in the Potter films. All 3 actors have a very promising future considering Watson is 22, Lerman is 20 and Miller is 19.

More than anything “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a well told story with characters I cared about. It was a pleasure to watch them on screen for a few hours. That makes it one of the better films I’ve seen this year.

http://jrodgermoviereviews.wordpress.co ... bsky-2012/

David has turned out to be the wallflower of this thread.

It's well intentioned and quite nice. Tries to be too earnest and "real" about life, but credit for effort. I liked the characters though they were a little trite and cliche with everyones easily summarized problems. Watson and Miller are a lot of fun, great teen movie performances, but why was this so dramatic? The partying and relationships and sense of humor felt more Dazed and Confused than the Breakfast Club but 21 Century problem vibe it indulged in the end. I liked it fine, the reveal of the aunt is not too heavy handed, and the drama is rather leveled, so it was okay. Just needed to lighten up a bit, not take high school quite so seriously.

Loved it.

I really loved this film alot more than I expected. Pleasant surprise.

This movie is actually so wonderful. It did fairly well at the box office considering its small profile and limited release but I really see it taking on a second life on DVD. It will become a "teen classic" a few years down the line.

Agree Libs, it will be a bit of a classic.

Watching the film I thought that the studio made the right decision to have a limited release due to the subject matter.

But then again the theater was half full on a Friday afternoon (watched it in between work meetings). Most teens/uni students here are on holiday now so the film is doing well but an equivalent of a (US) $12m OW (and #3 on the chart) last weekend shows that it could have also done well with a semi wide release in North America.

I think it really could have caught on with a wide release. Despite some heavy subject matter it is a crowd-pleaser. If enough people sampled it opening weekend I think it would have been pretty leggy.

I think this should have gone a lot wider. The book is really successful but the movie just flew under the radar.

Deadline.com has For Your Consideration ads for this everywhere on the site today.