Hey bloggers!
For our first blog, we're going to do a review on The Perks of Being a Wallflower, comparing the book to the movie.
Here's a summary of the book:( Incase you haven't read it but we hope you have!) '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perks_of_Being_a_Wallflower#Plot_summary
Scarlett: I think that as a movie by itself, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a good one. Personally, I always prefer a book to a movie based on the same story, but the movie did the book justice.
I didn't like that the movie didn't use the same songs that were in the book, because for me a big part of reading the book was listening to the songs that Charlie talked about, but I guess that was mostly because of copyright issues.
I also thought that Logan Lerman played the character extremely well. Neither overacting Charlie's simple character nor underacting, he was innocent but still portrayed Charlie's simple understanding of things going around him. Emma Watson played Sam really well too, she was exactly how I pictured Sam, except maybe with shorter hair. I didn't particularly like Mary Elizabeth, but maybe that's just because I didn't like her character either (as intended by Stephen Chbosky), so I guess she played her character well too, because it's a lot harder to play a character that's as annoying as hers as compared to a likable character. And obviously, Ezra Miller was awesome, I'm just glad that he's open to love in real life because if he was gay, it would be sad, since he's so hot. <3
I think that the fact that in the movie, Charlie and Mary Elizabeth did sleep together made a huge difference, since the book begins with him saying he's writing to the anonymous 'friend' because they're not the kind who sleep with someone just because they can. It also changes Charlie's character. In the book, he's not ready to even lose his virginity to Sam, the girl he loves, let alone to Mary Elizabeth.
Though there were some important parts of the book missing, from the point of view of someone who is watching the movie without having read the book, I think it is pretty good.
So yes, I did like the movie. I watched it thrice in two days (once by myself, then with my brother and then with Meredith)(I read the book 3 times over when I first got it) and I wouldn't mind watching it again. Other than the Aunt Helen part, which is disturbing. So if you haven't seen it, go watch it! But first read the book. Because truly, the book always wins. I'm only trying to be neutral here.
Meredith: Well I have a a slightly different view. Despite the fact that the casting was brilliant,just absolutely brilliant there really was something lacking.I really did like the fact that all the actors were ones you had definitely seen before ,be is Addison Montgomery( Kate Walsh) from poular tv soap opera grey's anatomy playing the Mother of charlie in Perks of.. or the son of Poseidon Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) playing the messed up protagonist. The movie even had Hermione Granger (Emma Waton) from Harry Potter playing an AMERICAN GIRL!Other caste members included Elena Gilbert ( Nina Dobrev) from The vampire diaries and that Austin guy from make it or break it (Zane Holtz?) playing elder sister and elder brother respectively. My point is every single one of the caste members were familiar to me. (Even that chick in Parenthood who played Mary Elizabeth) This made it very exciting.Familiar faces always make new movies more exciting. But the book was just so frickin' amazing I couldn't help but be SLIGHTLY disappointed.
They missed integral scenes such as visiting the grandparents houses on both sides which gave you a perspective of the entire family but most importantly gave insight on Aunt Helen as a person. I also missed the whole family M.A.S.H scene ( basically no stress on the family) and oh my god the songs.They were good they really were but I missed all the Beatles songs ( blackbird, dear prudence). They also didn't mention all the books.The book was so descriptive and the movie was not. They didn't emphasize on the death of charlies friend or the impact it had on him it was casually put while Sam was making Milk frickin' shake.The sisters role to was downsized there was no pregnancy scene I mean come on!Basically the poor family was given no importance.But i am being overly critical maybe because I love the book but honestly I LOVED THE FILM TOO so I guess I can crib only so much as the book was given as much justice as a movie could give it. It was a movie and everything had to have been shortened. I will not write about my views on le smokin' hot Logan Lerman playing Charlie as I pretty much agree with Scarlett and you just read her views but I must conclude with the fact that I thought Ezra Miller acted the best and he was/is the hottest in the film.
-Scarlett and Meredith.
For our first blog, we're going to do a review on The Perks of Being a Wallflower, comparing the book to the movie.
Here's a summary of the book:( Incase you haven't read it but we hope you have!) '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perks_of_Being_a_Wallflower#Plot_summary
Scarlett: I think that as a movie by itself, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a good one. Personally, I always prefer a book to a movie based on the same story, but the movie did the book justice.
I didn't like that the movie didn't use the same songs that were in the book, because for me a big part of reading the book was listening to the songs that Charlie talked about, but I guess that was mostly because of copyright issues.
I also thought that Logan Lerman played the character extremely well. Neither overacting Charlie's simple character nor underacting, he was innocent but still portrayed Charlie's simple understanding of things going around him. Emma Watson played Sam really well too, she was exactly how I pictured Sam, except maybe with shorter hair. I didn't particularly like Mary Elizabeth, but maybe that's just because I didn't like her character either (as intended by Stephen Chbosky), so I guess she played her character well too, because it's a lot harder to play a character that's as annoying as hers as compared to a likable character. And obviously, Ezra Miller was awesome, I'm just glad that he's open to love in real life because if he was gay, it would be sad, since he's so hot. <3
I think that the fact that in the movie, Charlie and Mary Elizabeth did sleep together made a huge difference, since the book begins with him saying he's writing to the anonymous 'friend' because they're not the kind who sleep with someone just because they can. It also changes Charlie's character. In the book, he's not ready to even lose his virginity to Sam, the girl he loves, let alone to Mary Elizabeth.
Though there were some important parts of the book missing, from the point of view of someone who is watching the movie without having read the book, I think it is pretty good.
So yes, I did like the movie. I watched it thrice in two days (once by myself, then with my brother and then with Meredith)(I read the book 3 times over when I first got it) and I wouldn't mind watching it again. Other than the Aunt Helen part, which is disturbing. So if you haven't seen it, go watch it! But first read the book. Because truly, the book always wins. I'm only trying to be neutral here.
Meredith: Well I have a a slightly different view. Despite the fact that the casting was brilliant,just absolutely brilliant there really was something lacking.I really did like the fact that all the actors were ones you had definitely seen before ,be is Addison Montgomery( Kate Walsh) from poular tv soap opera grey's anatomy playing the Mother of charlie in Perks of.. or the son of Poseidon Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) playing the messed up protagonist. The movie even had Hermione Granger (Emma Waton) from Harry Potter playing an AMERICAN GIRL!Other caste members included Elena Gilbert ( Nina Dobrev) from The vampire diaries and that Austin guy from make it or break it (Zane Holtz?) playing elder sister and elder brother respectively. My point is every single one of the caste members were familiar to me. (Even that chick in Parenthood who played Mary Elizabeth) This made it very exciting.Familiar faces always make new movies more exciting. But the book was just so frickin' amazing I couldn't help but be SLIGHTLY disappointed.
They missed integral scenes such as visiting the grandparents houses on both sides which gave you a perspective of the entire family but most importantly gave insight on Aunt Helen as a person. I also missed the whole family M.A.S.H scene ( basically no stress on the family) and oh my god the songs.They were good they really were but I missed all the Beatles songs ( blackbird, dear prudence). They also didn't mention all the books.The book was so descriptive and the movie was not. They didn't emphasize on the death of charlies friend or the impact it had on him it was casually put while Sam was making Milk frickin' shake.The sisters role to was downsized there was no pregnancy scene I mean come on!Basically the poor family was given no importance.But i am being overly critical maybe because I love the book but honestly I LOVED THE FILM TOO so I guess I can crib only so much as the book was given as much justice as a movie could give it. It was a movie and everything had to have been shortened. I will not write about my views on le smokin' hot Logan Lerman playing Charlie as I pretty much agree with Scarlett and you just read her views but I must conclude with the fact that I thought Ezra Miller acted the best and he was/is the hottest in the film.
-Scarlett and Meredith.
No comments:
Post a Comment