I wanted to like this movie. I read the book about a decade ago, while in my late teens, and the story resonated with me on several levels. I have been hoping (and praying as much as an atheist can pray) that the Hollydood commerce machine would not screw it up. Alas, in vain.
I am struggling of what to describe first in this review, but I think that I will give the makers of this movie a little credit. "Perks" was always going to be a difficult story to televise and the attempt is not a total cop-out. The movie stays true to the book in many respects and it's obvious that there was some thought put into capturing the feel of the written tale. That it didn't succeed is a confluence of several factors.
The main problem is down to the casting and portrayal of the main characters. I have no issue with the protagonist, Charlie, but the roles of Patrick (Ezra Miller) and especially Sam (Emma Watson) have been rather absurdly twisted, albeit each in a different way.
Patrick is overtly and flamboyantly homosexual, which becomes a real distraction. In the book, he was just a cool and funny guy for whom sexual orientation was a nuisance with which he struggled, but he didn't seem to consider it a core of his persona. The movie falls way short of that level of subtlety. Here Patrick is oozing gayness - that's where he begins and that's where he ends.
The character of Sam is even worse. I am not sure what is the big deal about Emma Watson. She has very little in terms of acting chops and it's a shame that she keeps getting roles, on the strength of "Potter" fame, that she is totally ill-suited for. She lacks any kind of charm and on top of that she looks androgynous. Sam is supposed to be a slutty girl gone good who is still feminine and unwittingly seductive. Emma looks and acts like a preteen boy making it hard to understand Charlie's infatuation with her.
The last problem that I want to touch upon is the lack of flow in the narrative. There is just no feeling of cohesiveness that characterizes good movies. It's a succession of short vignettes, loosely related, and strung together. The book also makes frequent jumps in time, but they are easier to digest due to transitional material. It makes sense that there is a time lapse when Charlie starts writing his letter, but somehow that doesn't translate well to the screen.
Overall, I give this movie a 4/10 score as I consider it a slightly sub-par effort. It wasn't for a lack of trying, but I wish that the creators resisted the urge to capitalize on Emma Watson's supposed star power and instead found an actress well suited for the role.
I am struggling of what to describe first in this review, but I think that I will give the makers of this movie a little credit. "Perks" was always going to be a difficult story to televise and the attempt is not a total cop-out. The movie stays true to the book in many respects and it's obvious that there was some thought put into capturing the feel of the written tale. That it didn't succeed is a confluence of several factors.
The main problem is down to the casting and portrayal of the main characters. I have no issue with the protagonist, Charlie, but the roles of Patrick (Ezra Miller) and especially Sam (Emma Watson) have been rather absurdly twisted, albeit each in a different way.
Patrick is overtly and flamboyantly homosexual, which becomes a real distraction. In the book, he was just a cool and funny guy for whom sexual orientation was a nuisance with which he struggled, but he didn't seem to consider it a core of his persona. The movie falls way short of that level of subtlety. Here Patrick is oozing gayness - that's where he begins and that's where he ends.
The character of Sam is even worse. I am not sure what is the big deal about Emma Watson. She has very little in terms of acting chops and it's a shame that she keeps getting roles, on the strength of "Potter" fame, that she is totally ill-suited for. She lacks any kind of charm and on top of that she looks androgynous. Sam is supposed to be a slutty girl gone good who is still feminine and unwittingly seductive. Emma looks and acts like a preteen boy making it hard to understand Charlie's infatuation with her.
The last problem that I want to touch upon is the lack of flow in the narrative. There is just no feeling of cohesiveness that characterizes good movies. It's a succession of short vignettes, loosely related, and strung together. The book also makes frequent jumps in time, but they are easier to digest due to transitional material. It makes sense that there is a time lapse when Charlie starts writing his letter, but somehow that doesn't translate well to the screen.
Overall, I give this movie a 4/10 score as I consider it a slightly sub-par effort. It wasn't for a lack of trying, but I wish that the creators resisted the urge to capitalize on Emma Watson's supposed star power and instead found an actress well suited for the role.