I almost wish i was over exaggerating but this is the biggest pile of hipster-garbage gibberish i have ever laid my eyes on. I only got to around the 1h 10 min mark because it had a high rating in imdb, and oh how it just goes to show that imdb rating isnt something you can rely on.
The only explanation i can come up with is this; there is an army of harry potter whiteknighting emma watson nerds here who give an automatic 10 to every movie she is in. That or the feminists did it, because this writer-director obviously hates men. They just happen to share the common ol' story how you will get molested by men when you are a 10 year old girl. Really? Right-o, i will be sure to never watch another movie from this director/writer, or anything with emma watson in it. She is the definition of overrated. Goodbye.
I think the reason this bothers you so much, and that you chose to focus on Sam's childhood trauma instead of Charlies', is that it hits a nerve. Sam's issue, while similar to Charlie and definitely a serious matter, is mentioned briefly and is hardly as important as Charlie's, yet you focus on it, blindly ignoring the obvious.
You should talk to someone. Some friends maybe, or even a professional, as this event clearly irks you more than it should. And I say this in the best way possible, I am not trying to be negative.
Good reveal and subsequent systematic demolition of the troll of the original post by those who replied, but we should remember, these kind of people aren't really out to convince anyone of anything, rather just derive a lot of words, the angrier the better, from people unable to silently suffer it. This manner of troll is very like an arsonist's watching their flames from a safe distance, rubbing their hands together maniacally, softly but uncontrollably laughing to themselves so as to not gain attention of the arriving emergency services.
Viewed through that prism, on page four of this thread, we must agree the troll has succeeded with his efforts using the oldest trick in the book, simply saying something is the "best ever" or "worst ever" and watching the predictable dustup ensue.
It's hard to get a lot of people to agree that something is simply "good" or "not good", let alone coming to consensus on something being the amazing best ever or absolute worst there is.
Now, he did say in his title PERKS... was "worst movie I'VE ever seen", so you could just accept he considers it to be the worst movie HE'S seen (well, kind of seen, and one really should give something the benefit of a full viewing before declaring it the worst ever), and simply note his observation, recognizing he likely holds different sensibilities than you and move on.
The problem is, he also tossed a bunch of invectives in his kind-of-review, which some understandably take issue with, not to mention the presence of factual errors, which bother those of us, myself included, who would prefer that the facts of things being discussed are kept straight. Kindly go nuts with your opinions, but leave the facts as they are.
Anyway, the language was intended to kick up a ruckus, which it did, and the response is heartening as it seems more and more, smart people are less willing to quietly suffer morons who get off on creating pointless nuisance. All trolls should be called out and stomped like this one was, but remember, they are trying to get a rise out of you, not convince you of anything.
That said, I liked the movie, but it not the best ever or worst I've ever seen, alas. I do think it is only slightly better than Adam Sandler's very best movie, "Punch Drunk Love", but not quite as entertaining as his funniest movie "Billy Madison". This is my opinion, not an attempt to upset anyone, haha.
I went to high school from 1986-1990, but it was on the West Coast, so I think our experience out here is different than in the East. (For instance, I know our seniors have no interest in paddling Freshmen @sses like those Texas weirdoes in "Dazed and Confused" if they still do that). California high school kids were especially mellow through the 1980's and into the early 90's at least, definitely when I was there. There were almost no fights, and a lot of people who moved comfortably from one kind of group of friends and another. "Fast Times as Ridgemont High" was our ideal, I think. Plus, c'mon, we got the sun, got the waves, we got the beach, got the babes...
Emma Watson is excellent in this film, but I do think the role called for an 18 year old who looked more like a 21 year old than a 15 year old which Emma still looks like. And the scene where she talks about her experience with father's friend (friends?) beginning like at age 12 or so, I could only think that this actress looked like Hermione in the second or third Harry Potter movie at that age. I'm fully aware this is a different character, and I am just sayin'... Ezra Miller was fantastic, and it was nice to see him in something lighter than "We Need to Talk About Kevin" which would have been pretty much anything, as dark as that was. He was great in that, but naturally got to show a lot more emotion in this one. Look for more good stuff from him. Logan Lerman was good, especially at the end, when he went into the depression. I did notice a few of the songs they played hadn't come out by 1991, but a small matter, really, the soundtrack was great, loaded with fond memories for me.
Good stuff. You know what, thinking it over, this movie actually was THE BEST ONE I'VE EVER SEEN!!! (Anyone who disagrees with me is a pretentious psuedo-hipster, and is probably standing in line for overpriced coffee at this very instant, wearing a fedora, most likely grey in color)
thanks mate. I was to watch this from the internets, but after visithing here I coud make same conlusions. Directed by some hipster fag, couple of homos at the cover and that bitch from those potter movies I have never seen. Yes, I agree she seems to be fap fanasy of many 30 year old losers who loved those flicks ment for children. Story seems to be usual "its so hard to grow up being rich kid" *beep* who dont even know what wallflower means. Pass.
oh yes it clearly is a movie about "its so hard to grow up being rich kid" that at one point Charlie is worried that his parents wont be able to pay the hospital bill
for some reason it appears that the perks haters like you cannot spell correctly or form coherent sentences with proper grammatical structures. This definitely says something about the people who despise the film or don't understand it and refuse to- they are less educated and less cognizant of the complexities of life. Essentially, they are your lowest common demoninator viewers that salivate over low-brow "nut-punch granny humping" coarsest of the coarse "humor". They hate whatever they don't understand or have never encountered in life and are too narrow minded to seek to understand. It's the worst kind of person.
TROOOLLLLLL!!! IN THE PERKS BOARD!!!! Thought you ought to know....
Sorry, Emma Watson makes me reference Harry Potter by default.
Anyways, if you think the whole "molested by men when you are 10" is the whole story, you are fantastically wrong. Watch the whole movie and see that turned on its head a bit (well, not turned on its head, but it is far from a statement against men as abusers).
Honestly, though, even if you weren't trolling, your opinion counts for nothing given that you haven't even watched the whole thing. Boooooooo.