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 can't figure out why this thread makes people so upset. The only posters who defend this movie have the same sensibility as the upper-class pseudo-artistic types in the movie... which just goes to further prove the point that the OP is making.
I don't know if the world Chbosky is portraying is lifelike or not... my experience with adults, even as a kid, is that they're a lot more fallible than they're shown to be in this picture. I never met a Paul Rudd-like teacher anywhere anytime ever, and if I did I'd probably think he was an arrogant prick. What does he know?
My take on it is that people who do like this movie and people who don't have a very different set of experiences. Yes, it is about a rich kid and rich people. Normal people don't live like this. If you grew up in this kind of environment, you will relate; if you didn't you'll think it's crap.
your experiences are not universal experiences. don't impose them on everyone else. stay away from these boards and these threads seeing as your only goal is to stir sh*t. As one of the many, many people that enjoyed the movie and saw it for what it was, we definitely don't care about you or your irrelevant opinion.
I actually think this movie was great, but I wasn't a rich kid. And why do the characters in this movie, much less the people who liked it, need to be PSEUDO-artistic types? Can't some just be ACTUAL artistic types? Can't non-artistic types like it too? How do you happen to know just how artistic, pseudo-artistic or non-artistic the posters are who are defending this movie? I was a middle-class to lower-middle-class kid who was in high school in the mid-90's and I was and am a musician, which I guess would qualify as an actual artistic type, and this movie definitely resonated with me.
As for the Paul Rudd type of teacher, it's a shame you never had one like that. I had three of them in high school, to varying degrees. I had a great history teacher, music teacher and another teacher that taught different subjects during different semesters. I actually bonded with all of them over music mostly. While my friendship with the history teacher was limited to my high school years, my connections to the other two continued afterwards.
The one that taught the various courses, by some fluke, ended up related to me by marriage (he married my wife's older cousin, who it happened taught at my high school, though I never had her or knew her at the time). One day we were at my wife's grandmother's house and I just happened to look at some pictures sitting on the shelf and was shocked to see my teacher in one of them, and that's when I found out the connection. We see each other at family reunions and it's always great catching up.
With the music teacher, he asked me to sing for the school band, and all the guys I played with in a separate band joined the school band too. We got to know the music teacher really well and after I graduated and the teacher moved out of town, the group of us guys would go up to visit him for the weekend occasionally and play music with him in his home studio. And after I got married, my wife and I would sometimes go visit him for dinner when we were in his area. This summer will be 15 years since I graduated high school and I still sometimes keep in touch with him when I have time. That music teacher had a huge formative influence on my life and my love of music. So there really are teachers like the one Paul Rudd played, and then some. Unfortunately, there are also terrible ones, and I had a lot of those too.
My wife and I both found that this movie did a really good job of capturing the emotional essence of our high school years and group of friends.
And, BTW, the main character, Charlie, was not from a rich family.
Pseudo-artistic types call themselves artists and yet make bad art, typically because they are too self-involved to make good art. I found the characters in wallflower to be pretty self-involved; the entire film was unbearably self-absorbed.
Charlie was definitely from a rich family; his house was two stories, full of stuff, and he had his own bedroom. He clearly lived in a very nice neighborhood. The kids at his school threw wild parties, wore new clothes, and bragged about college admissions results. That's rich.
Charlie was definitely from a rich family; his house was two stories, full of stuff, and he had his own bedroom. He clearly lived in a very nice neighborhood. The kids at his school threw wild parties, wore new clothes, and bragged about college admissions results. That's rich.
Most ghetto row houses are 2 stories. The are full of stuff too, sometimes full of Air Jordan sneakers, .45 Cal handguns, Plasma TV's . leather jackets, hoodies and more.There are wild parties in Ghettos too,where kids wear new clothes bought with welfare checks and drug profits. They get admitted to college with affirmative action quotas as well. Guess Ghetto thugs are rich people too. Who wouldda thunk? reply share
I lived in the ghetto, did not party, and did not own a flatscreen tv, although I do receive welfare. Unfortunately my checks are so small that if I had to survive on them alone I'd be forced to choose between food and heat. Fortunately, I have family.
And yeah, sometimes I buy new clothes. Like, when my old ones wear out.
1) How is Charlie rich when he wanted to immediately be released from the hospital because he was worried how his parents wouldn't be able to pay the bill?
2) I, thankfully, had an English teacher that I confided in and was very close to in high school. I graduated from high school 12 years ago and some of my friends from my group got together to celebrate and we invited him to dinner and he came.
Hospital bills are extremely expensive for anyone. I visited the emergency room some time back for a severe headache and it cost me $6000. But I digress.
Not everyone goes to good schools. A lot of us went to *beep* schools with *beep* teachers. So maybe the word I want is not "rich" but rather "privileged".
'hipster'? This movie was set before there was such a thing. They aren't 'retro' by using mix tapes because, um, that was the deal. We recorded songs off the radio using our tapes and then copied songs for our friends.
If anything, they should have been grunge.
But I do think the Cracker song was after this movie was set. And the homecoming dress was way off in style (but I don't think anyone this century wants to relive the dressed of the 90's!)
I read this book as a teenager and I loved it. It became a sort of bible to me for a period of time. I'd say it's about as pretentious and sentimental as the movie is, but only to the extent that all teenagers are a bit pretentious and sentimental. It's about a kid going through some pretty real experiences and I thought it was a well-told story. Maybe I wouldn't be so attached to it now, if I read it as an adult, but at that age, it was a very good book. I'd recommend it for all teenagers.
That said, I truly disliked the movie. Instead of including the scene at the dance where they slash a rapist's tires, a pretty significant event in how it relates to Charlie's own history of sexual abuse, they put in a stupid scene about their living room dance routine. It's cute when Charlie joins them, but I was so disappointed. There are a ton of other examples I could give of where the movie added something random or made up ridiculous dialog and excluded the moments in the story that gave it actual substance.
I had so much hope for this movie when I heard Chbosky was directing it because I thought it wouldn't turn into the overly simple, dumbed down, Disneyfied story that it ended up being. I don't know how he managed to ruin his own book.
"The guy we're meeting with can't even grow his own hair?!? COME ON!!!" -Gob
There is nothing hipster about this film at all. Does the OP realize the time frame is set in the past? The book took place in the 80s, and the movie takes place in the early 90s I believe. Making mix tapes is hipster? Not in the early 90s and most definitely not in the *beep* 80s.
P.S. If this is the worst movie you've ever seen, while you claim to have rated 1100 or so movies... then... i just don't really know what to say... If it's not your cup of tea, so be it. Worst movie ever? The hyperbole is strong with this one.