On perks of being a wallflower

Writer Stephen chbosky debuts as a director of his own PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER story based on the same book: a dream come through for many writers, which is to loyally transplant the envisionment of their own book on screen. The result is a loyal and refined product that triumphs. Perks is a film that captures that cherished and yet somehow remote era of innocence meeting excitement and friendship; you know the one that lasts a lifetime no matter how distant you grow apart.

Chbosky stays so close to the material that it translates amazingly on screen. As I mentioned before, it's totally due to the fact that Chbosky is directing his own story. Perks stars as your typical highschool film where you're introduced to its world by the new kid, which like us the viewers, is an outcasted outsider. How can someone be both at the same time and still retain a well convincing charm to drive us through the journey so attentively? Perhaps the answer lies within the authenticity of charlie, played by Logan Kerman, to find kindship: an anchor in life to keep him grounded.

Compared to other high school films, FAST TIMES, CLUELESS, MEAN GIRLS, Perks provides us with a deeper insight into the lives of its main characters; it isn't just an experimental discovery of the self. Neither is just the resolution to fit into a crowd that by the end of the movie, everybody will magically notice how precious the newbie is. Don't get me wrong, we get plenty of laughs from the class clowns, and your typical school dance where the cool guys stand out. We get all of that, but in a refreshing manner where all of the above find Charlie and befriend him: this film twists the formula of the outsider that struggles to earn the respect and trust of the cool kids.

Sam and Patrick, played by Emma Watson and Ezra Miller, are those cool kids. They're the cool kids that anyone would love to hang out with and socialize with their respective interesting friends, and yet we discover that they're outsiders/castaway kids just like charlie. It's a wonder to see what Charlie sees and contemplates in them; he is shown to a window of excitement through these kids and he's invited to step in.

Many of the wonders that life provides are those that are lived in the moment without planing for too much. Charlie takes us by the hand and shares with us all the new experiences that he's introduced to. Perks is a well crafted narrative that's as exciting as its characters. They're strong supportive characters with layers of depth. We see their careless free fashion to see life in highschool, or life in general as teenagers, which is not always fun or exciting. For many teenagers, these years are tough, life defining. The film presents us with the darkness of those defining years in every teenager, and it doesn't shy away from them. Sam, Patrick have their own demons to deal with. Demons that make you realize the level of bravery that must take for adoslecents to confront: a courage to stand up and face life. Charlie is no exception. One of the saddest and heartbreaking moments in the film, or any teen films this year, comes from the darkest revelations in Charlie's life.

Perks is an age defining story, a come to age film where its protagonist and supporting characters are captivating and inviting. Thus is the enthralling performance of its three main actors. Lerman, Watson, and Miller: a triplet of young actors that unconventionally come together to work out something special. And I found it unconventional, since these three come from different acting backgrounds. Lerman is better known for the kids action adventure, PERCY JACKSON, which is promised to be a future franchise. Watson popularly known for her debut/growth inside the proudly 100% British HARRY POTTER saga. And Miller is sadistically remembered for his child of evil performance in the amazingly played and mesmerizing WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN. I found Perks to be a quite diverse ensemble that truly vibrated with credibility and chemistry.
Perks is that kind of film that becomes part of you and stays.

From LIFE OF PI

Is it a film about a hard to tell story, or one about the most amazing journey never told?

One could argue that the latest ANG LEE'S LIFE OF PI adaptation from the same book, it's a compilation of extraordinary events a la fabula style where dialog, narration, even storytelling are to its minimalistic context. To  some is the opposite, which is a well elaborate story that's so detailed and so embeded in its events that takes two screenings to discern its message. But either way, I personally find the film to triumph in its fashion to communicate its message: an impressive and visually outstanding feast.

To me, the film is more about the journey. I get to relate to it the more that the journey progresses. It's not what I learn from the dialogue or narrative. it's what i see, and witness with my own eyes. Never a sentiment is dictated, hence you don't feel emotionally manipulated by its events (I'm watching at you Spielberg.) It reminds me of one of those fable books that I read, when I was a little kid where the reading is slim and the colorful presentation of men and fauna is rich. To its core, Life of Pi is a throwback to that innocence: a moral that's sublime where men and animal meet and confront together adversities.

Make no mistake though, Life of Pie is neither solely for kids or adults. It reaches beyond our conventional rating system. The film is too beautifully painted with breathtaking sceneries that are far from being dark; even in its dark scenes, the film provides an almost magical, no, a mythical array of colors and lights that cause an enriching splendor. In the same way, the film presents situations and events that are crude, rough, and too nerve wrecking for kids to behold even traumatizing per say. Life of Pi is such that epic in its journey: an ever told epic of kid vs. nature, boy vs. beast, and ultimately man vs. god. As Roger Ebert says, "The film could've might as well be called LIFE," such is the journey that's always beautiful to behold with its triumphs, and failures.

Life of Pi achieves a tehnological landmark of movie making both CGI and 3D. Never before I've seen a well crafted and inviting world, which technology fully supports the film so well without distracting the attention of the viewer. Quite the opposite, such technological means cause an utter submergion of the viewer in its world. The audience is virtually part of the journey: an extended reality of the film where objects seemingly connect with the viewer. I found myself not only witnessing the events, but i'm also part of them.

3D here is the culmination of what the 3D technology was meant to achieve, since its conception. The third dimensional plane is employed in every bit of the film, not just in chasing sequences, thrilling scenes, or dramatic shots like it has been poorly overused on blockbuster films. Life of Pi doesn't want you to get distracted or impressed; it wants you to experience its path. 3D is not a gimmick in the film, but a new found ground that triumphantly expands its universe, and oh boy, what an amazing universe to behold. Only last year SCORSESSE'S HUGO comes closer at achieving the evolution of 3D. ANG LEE finds it and successfully applies it in Life of Pi.

I can't recommend and urge people to go and experience this film any more than what I'm already doing it so. Go and see it, live it, and embrace the overwhelming feeling you'll feel in its climatic moments. I'm not gonna tell you what the film is about because is your own interpretation of what the film is about what makes it so mesmerizing. Do pay attention to its concluding scenes and dialogues though, it might open your eyes to extraordinary possibilities .

On 9/11

At home on 9/11; woke up at 8am to be ready for school. On my way out, I saw my mom watching the news of the plane crash against one tower. There was smoke and fire covering the new York sky on TV. I stepped outside and even the sky of our own western coast felt dry and grimly opaque.
It took me one hour to get to school that morning due to traffic. When I arrived to my anthropology class, the instructor was curiously delayed, unlike her. As soon as she walked in, she delivered the news to all of us. The immensity of the catastrophy that just befell on new york, and all of us. In her scholar way, she made the comment, "another drainage of genetic pool has occurred […] so many generations of genes lost forever" and with watery eyes she said, "another genocide on the pages of anthropology" i never forgot her words. Then as if foreshadowing the prolonged war to happen, she told us what that meant for America as well: she feared for the youth and men of our country; America needed to respond to such an attack. And we did...for good or for bad. 

let me tell you the uncanny story of a nameless guy and his far from obedient dog named tamarindo...

they lived together in a small, but decent house at the top of a hill crowded with other houses. 
the nameless guy would offer parties, and tamarindo ridiculed him in front of his guests because the dog refused to be obedient; he would host gatherings, but tamarindo would interrupt them with his lack of discipline inside the house. he would invite his date in for drinks, and yet tamarindo would make a mockery out of his master by bitting him, whenever the nameless guy tried to give him commands.
shortly after, the poor nameless guy found himself in confusion because neither relative, friend, or date would call or reply back to his messages.
he then locked himself away inside his house to never be seen.
til' this day, it's speculated that tamarindo finally took control and showed his former master who was the real alpha male, and forced him to live a hermit life inside the small, but decent house on top of the crowded hill
---the end---

And the oscar SHOULD go to...

The nominees are anounced, but only those that performed stupendously can walk away victorious: to my own delight, 2011 brought us two of my new favorite films: THE ARTIST, and HUGO. both films are different in style and genre from one another, but with one mutual feeling: the love for cinema itself. The academy has shown its sympathy by honoring both pictures with the most prestigious and numerous nominations (among best picture.) I'd like to see that at the time of the awards, either film goes home with all the categories that they're being  nominated for. But if the awards end up being spread out, I already have a list of my own favorite contenders.
To begin, i personally think that the BEST ACTOR category should go to JEAN DUJARDIN for its brilliant performance in THE ARTIST. Dujardin manages to give color and voice to a film that ironically pays homage to the black/white silent era of cinema: his versatility is extraordinary on camera. He dances, pantomimes, and pulls effortlessly gags that invoke both the style and charisma of harold lloyd, and the adventurous bravado of Douglas Fairbanks.
There's no other actress this year thats shines, and i mean it, shines by her own merit in the BEST ACTRESS category like MICHELLE WILLIAMS for her performance in MY WEEK WITH MARILYN. Williams captivates as the most talked about blonde of all times, Marilyn Monroe. Williams inhales a public idea of Marilyn, and exhales a portrayal that convinces sensuality, frailty, and innocence: her performance is sublime, but bravest at its core. She tackles whatever misconception, and public consensus of what it historically was Ms Monroe, and instead she emphasizes on what it symbolized to be the icon: evokative, inhibited, charming, sympathetic, captivating, and full of insecurities that for the public and til these days remain secreted.
    
CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER should take home the BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR category for THE BEGINNERS; And BERENICE BEJO deserves the BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS award for THE ARTIST.
The BEST DIRECTOR category should go to MARTIN SCORSESE for its brilliant construction of one of the best 3Dfilms yet, HUGO. From the very beginning all the way through the end, Scorsese envisions a world that bring us back to a time where the magic of film first emerged. He presents us with characters that are engaging, mysterious, and almost magical in their own way. Scorsese triumphs in directing a film that's bound to be a classic and part of extended catalogues of many film history apreciation classes worldwide.
The BEST PICTURE award should definitely go to a film that's like no other in recent years, THE ARTIST. I'm fact, there haven't been any film like it that honors the silent era with a style that never falls flat, uninteresting, and unentertaining.  Perhaps its brilliance lies in its self-awareness. It reminds us how good silent cinema was, is, and it shall continue to be.