So a thing I’ve noticed in all the reviews for The Perks of Being a Wallflower is that the reviewer is, inevitably, amazed and delighted that the movie is set in the ’90s. I can only assume that this surprise is due to the fact that they’re not familiar with the source material at all. That is: a book that was written, and thus set, in the ’90s.
Yeah. It’s an old book that the writer has apparently kept close to his heart, seeing as how he’s the director.
Which is nice, I suppose, but what’s the point now? I remember, in the ’90s, reading the book and enjoying it, but not so much that I still have the book or ever wanted to read it again. It’s your, you know, standard coming of age story, with lots of The Smiths and unrequited love and Catcher in the Rye references. And really, I stopped caring about the book (indeed, I even forgot it existed until all of a sudden it’s a movie!) a long time ago.
In fact, the effect it’s having on me is like when you hear a song on the radio, or in a commercial, and it’s a song you didn’t remember but you used to like a long time ago and then you think, huh, why did I ever like that song? and then you start wondering if someday you’re going to hear one of the songs you like now and think the same thing and then you think am I getting old? and then you have some whiskey.
Anyway, I’m not going to see The Perks of Being a Wallflower.