The perks of being one of the first to read "The Perks of Being a Wallflower"

Dear friend, 

I remember the first time I read Stephen Chbosky's The Perks of Being A Wallflower. It was over three years ago on a quiet Sunday afternoon. Everyone at home was asleep and I was looking around for something to do when I stumbled across the book on my computer, having downloaded it a long time ago but never touched (if you're outraged that I download books, please remember: I live in Sri Lanka and access to books isn't that great, so I get them from the Net; to date, I've only come across a hard copy of the book once- just once). Having nothing better to do, I sat down and read the first page. Then the next page. And the next. Four hours later (I'm a fast reader), I had finished The Perks of Being A Wallflower and I knew that my life had somewhat been changed by the experience. 

I don't know what was it that made The Perks of Being a Wallflower different from most books of its genre. It had the trappings and workings of a generic coming-of-age story (set in the 90s) with a meek and introverted protagonist who falls in love with a beautiful girl out of his league... and yet, there was something undeniably charming about how Chbosky wrote it. Somehow, his characters felt real- real and flawed. The protagonist, an aspiring writer named Charlie, is a great friend. To quote a description of him by one main character: "You see things. You keep quiet about them. And you understand". That's why they call him 'a wallflower'.

Charlie's love and empathy for the few people in his life is tremendous; he is the kind of person who'd take a bullet for you without even hesitating. He always puts other people's concerns ahead of its own. It's his greatest strength... and also his greatest weakness. To quote another character: "You can't just sit there and put everybody's lives ahead of yours and think that counts as love". 

Charlie isn't a saint, though: when he wants to break up with his girlfriend whom he doesn't like but doesn't know how to, he seizes his chance at a truth-or-dare game: when dared to "kiss the prettiest girl in the room on the lips". He kisses his friend and long-time crush, Sam. Needless to say, Sam wasn't the girlfriend. Not the nicest way to break up with someone.

Charlie's new best friend is an outgoing lively guy named Patrick. He happens to be gay. His step-sister is Sam. She has had a bit of a reputation in the past. They hang out with a stoner named Bob. Charlie's sister, Candace, has an abortion later in the story. Do you get what I'm saying? It's these little flaws that help add that third-dimension, one that make the characters stick in your mind long after you've closed the book. 

I'm rambling, though... see, I read this book all the way back in 2010. And I was certain that at the time, from the people I knew and the circles I ran in, I was probably the only one who'd read The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I would later recommend it to another friend who ended up loving it just as much as I did and then I was certain that we were the only two people from our friends who'd read this book. 

And there was something quite nice about it. The feeling of having read a book that others didn't. It didn't feel mainstream. It was like having a little secret all to yourself or maybe amongst the few people who would have been aware of its existence. It was a book, after all, that came out over a decade ago. 

Then came the news of the movie.

Just as with the book, I was one of the few people aware that such a movie was being made. Which is a little surprising given that Logan Lerman and Harry Potter-alum Emma Watson was starring as Charlie and Sam respectively. I remember the excited state I was in when they released the very first trailer for the film, somewhere around July 2012- it was just before I got ready for school. The rest of that day felt pretty brilliant after I watched it. 

And people were still pretty much in the unknown about it.

The movie released in the US and it was a quiet modest hit. Everyone went on with their lives. 

Then the DVD released in early 2013.

And all of a sudden, it was as if an asteroid had hit the planet! Every single person was talking about The Perks of Being a Wallflower! And they were raving about it and saying how good it was and how much they loved it! Quotes from the film started appearing all over Facebook, specially as status updates and captions for photographs- especially for women's ones. The most popular was "We accept the love we think we deserve".

Now, I should have been happy about its success and popularity. I mean, absolutely! Here I was, having spent nearly three years of my life trying to convince people about it and it finally paid off, didn't it?  

Except, I felt a little annoyed at the whole thing.

See, when I would quote Perks before, it felt cool that I was one of a very few around the world who knew about this book- and later, film. But when every Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally started quoting the film and remained seemingly ignorant about the book- naturally, I got a little riled. I was aghast! I kept telling them "Read the book, for the love of God! If you loved the movie, you'll love the book!". So much so that a friend of mine took to tagging me on Facebook whenever someone quoted Perks, just so that he could get this reaction out of me.

I've calmed down a lot, though, since that time. Probably because more people have finally taken to reading the book (and they loved it) but most likely because it's such a petty thing to fight over. But as the guy who knew about Perks before everyone else did, I believe I do have the right of acting like that.

I do miss the non-mainstream feeling of it all, I won't deny it. But given that The Perks of Being A Wallflower has now reached more people, I am happy for it. It deserves it. It should accept the love it think it deserves. Because it does deserve it.

And in this moment, I swear The Perks of Being a Wallflower is infinite.

Love always,

Dinesh

TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON - Film review

RATING: 1/4

DIRECTED BY: Michael Bay

PRODUCED BY: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Tom DeSanto, Don Murphy, Ian Bryce

SCREENPLAY BY: Ehren Kruger

BASED ON: Hasbro’s Transformers™ action figures

STARRING: Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro, Tyrese Gibson, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Patrick Dempsey, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, Ken Jeong, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand

Gone is the fun spirit of the first Transformers film! It has been substituted by flashy special effects that cannot hide the fact that Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a noisy meaningless affair with a soul more corroded than Ironhide’s (voiced by Jess Harnell) dead body.

It’s a film guilty of many faults but the biggest cardinal sin that Transformers: Dark of the Moon commits is that it takes itself too seriously. Hello?! Giant robotic aliens duking it out using Chicago as its battleground for the fate of the Earth is anything but serious!

Where to begin?

In its third time around, the Autobots have been working with NEST led by Lieutenant Colonol William Lennox (Josh Duhamel) in stopping conflicts around the world. On one particular mission, Autobot leader Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) discovers an engine part from The Ark, a Cybertron spaceship that went missing during the final days of the war that ravaged the planet. Further investigation reveals that The Ark had landed on the moon during the 1960s— and to covertly investigate this event, President John F. Kennedy pushed to have the US put the first man on the moon. Basically, everything history ever taught is nothing but a lie. When the Autobots recover the Ark in the present, they discover an unconscious Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy), former leader of the Autobots.

Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) — twice responsible from saving Earth— is unable to find a job. He’s got a new girlfriend, too, a babe by the name of Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley). Mikaela from the previous two films is no longer in Sam’s life. Once again, he gets caught up in the never-ending fight between Autobots and Decepticons, still led by a now-scarred Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving) when the Decepticons start killing people connected to the Russian and American space missions. To cut an unbearably long story short, the Decepticons create a wormhole with the plan to transport Earth through the Solar System to the remnants of Cybertron where they can use all the planet’s resources and labour to rebuild their home. I hope they realized that if they’re going to use human slaves, they’re going to have to provide a lot of oxygen tanks. A big battle ensures in the city of Chicago and… well, I think you can guess who wins.

There is nothing even remotely interesting to keep the attention engaged in this film. The Autobots are no longer the fun robots they were in Transformers; heck, the entire film isn’t as fun as the first Transformers. The battles are even more of a mess and visually incoherent— it’s nearly impossible to distinguish who is the Autobot and who is the Decepticon when these two robots engage in combat. The actors, clearly meant to provide the human aspect in a film dominated by the Transformers™, are better off being props. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson shout out commands, shoot when needed and once in a while engage in a joke with their team members— nothing more. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was clearly chosen to be as eye-candy replacement since Megan Fox didn’t show up. Her absence is only noticeable by Rosie’s appearance and a weird accent she uses— if you closed your eyes and listened to her lines of dialogue which are mostly screams, you might not be able to tell the difference. Patrick Dempsey plays a slippery villain. John Turtorro is even more annoying than he was in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though I liked him in the first film). Frances McDormand and John Malkovich are a woeful waste in their roles. As for Shia LeBeouf— his role as Sam Witwicky seems to possibly be that of outdoing his girlfriend in shouting and screaming. I’m willing to bet that Starscream (voiced by Charlie Adler) was personally hunting Sam down not because he thwarted the Decepticons twice but simply because he never shuts up!

The only thing I found even mildly entertaining— and I say ‘mildly’ because it is the tiniest consolation in this unforgivable mess— was Leonard Nimoy as Sentinel Prime. He was a refreshing change as the Autobot with ambivalent agendas and possibly was the only character even given a little depth in his story arc; and of course, simply because Leonard Nimoy seems to make it work. When he kills Ironhide, I wasn’t upset at the death of an Autobot— I was more cheered by Sentinel Prime’s sudden and ruthless action. Clearly, that part alone speaks volumes about what was wrong with this film.

An argument can be made that the second half of 2012’s The Avengers was basically nothing more than a rip-off of Transformers: Dark of the Moon’s final act. And I don’t disagree. They both had giant wormholes opening in the sky above major cities and aliens and humans fighting; the difference is that The Avengers did it with style, wit and a considerable amount of grace. Transformers: Dark of the Moon did not possess even one-fourth of any of that; which is a laugh because those three elements were clearly present in 2007’s Transformers.

RETURN

Wow, it's been nearly half a year since I last logged on to the blog. And clearly, there have still been people coming and checking Holmes' Hideout in that period of dormancy.

To such faithful viewers: thank you for sticking around.

The reason I haven't accessed Holmes' Hideout until now is because the last post I made was nearly nine hours before I someone close and dear to me passed away. It was painful to come back to it because it reminded me of the hopeful mood I was in before I logged out of the blog and went to see my late grandfather in hospital, where the doctors said he was making recovery.

Life is funny, though; one time, everything is fine, the next it isn't.

But yet, I still couldn't keep entirely away.

A lot has been happening over the last half a year. Which I'm hoping means good news for Holmes' Hideout for 2013. I'm quite keen on doing more reviews and perhaps this time, just writing some of my own rants. I've never tried that out before.

Always gotta stay innovative, I guess.

Please stay tuned for more. There is a lot on the horizon and on the way, such as a new project of mine that is coming up. 

In the meantime, do check out a new guilty pleasure of mine on television, a show called "HANNIBAL". It sort of reminds me of a cross between BBC's SHERLOCK and DEXTER, with the style of the former and material of the latter.

Also- ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT is returning for a fourth season next week after almost seven years!

May the Force be with you.

How To Write A Best-Selling Young Adult Novel

If you follow my 10 steps, you will easily be able to write a young-adult novel catered to meet the requirements of readers in the 21st century:

1) Create an uninteresting, meek female protagonist who's very insecure about themselves and co-dependent, not to mention complete helpless damsels-in-distress 24/7. 

NOTE: exceptions CAN be made but nobody gives a damn because three-dimensional characters are alien to this genre! 


2) Create a male protagonist who seems to spend all his time at the gym because he's built. He will fall in love with the female protagonist because that's what is expected of the genre and because he's clearly got no one better to fall in love with. In this genre, insecure boring females are the Queens!

3) Male protagonist should be perfect and flawless with- this is VERY IMPORTANT!- an endless amount of patience to have nothing better than to listen to the female protagonist whine constantly. Why is this important? Because that's what your targeted demography (i.e. 13-50 year old women) wants. They are not there to read about a flawed male protagonist- that's what boyfriends and husbands are for!

4) Make your male protagonist a supernatural being. Like a vampire. Or an angel. Or a werewolf. Bitches love supernatural beings. Even if said being is a 110 years old trapped in a teenager's body. It is not considered as pedophilia.

5) Create ANOTHER male protagonist! This guy will most likely have been a friend of the female protagonist since the beginning of time and is usually (gasp!) secretly in love with her. He's got to be a nice guy and a perfectly legitimate choice for a girl to fall in love with; yet in the end, he will get kicked in the nuts because he's not bad-ass like the main male protagonist.

6) Now create a love triangle between the female protagonist and the two male protagonists- even though the reader ALREADY knows that the girl is going to choose the supernatural bad-ass perfectly muscular male protagonist. Because pointless love triangles with predictable outcomes are a MUST and completely unclichéd, trust me! No requirements necessary to make it interesting.

7) Spend the next 500 odd pages describing how perfect the male protagonist is. If you're a little more creative, you can add in a little plot to make it seem "exciting". NOT a must!

NOTE: keep a thesaurus with you at all times when writing scenes involving the male protagonist so that you never run out of adjectives to describe how perfect he is. 

8) Don't stop at one book. Create a trilogy. Better than a trilogy, make it a quadrilogy (that's four in a series). And your fourth book should be very big- because in case the books are adapted into films, the final book can be split into two films even though it's highly unnecessary but will be done in "the name of the fans who are clamouring for more". 

9) Give your books mysterious and obscure titles, preferably after times of the day, like 'Morning', 'Afternoon', 'Evening' and 'Night'. The titles don't have to make sense. 

10) Watch as the books become best-sellers and tarnish the good of literature as we know it, while the film adaptations win all the MTV Movie Awards each year. 

NOTE: if you can- by some miracle!- make your books appear to be "metaphors" for abstinence, then you'll seem a little more credible as an author to the oblivious fans. The intelligent ones will see through the facade immediately, however.

'Skyfall' Review

Directed by: SAM MENDES

Produced by: MICHAEL G. WILSON, BARBARA BROCCOLI

Screenplay by: NEAL PURVIS, ROBERT WADE, JOHN LOGAN

Based on: "James Bond" by IAN FLEMING 

                    

Starring: DANIEL CRAIG, JUDI DENCH, JAVIER BARDEM, RALPH FIENNES, NAOMIE HARRIS, ALBERT FINNEY, BERENICE LIM MARLOHE, BEN WHISHAW

Rating: 4/4

Big action set-pieces? Check.

Exotic locations? Check.

Beautiful women? Check.

Mesmerising villain? Double-check.

Skyfall contains all the ingredients expected from a Bond film. Except it ends up being a cut above the rest, proving that if done rightly James Bond can still surprise and entertain, even fifty years, six actors and twenty-two films later in a franchise that has not been without its lesser moments. 

In Daniel Craig’s third outing as Agent 007, Bond is chasing an assassin carrying the hard drive containing the identities of agents undercover in terrorist organisations through Istanbul. It is a deadly serious situation in this pre-title sequence that culminates in Agent Eve (Naomie Harris) accidentally shooting Bond fighting atop a moving train. In a rare moment, Bond fails in his mission and is presumed dead. But everyone knows you can’t kill off the main character barely ten minutes into the film and thus, Bond eventually resurfaces to the land of the living following a deadly attack on MI6 headquarters. It is the archetypal hero returning to save the day.

Except James Bond is not the agent he once was. No longer younger or fitter, it is a knowing reference to both the character's and Craig's age in this franchise. Although he is deemed 'unfit', sends Bond is sent back into the field in pursuit of the attacker by M (Judi Dench). 

This time around, however, M isn't relegated to merely her office space giving orders. She is pushed front and centre alongside Craig as the film allows her to show off an emotional and complex side unheard of before as Skyfall is much about her as it is about Bond. 

Likewise, as he did in the excellent Casino Royale (and even in the dismal Quantum of Solace, to the best of the film's limits), Craig brings something to the table that his predecessors (yes, even Sean Connery) didn’t: a humanity to the otherwise cold and brilliant agent. Daniel Craig's Bond is no longer superficial but instead relevant, as he combats threats that are rooted in reality rather than outlandish.

And thus, Bond finds himself up against Javier Bardem’s blond-haired Raoul Silva. Equal parts charming, equal parts sinister, Bardem steals the show, exuding an electrifying presence that conjures eerie reminders of the Joker in The Dark Knight. No doubt Raoul Silva will go down as one of 007’s more terrifying and memorable villains in Bond history, and deservingly so.

In addition, Skyfall comprises of possibly one of the finest gathering of actors and actresses in the same film, many whom will stay on for the future of the franchise. Notable mentions are Ralph Fiennes as an unusually wry government public servant, Gareth Mallory; Naomie Harris as field agent Eve who is assigned with Bond and (in this writer's opinion, at least) an enjoyable incarnation of a young Q (Ben Whishaw). 

The introduction of new faces to this franchise is a nod to a central theme running in Skyfall: old versus new. They are passing memorable roles into the hands of a new generation to come- a transitional phase, even. Bond's and Q's interactions offer a humourous clash to this perspective and is never more emphasised upon than in a public inquiry with M where she insists upon utilising the traditional methods of spies and espionage in fighting the evil of the present.

As Naomie Harris rightly puts it: “The old ways are sometimes the best”.

And on that note, Skyfall- being the film to grace 007's fiftieth anniversary- has occasional throwbacks and nods to its history. The scenes in Macau, for example, have a stylisation reminiscent of the Roger Moore era, complete with a humourous fight scene. Even the original Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger makes an appearance- complete with the passenger ejector seat (which unfortunately, is not deployed this time)! Writing team Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan deftly handle the touches with care without allowing it to weigh down on the storyline, preventing it from becoming a too meta-referenced film and instead, a loving tribute to the saga of James Bond.

Skyfall's brilliance- while being a collaborative effort, no doubt- ultimately comes down to the director. Sam Mendes handles the poignancy and complexities of the story and characters against the large-scaled action sequences with equal precision and dexterity. Aided by Director of Photography, Roger Deakins, the duo  

create some of the most beautifully rendered visual shots for a Bond movie. The high point of this is undoubtedly Bond’s fist fight with a French assassin at the top of a building surrounded by glowing and dazzling neon-lit skyscrapers in Shanghai. 

Skyfall is a breath-taking espionage action film that takes Bond back to his roots whilst injecting it with energy and vitality, a standing testament that 007 is not ready to quit. Far from it. James Bond is back and he’s better than ever. 

The Hunger Games review

Directed by: GARY ROSS

Produced by: NINA JACOBSON, JON KILIK

Screenplay by: GARY ROSS, SUZANNE COLLINS, BILLY RAY

Based on: "The Hunger Games" by SUZANNE COLLINS 

                    

Starring: JENNIFER LAWRENCE, JOSH HUTCHERSON, LIAM HEMSWORTH, WOODY HARRELSON, ELIZABETH BANKS, LENNY KRAVITZ, STANLEY TUCCI, DONALD SUTHERLAND

Rating: 3/4

Panem is a post-apocalyptic totalitarian and dystopian country that may have once been North America but is now divided into twelve districts. Long ago, a rebellion attempted to topple the government but it didn't work out. As punishment, each district is forced to send in two tributes annually, one male and one female, to participate in a televised no-holds-barred event in which the contestants must fight to the death until only one remains the winner. They call it 'The Hunger Games'.

With inspirations from Greek mythology- namely, the legend of Theseus- and reality television shows, the premise for The Hunger Games- based on the novel by Suzanne Collins- at first comes off as completely ridiculous. Seriously, killing off people in such a gladiatorial publicised manner from each district until only one emerges the victor- that's supposed to keep the people living in fear? Clearly, as is standard with most films and stories set in the future, common sense seems to have been completely thrown out the window. But naturally,  it requires an amount of suspension of disbelief to pull off this story.

So the question remains: is The Hunger Games able to pull it off?

Against all the odds: yes, it does. Anchored by a stellar performance from Jennifer Lawrence and under the keen eye and guidance of director Gary Ross, The Hunger Games ends up  being a bold, exciting and visceral film.

Academy-Award nominated actress Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone, X-Men: First Class) is Katniss Everdeen, who volunteers to take part in The Hunger Games in her younger sister's place. Unlike many female protagonists in young adult novels of late, Katniss does not spend her entire time thinking about her handsomely chiselled boyfriend or crush (who might in most cases, have supernatural abilities or connections) and being a considerable whining moping mess of a character. No, Katniss is tough and determined, possessing an uncanny skill with a bow- sort of like a female Legolas. Instead of being an incompetent damsel-in-distress, she prefers to take care of herself. Katniss is a breath of fresh air into the genre, a character in the vein of female warriors such as Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Like them, she's also not necessarily out to please everyone she comes across.

Her supporters include Haymitch Abernathy (another hilarious turn by the ever-talented Woody Harrelson), a past Hunger Games victor and current drunk mentor; Cinna (a likable Lenny Kravitz) as  the District 12 stylist; and, to a more-or-less extent, Effie Trinket (a rather wasted role for Elizabeth Banks). On the side of the government is the dictatorial President Snow (a brief yet intimidating turn by Donald Sutherland), TV personality Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) and the game-maker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley).

In keeping with the futuristic tone, the technology present is state-of-the-art. It's got touch screens, holograms and the works, none better shown than in the game control room that evokes the design of the Bridge in Star Trek. Also, fashion seems to be another forgotten thing in the future- here in The Hunger Games, the wealthy and powerful citizens living in the Capitol wear vivid coloured clothes and sport odd tinted hair-styles which is, frankly speaking, just plain nauseating to look at. And that's exactly what the filmmakers set out to accomplish! Such a world could have played out disastrously if done wrong. But Gary Ross and his team pull it off with a conviction that borders on uncomfortable. The life of the poverty-stricken District 12 evokes images of war-torn countries. When they show the life at the other end of the spectrum at the Capitol- which you may have already guessed, is the capital of Panem- it is painful to look at their presentation which is tinged with a hint of satire and caricature.  

Another point which The Hunger Games should be commended for is its endeavor to tackle heavy themes and messages on topics such as politics, self-sacrifice and feminism, as if to appear as a social commentary film. Unfortunately, the attempt does fall short and underwhelms as the events of the film- namely, the romantic sub-plot between Katniss and her fellow District 12 tribute- tend to take up most of the time. However, the film should be commended for its efforts, as such provoking themes are usually absent in most young adult stories in favour of teenage angst, unrequited love which has- let's be honest- been done so many times it's become a cliché in all young adult stories, not forgetting the perfect and almost flawless boyfriend (*cough* Twilight *cough*). 

Conversely, if Jennifer Lawrence is the film's highlight, her male co-stars are the opposite. Granted, Josh Hutcherson (The Kids Are Alright) as male tribute Peeta Mellark makes for a more compelling lead as he gets more on-screen time than Liam Hemsworth  (The Last Song) does as Katniss' childhood friend, Gale Hawthorne. They simply serve to exist to fulfill the romantic aspect of The Hunger Games (spoiler alert: the sequels will focus on the clichéd love-triangle between the three that simply must be present in a young adult story). Let's hope that either: a) the actors are given something more interesting to work with- they are actually commendable performers- or b) the love-triangle remains more of a sub-plot than the main angle in the sequel. Also, for a film with a violent and bloody premise, The Hunger Games is a relatively bloodless movie, something that could be definitely improved on. 

While it may not appeal to the taste of everyone, there is no doubt that The Hunger Games is one of the better films of 2012 and is worth checking out.