(By the way, I'm sorry there was no Inside Out review. There was some complications that prevented me from writing it. You'll hear my thoughts on it at the end of the year)
I was browsing through some of the reviews for this film, when I came across a comment, which literally said that John Green was the next Nicholas Sparks. I don't necessarily agree. I think most people expressing this sentiment are primarily referring to his most famous work as of late,The Fault in Our Stars. They likely weren't referring to today's subject, but I'll get there later. Superficially, yes, Fault does have some resemblance to Mr. Sparks works. However, there is several distinguishing features, at least in term of story. I haven't read any Nick Sparks works, and I have seen only one of his films (and it made so little impression on me, I sometimes forget I even watched it), so I'm just going off what I've read. In a Nick Sparks book, cancer or insert-disease-here is used merely as a cheap ploy meant to score some tragedy in an otherwise mundane romance. Fault uses cancer (better) as the center focus, showing how it affects the characters and their outlooks. I'm going to make a wild guess, and say that Sparks never examines terminal diseases in that manner. He certainly didn't in the one movie of his I saw. (Maybe he does in other books. I'll never know; I refuse to pick up any of his books). Another difference. Nick Sparks, as you may know, tends to write the same story over and over ad infinitum. I've read only Fault and today's subject Paper Towns, but that rather small sampling did provide me enough credence to say that they aren't the same story. They have different themes, different romances, different settings, different outlooks for different characters. My point is that Paper Towns is not just another Fault in Our Stars. They are fairly distinct. I certainly could tell the movies apart. Now, I am not a big fan of this genre (Regular readers of this blog might know that already), but I appreciated Fault. It wasn't groundbreaking, or innovative, or overly philosophical. It was just a fairly entertaining little romance film. When I finished Paper Towns, I had the same reaction. Not exactly a book I would think much about, but a good small romance book. The biggest strength of both these works was the fact that, despite their pretensions, they have a sort of charm to them. A sweetness to the romance, the repretoire, something like that. The film Paper Towns somewhat has that charm, but I have more... reserved praise for it...
Based on the novel by John Green, the film centers around Quentin "Q" Jacobsen (Nat Wolff) who has been infatuated with his free-spirited neighbor Margo Roth Spiegelman (Cara Delevingne) since she moved to his Orlando suburb when they were 8. They bonded over an instance where they discover a deceased man whilst traveling together. (This incident was more important in the book; it is never brought up again in the film) However, by their Senior year in high school, they had grown apart. However, it is clear that Quentin still has feelings for Margo. This is brought to the open when Margo enters into his room one night. Her boyfriend Jase (Griffin Freeman) had been cheating on her, and so she seeks vengeance on Jase, her other friend Becca (Caitlin Carver), with whom Jase was cheating on, and her best friend Lacey Pemberton (Halston Sage), who Margo assumed had knowledge of the affair, but didn't tell her (Lacey actually didn't know about the affair.) Margo wants Q to be an accomplice to her revenge plot against those who have wronged her. Quentin reluctantly agrees, and together, they pull a succession of various embarrassing pranks, including against Chuck Parson (RJ Shearer), an old bully of Quentin's. They then break into the "SunTrust" building, where they share a romantic moment. Q believes this to be the beginning of a renewed romantic relationship with Margo. However, the next day, after detailing the events to his friends Ben Starling (Austin Abrams) and Marcus "Radar" Lincoln (Justice Smith), Q learns that Margo hasn't come to school. He later finds out that she had ran away (thankfully, that bizarre scene in the book, with the detective is left out). While Q, Ben, and Radar are hanging out in Q's room, when they observe a "Woody Guthrie" poster in Margo's room. Curious, they bribe Margo's sister Ruthie (Meg Crosbie), and they dig through her stuff, and find a Guthrie album, which leads them to a collection of Walt Whitman poems. Q finds a particular passage about doors, which leads him to a small paper, with an address on it. The three friend skip school, and head to the location, which shows various atlas, and a messages "You go to the Paper Towns, and You never come back." This begins a journey that will take Q, Radar, Ben, Lacey (who joins them to help rectify the mistake Margo made), and Angela (Jaz Sinclair), Radar's girlfriend (a minor character in the book), that brings them to unexpected places. This journey may not lead to the mysterious, eclectic Margo Q thinks he's searching for.
The cinematography is relatively good in this film. Not anything special, but good. So was the soundtrack. It was the same heavily indie based soundtrack as Fault, but works a little better here, since it never intrudes on emotional moments. Nat Wolff, and most of the cast do fine. At first, I felt that he sounded too subdued, but I realized that was meant to be his personality. Wolff does well in the role, being able to display the normality of his character. While they make significant changes to the book, it still holds the same theme. However, the movie deals with it in a slightly different way. In the book, (spoiler), she doesn't come up much in the book. She is often discussed as an idea, rather than an actual character, and when Q actually sees her again, he realizes that she is not an idea, but a real, living, breathing person. In the movie, she is also essentially an idea for some of the film, but she is shown more in the film, and her true character is more explicitly shown. Both are used correctly in the context of their respective mediums to deconstruct the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl." While Margo may be portrayed as such a character, in the end, she is still a person with her flaws and her own personality, and Q realizes that their paths are diverging, and that he should let her go. Hell, the movie actually portrays this better, with scenes of where his path was leading, and where Margo's might lead. In the end, Q is able to let go of his image of Margo, and moves on with his life. This is a nice examination into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and how it isn't as clean cut in real life. There is a lot of tension in the movie over whether they will actually find Margo, and there is dramatic tension over whether Q will find the real Margo. It also had very humorous moments, which stem from rather nice setups.
Okay, Cara Delevingne: Wooden. She expresses all of her sentiments in the exact same tone of voice when she is supposed to be active, surprised, casual. Her performance does not make me interested in her character, who is supposed to the driving force behind the characters and the story itself. When she rarely expresses any sort of emotion well, I really have no interest in her as an idea, which, as I just described, is the point of the story. I won't spoil the book, but, needless to say, they make major changes to the second and third acts. I'm not going to complain because they changed the events. I'm going to complain about how those changes affect the narrative. The changes make the narrative seem more haphazard, and more rushed. It also makes it more apparently rushed. For instance, they elevate Radar's girlfriend Angela into a main character, simply so that her and Radar's plotline could be acted out, even though it could have been earlier in the film. This is because that plotline was resolved earlier in the book. I also feel that they left some threads from the book they carried over unfinished. For example, the dead man, who was mentioned more, and actually served a narrative purposes. Again, I'd like emphasize that I'm not complaining that they simply changed it. I'm complaining how they handled these changes. Some other things. I loathed the Ben character (I loathed him in the book too, so it may have been a carry over, and he is more likeable in the movie. At least, his "Honeybunny" schtick is not as prevelent in the film) It also has some of the more corny lines in the novel, which could have easily been cut. The dialogue is also a little stilted at times, but there is enough good dialogue to save the film.
I'll say this: it deserves the 58% it got on Rotten Tomatoes. Not to say that it was a terrible film. It was a fairly decent film. It just wasn't as good as I thought it would be. But it is still fairly good. I did enjoy watching it, and I'm glad I watched it. If you read the book, whilst they make major changes, it is still in the spirit of the book, and true to its themes and characters, so you'll probably enjoy it. Just don't think it will be faithful like Fault was. If you haven't, it might be a nice offering to take a date to, or just see for the hell of it. It isn't that long, so if you're interested, go ahead and watch it. Overall, good, not great.
I was browsing through some of the reviews for this film, when I came across a comment, which literally said that John Green was the next Nicholas Sparks. I don't necessarily agree. I think most people expressing this sentiment are primarily referring to his most famous work as of late,The Fault in Our Stars. They likely weren't referring to today's subject, but I'll get there later. Superficially, yes, Fault does have some resemblance to Mr. Sparks works. However, there is several distinguishing features, at least in term of story. I haven't read any Nick Sparks works, and I have seen only one of his films (and it made so little impression on me, I sometimes forget I even watched it), so I'm just going off what I've read. In a Nick Sparks book, cancer or insert-disease-here is used merely as a cheap ploy meant to score some tragedy in an otherwise mundane romance. Fault uses cancer (better) as the center focus, showing how it affects the characters and their outlooks. I'm going to make a wild guess, and say that Sparks never examines terminal diseases in that manner. He certainly didn't in the one movie of his I saw. (Maybe he does in other books. I'll never know; I refuse to pick up any of his books). Another difference. Nick Sparks, as you may know, tends to write the same story over and over ad infinitum. I've read only Fault and today's subject Paper Towns, but that rather small sampling did provide me enough credence to say that they aren't the same story. They have different themes, different romances, different settings, different outlooks for different characters. My point is that Paper Towns is not just another Fault in Our Stars. They are fairly distinct. I certainly could tell the movies apart. Now, I am not a big fan of this genre (Regular readers of this blog might know that already), but I appreciated Fault. It wasn't groundbreaking, or innovative, or overly philosophical. It was just a fairly entertaining little romance film. When I finished Paper Towns, I had the same reaction. Not exactly a book I would think much about, but a good small romance book. The biggest strength of both these works was the fact that, despite their pretensions, they have a sort of charm to them. A sweetness to the romance, the repretoire, something like that. The film Paper Towns somewhat has that charm, but I have more... reserved praise for it...
Based on the novel by John Green, the film centers around Quentin "Q" Jacobsen (Nat Wolff) who has been infatuated with his free-spirited neighbor Margo Roth Spiegelman (Cara Delevingne) since she moved to his Orlando suburb when they were 8. They bonded over an instance where they discover a deceased man whilst traveling together. (This incident was more important in the book; it is never brought up again in the film) However, by their Senior year in high school, they had grown apart. However, it is clear that Quentin still has feelings for Margo. This is brought to the open when Margo enters into his room one night. Her boyfriend Jase (Griffin Freeman) had been cheating on her, and so she seeks vengeance on Jase, her other friend Becca (Caitlin Carver), with whom Jase was cheating on, and her best friend Lacey Pemberton (Halston Sage), who Margo assumed had knowledge of the affair, but didn't tell her (Lacey actually didn't know about the affair.) Margo wants Q to be an accomplice to her revenge plot against those who have wronged her. Quentin reluctantly agrees, and together, they pull a succession of various embarrassing pranks, including against Chuck Parson (RJ Shearer), an old bully of Quentin's. They then break into the "SunTrust" building, where they share a romantic moment. Q believes this to be the beginning of a renewed romantic relationship with Margo. However, the next day, after detailing the events to his friends Ben Starling (Austin Abrams) and Marcus "Radar" Lincoln (Justice Smith), Q learns that Margo hasn't come to school. He later finds out that she had ran away (thankfully, that bizarre scene in the book, with the detective is left out). While Q, Ben, and Radar are hanging out in Q's room, when they observe a "Woody Guthrie" poster in Margo's room. Curious, they bribe Margo's sister Ruthie (Meg Crosbie), and they dig through her stuff, and find a Guthrie album, which leads them to a collection of Walt Whitman poems. Q finds a particular passage about doors, which leads him to a small paper, with an address on it. The three friend skip school, and head to the location, which shows various atlas, and a messages "You go to the Paper Towns, and You never come back." This begins a journey that will take Q, Radar, Ben, Lacey (who joins them to help rectify the mistake Margo made), and Angela (Jaz Sinclair), Radar's girlfriend (a minor character in the book), that brings them to unexpected places. This journey may not lead to the mysterious, eclectic Margo Q thinks he's searching for.
The cinematography is relatively good in this film. Not anything special, but good. So was the soundtrack. It was the same heavily indie based soundtrack as Fault, but works a little better here, since it never intrudes on emotional moments. Nat Wolff, and most of the cast do fine. At first, I felt that he sounded too subdued, but I realized that was meant to be his personality. Wolff does well in the role, being able to display the normality of his character. While they make significant changes to the book, it still holds the same theme. However, the movie deals with it in a slightly different way. In the book, (spoiler), she doesn't come up much in the book. She is often discussed as an idea, rather than an actual character, and when Q actually sees her again, he realizes that she is not an idea, but a real, living, breathing person. In the movie, she is also essentially an idea for some of the film, but she is shown more in the film, and her true character is more explicitly shown. Both are used correctly in the context of their respective mediums to deconstruct the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl." While Margo may be portrayed as such a character, in the end, she is still a person with her flaws and her own personality, and Q realizes that their paths are diverging, and that he should let her go. Hell, the movie actually portrays this better, with scenes of where his path was leading, and where Margo's might lead. In the end, Q is able to let go of his image of Margo, and moves on with his life. This is a nice examination into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and how it isn't as clean cut in real life. There is a lot of tension in the movie over whether they will actually find Margo, and there is dramatic tension over whether Q will find the real Margo. It also had very humorous moments, which stem from rather nice setups.
Okay, Cara Delevingne: Wooden. She expresses all of her sentiments in the exact same tone of voice when she is supposed to be active, surprised, casual. Her performance does not make me interested in her character, who is supposed to the driving force behind the characters and the story itself. When she rarely expresses any sort of emotion well, I really have no interest in her as an idea, which, as I just described, is the point of the story. I won't spoil the book, but, needless to say, they make major changes to the second and third acts. I'm not going to complain because they changed the events. I'm going to complain about how those changes affect the narrative. The changes make the narrative seem more haphazard, and more rushed. It also makes it more apparently rushed. For instance, they elevate Radar's girlfriend Angela into a main character, simply so that her and Radar's plotline could be acted out, even though it could have been earlier in the film. This is because that plotline was resolved earlier in the book. I also feel that they left some threads from the book they carried over unfinished. For example, the dead man, who was mentioned more, and actually served a narrative purposes. Again, I'd like emphasize that I'm not complaining that they simply changed it. I'm complaining how they handled these changes. Some other things. I loathed the Ben character (I loathed him in the book too, so it may have been a carry over, and he is more likeable in the movie. At least, his "Honeybunny" schtick is not as prevelent in the film) It also has some of the more corny lines in the novel, which could have easily been cut. The dialogue is also a little stilted at times, but there is enough good dialogue to save the film.
I'll say this: it deserves the 58% it got on Rotten Tomatoes. Not to say that it was a terrible film. It was a fairly decent film. It just wasn't as good as I thought it would be. But it is still fairly good. I did enjoy watching it, and I'm glad I watched it. If you read the book, whilst they make major changes, it is still in the spirit of the book, and true to its themes and characters, so you'll probably enjoy it. Just don't think it will be faithful like Fault was. If you haven't, it might be a nice offering to take a date to, or just see for the hell of it. It isn't that long, so if you're interested, go ahead and watch it. Overall, good, not great.
