Elles craquent toutes sauf une

Here is a well worn scenario, I as the viewer, view the movie first and

then read the book thereafter. Cynics would cast judgement by saying that the movie could never hold a candle to the written source or vice versa is almost common place in today's transworld transference of book's into movie's.

For myself, i had always been a fan of this nostalgia genre, whereby characters hark back to the past so as to rekindle that something they think is missing. Movies like "Back To The Future" "Mischief" and "Stand By Me" with the exception of the first named the last two were good old fashioned trips down memory lane.

Based on the book "Jack In The Box" by the author William Kotzwinkle, who also wrote the script, The movie is a veritable cavalcade of what was best and somewhat naughty about being a teenager living in the 1950's, and who better to adapt the source novel than that of the original scribe himself, who one gets a sneaky suspicion the lead character is based.

Now the curious thing about this whole production is that looking at it now, compared to then, this movie represents a who's who, who went onto what in the genre field. Firstly the company behind the movie and the director Robert Shaye, produced (i make no apologies for missing out the obvious) the classic "Alone In The Dark" and "Xtro". The Scripter surprisingly penned the story/script for "Nightmare On Elm Street 4" (Theory installed here was a two picture deal, scribble a story for Freddy and then we'll translate the novel).

As for the cast Chris Young turned up in "Runestone" "Warlock 2" Danny Nucci appeared in "The Rock" and some other overblown Simpson/Bruckheimer productions. Finally John Cameron Mitchell transformed his offbroadway musical "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" into a really offbeat movie experience.

In the novel there exists only one main character, that of Jack Twiller, an extreme dreamer from another age, everything he went through in the book was by turns funny and very graphic, but what the author did, was split the character of Jack into two character's giving Jack in the movie a younger brother named Peanut, who discovers like Jack did in the novel all things sexual.

Regardless of what those jaded persons out there unknown might think of this movie and others like it, you just can't beat, it represents an age we children of another time (myself being a seventies child) never new. A great soundtrack, well rounded characters, outlandish scenes of major pornography allbeit of a PG13 nature pushing the envelope of an R rating.

To this day "Book Of Love" is a movie that i cherish dearly, discover it and discover yourself, set aside that critic and appreciate a movie where everything works.

A resounding 10 out of 10

Deep down I really hoped this would be good. But unfortunately I was disappointed once again. This movie was just like every other 80's/early 90's teen flick, boring and predictable. The only difference here was that it was based in the 1950's (which in my opinion, makes it worse).

If you're into those same-old-thing teen flicks, you may like this. But if you're into modern teen flicks (like me), you'll probably hate it.

I think "Book Of Love" is a great movie. It's fun, hilarious, and definitely one of my favorite movies. Chris Young is funny (and gorgeous, of course!) and so is the supporting cast...especially Keith Coogan. If you like a sweet original comedy you'll love this movie!

This movie is very entertaining and should be mentioned in the same context as movies such as Porky's, Fast times at Ridgemont High, and American Pie. While it lacks the perversion of those films, it makes up with a dynamite cast and a very good storyline. Its got its memorable and embarrassing moments. The party scene and the birthday candle for Shank are my favorites. If you enjoy good old fashioned high school flicks check it out.

Book Of Love had some very funny moments but just seemed like a cable movie of the week.