Book of Love (1990)

Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I have to admit, this movie was a fun, light movie when it first came out in 1991. I enjoyed it when I was in college. The reminiscing about lost loves and what-might-have-beens burn in all of us. I bought it again this week so I could watch it today when I'd reached the middle-age of the protagonist at the beginning of the movie. What I discovered is it did not age well as a story. I also realized how many holes in the story existed. Also, the lessons learned are not something any self-respecting parent/big brother would ever teach youngsters.SPOILER ALERTS COMING...This is a story of Jack Twiller, a newly-divorced, successful writer who gets a phone call from a friend about an old flame from high school he might want to contact. He opens an old yearbook and memories come flooding back. In flashback, Jack is a senior who moves to a new high school in 1956. He is befriended by Crutch, the neighbor kid who longs to be popular but can't ever seem to get a break. Jack and Crutch immediately cross paths with the local bully who just happens to be dating the cutest girl in school - and Jack's crush - and also happens to be the older brother to the cute, tough chick, Gina, who has a crush on Jack. The rest of the story is how Jack and his nerd-like gang of nice-guys create silliness and follies at every turn while Jack tries to be James Dean-cool and win the girl of his dreams. All the while, Jack doesn't realize she's a snob who only uses Jack to make her bully boyfriend jealous. Yes, you have seen this before. Here's the part you haven't seen before... Jack's little brother, Peanut, is a super-hero wannabe who watches his trusted older brother not only stick him in a washing machine (again) during the big party scene, but then proceeds to give the kid a beer (he's 9 btw) and takes him to a carnival strip show and leaves him there unescorted to basically drool at the striptease like any red-blooded 9yo pre-pubescent will do. No kidding. Where were the censors on this scene? And btw, I'm not a prude in any way about movies. But this scene was inappropriate on every level. With the exception of Jack's ridiculously caricatured '50s June Cleaver-esque mother, parents are pretty much non-existent. It's like the kids are set loose on the earth with few rules and no supervision. No wonder the bullies are able to chain a kid to his cot, put a candle in his butt, and sing him "Happy Birthday" before blowing out the candle at Ranger Camp. Again, yes, that is an actual scene. Truly not a family-friendly romp you'd expect for a 1950s nostalgia flick.If it all kind of seems formulaic, you are right. There isn't much new territory in this teenage romp about popularity, first loves, cars, and losing one's virginity on Prom Night. I thought it was fun - even funny at times - years ago. Today, it seemed slow, forced, and fairly boring actually. It just feels kinda hollow now. The only character I really liked this time around was the bully's younger sister, Gina. Finding out the guy chose a different girl after a memorable Prom Night with the right girl makes me wonder if the protagonist was paying attention to his real life -- or just day-dreaming past the best parts of his relationship. Please understand I like Chris Young, Keith Coogan, Michael McKean and some of the other actors in this movie. I just don't think this is a story I will watch again. My understanding is this movie is adapted from a book I've never read. From the reviews on this site, the book and movie are nothing alike. I would have to believe those reviews. If this movie was a book, I wouldn't waste my time when there are much more realistic and well-written stories from the 1950s I'd rather read/watch. To be honest, I'm saddened to feel the same about this movie today when I genuinely enjoyed it in 1991. Sad how times change. Even sadder knowing my joyful memories of this movie faded as well with this re-watching. I will be getting rid of this movie at the next garage sale.

If you came here as a fan of Kotzwinkle's excellent book, 'Jack in the Box', I suggest you don't make the mistake I did and watch this movie expecting to find the same story. Yes, the narrative holds close to the content of the novel, but the film captures none of the spirit of the tale. It's a little mystifying that Kotzwinkle was also responsible for the screenplay, as he seems to have betrayed his own original work.Director Robert Shaye seemed to completely misunderstand the book as well -- not only did he clean up all the grit and desperation that gave the novel such depth, he also emasculated the wicked sense of danger that made the story so thrilling and surprising. As an example, in the scout camping scene in the novel, Twiller and his friends are confronted with a violent and sadistic rapist who threatens them with a similar act. In the movie the scene is sanitized, turning a frightening violation into a silly prank.The film's setting had none of the grime and economic depression of the novel's coal-mining central Pennsylvanian town. You can't swap Southern California for Scranton. As well, many of the book's excellent dank and dirty characters have been lost to cleaned-up 50s stereotypes. Spider in the novel is a filthy, twisted bastard who rapes his 5th grade sister -- in the movie he's barely distinguishable from any of Twiller's wholesome friends.Perhaps worst of all is the betrayal of the novel's main character. Twiller by the end of the novel is pretty much a hopeless case -- he is too dumb for college and seems destined for a depressed blue-collar future in the local button mill. In fact in his best dreams he imagines living in a run-down shack with a view of the local junkyard. Somehow Shaye saw him escape that fate and made him a wealthy professional with a sleek house, expensive electronics and fancy clothes. This is not the Twiller I liked so much. If you liked him too, don't bother looking for him in this movie.

At the start, this seemed like a decent teenage high school "coming of age" story. But, I was disappointed, because Book of Love not only has unnecessary profanity and sex crap, it also fails to create the warmth and realism that other classics like "The Sure Thing" or "Some Kind of Wonderful" or "Sixteen Candles" have. Like Rick Peach said, it seems like a made for latenight/weekend cable movie.Another side note: I have to say, you gotta hand it to Eddie Chattanooga and his All-stars, the prom band. Even though the movie is set in 1956, they play a cover version of Mel Carter's "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me", which was not a hit single until a full 9 years later in 1965! I'm sorry, but with blatant anacronisms that any 19 year-old with Joel Whitburn's Billboard Top 40 book can spot, a movie can't be decent quality. ..3/10.

Book of Love is one of my favorite comedies: the cast is very good, and the performance of the actors is surprisingly fine for a film of that kind. It would have deserved more fortune than it had because it's far better than other acclaimed movies such as "American Pie" or "There's something about Mary".