I remember the first time I saw this movie. I was about 12 or 13, starting high school soon. I was absolutely amazed with it; the story, the actors and of course,the set. As an avid fan of the 50's and the 60's in America, immediately i fell in love with the film. The cars, the music the way of life... unfortunately the only way i could experience something like that was through films(since born in late 80s,far away from the US),and this film did an awesome job in doing that. I was so thrilled with "The book of love" that I wanted to see it again the very next day,but the problem was i didn't catch the first few minutes of the film, and someone threw the papers with the TV guide from that day, so i didn't know the title...Internet wasn't that big at the time,and it's not a well known movie so hope was lost. For months later, i'd check the TV guides to see if there was any sign of it,but since i didn't know the title,I'd read the plots of any movie I'd think it could be the one, I didn't have any luck,obviously. And then, few years ago, I remembered the film...without recollecting any of the actors names, I started to google. I googled and googled and I remembered the actor who plays an adult John Twiller,Michael Mckean, and i started googling him. Finally I found it... "The book of love". Honestly, I didn't want to watch it again,although i was eager after all these years, after more then a decade. Why? As the title says, different perspectives. I knew i would see it with different eyes now. Something i once considered a masterpiece (12 year old kid,LOL) could turn up to be a complete rubbish. A film I was looking for so long, a film which once made me even more jealous about the teens from the 50's and 60's, a film which made me daydream even more about those beautiful times. What if it disappoints me now? Almost twice the age? Well, a year later I finally saw it again...Is it a masterpiece? No,far from it, but will you enjoy it? Absolutely yes if you are nostalgic for those beautiful times, I know i did. Maybe not as much as the first time,but I am sure this wasn't the last time I opened "The book of love"...
18 Reviews
a movie unfortunately overlooked by most, kind of like its hero
the_other_kinsey_institute5 July 2002
The movie has a simple goal, and that's to make you like the under-appreciated, overlooked geek known as Jack Twiller--to sympathize with his coming of age: the awkwardness, embarrassing moments, bullies, and, yes, even pimple cream.
There is no great intellectual message, no uplifting moral to the movie. Quite honestly, it doesn't take itself that seriously, which is the entire point. This isn't an art house film, folks. It's a "kick back in your flannel jammies with some ice cream after a rotten day" kind of movie. It's a fun movie made simply to make us laugh. Stop analyzing and digging for profundity. Just laugh.
There is no great intellectual message, no uplifting moral to the movie. Quite honestly, it doesn't take itself that seriously, which is the entire point. This isn't an art house film, folks. It's a "kick back in your flannel jammies with some ice cream after a rotten day" kind of movie. It's a fun movie made simply to make us laugh. Stop analyzing and digging for profundity. Just laugh.
Mild comedy tradition of the desperate teen virgin.
vertigo_1426 February 2005
The Book of Love is yet another addition to the cinematic tradition of the desperate teen virgin, a genre prevalent throughout most 80s teen comedies. However, this was only a mildly funny film that exaggerates the desperate attempt of four 1950s suburban teen friends to lose their virginity, complete with the typical wild imagination of the boys who still have to fill in the gaps of the largely unexplored territory of females, complete with parallels to comic book superheroes and buff movie stars, but it serves better as a nostalgia trip for those obscure films with your favorite 80s teen stars (most notably Chris Young, Keith Coogan, and Danny Nucci). It promises a few laughs but, unless you are one of the few that have immortalized it as a cult classic, you'll probably only wind up watching it once.
HIGH SCHOOL MOVIE AT ITS BEST
Babybull26 August 1999
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.
ONE OF THE BEST REVIVAL MOVIES OF ALL TIMES
solitaryman221 July 2000
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".
Charming actors in charming movie--low rating a crock.
reviewerinoimdbino13 November 2007
I hadn't seen this movie in years, and I was so lucky to see it by chance on Comedy Central this morning. This movie is a charmer.
Set in 1955, it covers some of the same nostalgic territory as "A Christmas Story," but it does so beautifully, with very accurate and attractive art direction.
Chris Young, Keith Coogan, Danny Nucci, and John Cameron Mitchell are all at their most attractive and charming youthful best here. The fact that the film has all of them doing good work, as well as a lot of other talented character actors, is an indication of the craftsmanship that went into this picture.
It's a portrait, a slice-of-life of our hero's last year of so of high school.
The very last minute of the picture, seeing Michael McKeen as the hero grown up, just doesn't mesh with what came before, but don't let that keep you from seeing and appreciating this film. It's a delight.
This is a pretty darn clean and wholesome picture. There may be some understandable sexual, hormonal aspects and humor here, but pretty much anyone age 14 (or 12) on up will be mature enough to enjoy this film.
It's just too bad there aren't more recent credits for Chris Young. He's sweet, charming, and sensitive here. Surely there's a place for that among roles for character actors in their 30s.
Set in 1955, it covers some of the same nostalgic territory as "A Christmas Story," but it does so beautifully, with very accurate and attractive art direction.
Chris Young, Keith Coogan, Danny Nucci, and John Cameron Mitchell are all at their most attractive and charming youthful best here. The fact that the film has all of them doing good work, as well as a lot of other talented character actors, is an indication of the craftsmanship that went into this picture.
It's a portrait, a slice-of-life of our hero's last year of so of high school.
The very last minute of the picture, seeing Michael McKeen as the hero grown up, just doesn't mesh with what came before, but don't let that keep you from seeing and appreciating this film. It's a delight.
This is a pretty darn clean and wholesome picture. There may be some understandable sexual, hormonal aspects and humor here, but pretty much anyone age 14 (or 12) on up will be mature enough to enjoy this film.
It's just too bad there aren't more recent credits for Chris Young. He's sweet, charming, and sensitive here. Surely there's a place for that among roles for character actors in their 30s.
Had its moments.
Peach-217 November 1998
If you like the book, don't bother with the movie.
tnilfo15 November 2008
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.
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.
Looking Back...to the 50's
jennie04096 December 2002
"Book of Love" is a great movie to sit down with on a Saturday afternoon or on a rainy day. It's one of those movies that's considered "cute." The movie is told from teenager Jack's point of view. It's about his life. It's really fun to look back at the 50's and see how different things are now...even if you're not from that generation. The hairdos, the clothes, the cars? All authentic...or at least very realistic. This movie is a definite must-see if you're in the mood to see a good movie and you're just not sure what you want to see.
Almost, but quite a bit short.
Zalis19 February 2001
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.
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.
Genuinely funny coming-of-age movie with a healthy dose of 50's nostalgia
thewubbelupagus8 February 2011
This is a movie I saw for the first time many years ago and have always thought had a unique quality to it. The actors are great, even the kid who plays the younger brother is truly funny. Some of the comedic moments are classic, and the slightly bizarre fantasy elements bring something fresh to an otherwise fairly straightforward story. I hadn't seen it in many years, but just re-watched it and found it every bit as amusing and fun to watch as I did a decade ago. The cars, music, radio broadcasts, fashions, doting mother, and faceless father all evoke a 50's nostalgia on a par with A Christmas Story.
If you want some light entertainment, give this movie a shot. It's got great moments, a cute story, and wonderful atmosphere.
If you want some light entertainment, give this movie a shot. It's got great moments, a cute story, and wonderful atmosphere.
Nostalgic look at 1956 - I'm not so nostalgic about this movie
BobbyT244 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
This is an awesome movie!
Eli D.12 January 1999
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!
Alternate title - Movie of slow death
susansweb23 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Just what the world needs - another film glorifying morons growing up in the `50's. Let's go through a bad movie checklist (spoiler alert), shall we? Teenagers getting drunk but making it seem cool - check. Sending a little boy to a strip club - check. Introduce a lot of subplots but barely acknowledge them later - check. Ask the viewer to suspend their belief, a lot! - check. And finally, populate the film with unpleasant people - check. Add it up for a big waste of time and money on everyone's part.
A hidden surprise
caspian19783 December 2001
I enjoyed this 50's based coming of age comedy about love. I don't know about you, but I didn't see this at the cinema. I guess like everybody else, I saw it when it came on pay per view. Looks like a right to video winner. A fresh, young, and highly entertaining cast. The story has a little bit of "Porky's" style, but, who cares? That's what makes it an enjoyable movie.
You just can't take horny teens seriously.
michaelRokeefe4 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A Bob Shaye film that has very little enlightenment to absorb. No hidden message to ponder. BOOK OF LOVE is fun to watch and that's about it. A divorced Jack Twiller(Michael McKean)receives a message from a former high school girlfriend which causes him to pick up his 1956 yearbook...then the memories of adventures and misadventures of puberty, love, sex and his school pals begin to roll. The teenage Jack(Chris Young)moves to a new town and immediately is befriended by Crutch(Keith Coogan). He is smitten with the class bombshell Lily(Josie Bissett), but she is busy being squired by Mr. Hotshot Angelo Gabooch(Beau Dremann). Oh. the trials and tribulations of a sex-driven teen. With Lily being untouchable, Jack makes a last minute date to the prom with Angelo's little sister Gina(Tricia Leigh Fisher).
Sounds of the era keeps things rolling; tunes by the likes of: The Platters, The Diamonds, Little Richard, The Moonglows and The Wrens. Also in the cast: Danny Nucci, Aeryk Egan, Jill Jaress and John Cameron Mitchell. BOOK OF LOVE is pretty pale next to other coming-of-age flicks like say...DINER. Good watching though. Prop your feet up and grab a tall cool one...then enjoy.
Sounds of the era keeps things rolling; tunes by the likes of: The Platters, The Diamonds, Little Richard, The Moonglows and The Wrens. Also in the cast: Danny Nucci, Aeryk Egan, Jill Jaress and John Cameron Mitchell. BOOK OF LOVE is pretty pale next to other coming-of-age flicks like say...DINER. Good watching though. Prop your feet up and grab a tall cool one...then enjoy.
Witty, Nostalgic and just downright Brilliant!
jamesbourke5018 September 2002
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
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
As bad as they come.
Kektokio21 July 2000
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
