ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

tnilfo 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.

jamesbourke50 Here is a well worn scenario, I as the viewer, view the movie first andthen 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

Kektokio 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.

Peach-2 Book Of Love had some very funny moments but just seemed like a cable movie of the week.