Really Surprised!

Purely Joyful Movie!

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

(This review briefly touches on elements of the film and book, and so I have tagged it as having spoilers.)So, I read The Rachel Papers and watched the film about two days after.My initial opinion is as follows. As a film, it is kind of average. As an adaptation of the (also in my opinion, brilliant) book it is terrible. There were so many scenes and ideas and character nuances that did not make it into the film that really set an atmosphere for the book. I feel the main problem is that they tried to make an 80s teenage romantic comedy out of a book that has much, much more going for it - not to mention that the ending is not very funny or happy (the book, I mean).One of the better characters portrayed in the film is Norman, and I must just say that he was rather fantastic. DeForest (James Spader) was also very good, despite having little screen time. However, the characters of Charles and Rachel seem underdeveloped in the film. In the case of Charles, I only notice this lack of development because I read the book. As far as Charles is concerned, he is way too likable in the film, especially when compared to the book. This may be subjective, but by the end of the book readers tend to hate him, and rightly so. Charles Highway is a narcissistic asshole. He does things for experience and doesn't really care about other people. Rachel gets close to him actually caring about someone, but by the end Charles is still rather unsympathetic and doesn't know how to handle emotion. In the film, he is funny and a little confused, and he manages to become a better person. I was a bit taken aback.Why am I upset about them making the film 'happier'? Because that was the appeal of the book - it was gritty, raw and had real characters. This was lost in the film, and in my opinion, that is losing a large part of the narrative. The same atmosphere and ideas were not generated in the film, and it is a pity. Some of the scenes in the book lend themselves so well to film adaptation. For example, right before Rachel and Charles are to have sex for the first time, they head out to buy condoms. This scene contains very interesting dialogue and sets an important tone for their relationship. Yet, the director ignored these key scenes and focused on the funny or witty moments of the book, turning it into a fun-loving experience for young adults. For me, this really did not work.All in all, I just think that it is a very bad adaptation. Too much was changed. Important scenes were left out. Characters were not developed (as they are in the book). And like I said, even without having read the book, the film was rather mediocre for me. 5/10 at best.

Film and TV students, use this as a case study of why the British film industry was internationally sniggered at for years until Four Weddings & a Funeral came out. Trials and tribulations of smart-mouthed Middle class idiot-boy and upper crust stuck-up American girlie getting it together. Predictably implausable plot. Going through the motions acting. Extended naked writhing to make up for it. The UK's version of Ferris Bueller? That's desperate. No brass in this muck.Only Jonathan Pryce comes out with some credit. Spader is barely utilised. God knows what he thought of all this. I wonder if he has a copy at his house? Perhaps this and Crash for a James Spader double header at the local Blockbuster? Now there's a thought...3/10

Despite some fine performances and great source material, this movie doesn't stand up as well as I'd hoped it would. It's either too dark and serious for the comedy it hopes to be or it's too gauzy for the serious look at modern teenagers in Britain that it hopes to be.Still, it's interesting to see Dexter "did you know I was in Bugsy Malone AND Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrells" Fletcher, Ione "wow, am I really this naked in this movie" Skye, Jonathon "why aren't I working more often?" Pryce and James "didn't I play this same character only with more lines in Pretty in Pink" Spader in a movie that hardly any American has ever heard of...This has its clever moments, its funny moments, its heartbreaking moments and a few moments that are meant to be (and are) disturbing... It's not as clever as its American cousin, or as funny...but it does have a bit more depth...and Ione Skye is REALLY naked in it.That's worth a rental, isn't it?

Despite being a little predictable at times, this solid little movie succeeds rather well. Both Fletcher and Skye give wonderful performances as the leads, and Pryce is fun every time he is on the screen. It has a good mix of comedy and drama, and at no point did any of the emotional turns seem out of place. I had been wanting to see this film for some ten years before finally seeing it tonight, and I am very pleased that I took the time to watch it.