(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.

This is an excellent movie that appears to have gotten a lot of poor reviews. The performance by Ione Skye is OUTSTANDING. Not only is she beautiful and sexy, she is an excellent actress. And, did I mention that she was beautiful and sexy? Dexter Fletcher (Layer Cake) plays a young man about to enter college who wants some experience with an older woman. He seen Ione Skye (Say Anything...) at a party and puts his step-by-step plan into place. The use of computer to record this may have been innovative at the time, but it is dated and superfluous now.Jonathon Prych (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest) play a crazy brother-in-law and really adds to the film. James Spader plays Rachel's significant other and really didn't add a thing to the film.The beautiful and sexy Skye...Oh, I already said she was beautiful and sexy; I'm getting repetitive...Well, it is 4 am and I've just spent two hours enjoying all she has to offer...really, there is no mystery left...So I'll just say that seeing her is well worth the price oft the show.

This is an excellent movie that is underrated. Performance by Ione Skye is OUTSTANDING. Not only is she beautiful and sexy, this lady is an excellent actress. I look forward to seeing more from her in the future. I highly recommend viewing this film. I am currently looking for a source to purchase it. I think you will be wanting to add it to your library. I know that I want it in mine. I do not recommend this movie for children or young teens. Excellent film for those who like to follow a story line that includes sex, passion, and emotional drama. Those who like a coming of age movie may like this one. Please read these reviews and then comment once you have seen this movie. I would like to read your comments too.

A-ha, a guide to the do's and don'ts of dating on the big screen.I've always liked Martin Amis' works, and 1974's The Rachel Papers was his first novel, and still one of his best. Despite the fact that this 1989 film adaptation has now become something of a cult classic in the UK, however, I doubt Amis would have approved of it had it been laid before him prior to it's release.There's a host of famous faces in this film, including Dexter Fletcher, Bill Patterson (albeit briefly), James Spader, Michael Gambon (in cameo) and Jonathan Pryce. Why they chose ex-Gamesmaster host from the post-Dominik Diamond days Dexter Fletcher (also known for his roles in Press Gang, Bugsy Malone and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels) as the cocky, arrogant, obnoxious, precocious, phenomenally intelligent and highly sexed-up Charles Highway I'll never know, as he is simply too self-conscious for the part. Ione Skye, equally, made a none-too-good job out of what was, in fairness, the very difficult task of playing the seductive Rachel Noyce. That said, few male viewers would object to the chance of seeing the attractive Skye naked in any film, while Fletcher's charm, wit, and posturing do show sporadically, but not often enough. Dexter Fletcher (or Dexter Dipsh*t as 'Godspeed You Black Emperor' rather unkindly calls him) has had a lot of bad press over the years, but he is actually a far better actor than many people give him credit for, but he simply wasn't suited for the lovable rogue he aspired to be in 'The Rachel Papers' - Matthew Broderick or Gordon John-Sinclair would have been a better choice for the part.The acting is not totally without merit; Jonathan Pryce is absolutely hilarious in his portrayal of Charles' lunatic brother-in-law Norman and revels in the role, while (the then-unknown) Jared Harris is excellent as Charles' best mate - and mentor/big brother figure - Geoff, but the rest of the cast simply look uninspired. Bill Patterson, Michael Gambon and James Spader are, unquestionably, all very talented actors (although Patterson and - in particular - Spader were both very poor in this film) - why weren't they utilised more?The film does boast some very typically 80s music and visuals (a la "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", "WarGames", "Back To The Future", "The Breakfast Club", "Gregory's Girl" etc.), which are a godsend for anyone who likes their retro 80s backdrops. Despite what 'Godspeed You Black Emperor' says, the fact that a film displays seemingly incessant 80s music and backdrops is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; after all, the film came out in 1989 and was aimed aimed at a contemporary teen audience, so just what was he expecting - that it would be set in the 1800s or something?!The opening titles give more than a nod towards those featured in the first "Back To The Future" film, but there is some cool incidental music, plus the soundtrack boasts Willy DeVille's lovely tear-jerker "Assassin Of Love", the seductive "Electric Moon" and the sassy "You Made Me", both by Shakespeare's Sister, and Jools Holland's catchy "We're Through", which plays as the closing credits roll.All in all, however, this film fails to recapture the spirit of Martin Amis' original novel. In summary - quite good in parts, and a noble effort to bring Martin Amis' finest work to the big screen, but falls too much into mediocrity overall.It's nowhere near as catastrophic as 'Godspeed You Black Emperor's very harsh review makes it out to be (bearing in mind that he described it as an "embarassing train-wreck of a movie" despite then going on to admit to not having watched the whole film, which to my mind makes his comments count for very little), but there's no way it will ever be held in the same high regard as any of the other classic 80s films I've name-checked in this review.As an aside - Notably, Dexter Fletcher took an enormous amount of criticism for trying to copy Matthew Broderick's style of monologuing to the camera in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". However, in his defence, the original novel was told from the point of view of a narrator describing physical as well as emotional experiences in a format not unlike a diary, therefore it is difficult to think of any other way that he could possibly have played Charles Highway. In this respect, the Bueller-isms could have been (and quite possibly were) accidental and unintentional. Aside from the monologuing and the fact that both films have a scene set in a gallery, "The Rachel Papers" is otherwise not even remotely similar to "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", although Fletcher's skill on a computer does evoke memories of a another Matthew Broderick film ("WarGames").