This was the worst book ever I. I only read it because I was fourced to in highschool. Anyone who likes this doesnt know anything about American literature!

This is another one of those old people books that people say “ooo it is soooo good ” for no reason, and if u wana be smart u got to say it was good. they also say there was so many hidden mesage’s but really they just think that.there are no hidden messages.And you know why harper never wrote another book? cause harper knows that people will want a mesage and there wont be one cause there never was one.

Obviously I read a different book than the rest. Thankful I was not forced to finish it. It is a mindless boring book. Save yourself the agony and read something else.

And now Catcher in the Rye:

I think this book stinks. there were too many stupid curse words. that’s why i disliked this book. if this book is for young adults then why does the author encourage the usage of curse words.

You should only read this if you are seriously into character studies. I must admit that I only read the first half of the book and I had to force myself to get that far. The book is plotless. It is all about a few days in the life of a cynical, whiny and immature teenager with nothing to look forward to. A very depressing and hard read.

I despised this book. I found Holden to be arrogant, and one of the most annoying people on the planet. Tthe funny thing is, he’s not a person, he’s a character, and he truly made me mad. I had to force myself to finish the book because I would become so annoyed with Holden. It’s a well written book, but I just could not stand him at all. If you are one to get annoyed very easily then do not read this book. Save yourself from the agony. As far as the story goes, it was okay. Things click with you from here and there… reasons for this, reasons for that. In all, I found nothing spectacular about this book and I wouldn’t reccommend it to anyone.

Well, at least the last reviewer had something to actually say about the book. However, if a character affects you to that degree, I would have to argue that is actually a good book.

This puts me in mind of the movie Dancer in the Dark, a film I have yet to see. I have, however, read Roger Ebert’s review of said movie.

After the screening, the auditorium filled with booing and cheering–so equal in measure that people started booing or cheering at each other.

I sat in my seat, ready to cheer or boo when I made up my mind. I let the movie marinate, and saw it again, and was able to see what von Trier was trying to do. Having made a “vow of chastity” with his famous Dogma 95 statement, which calls for films to be made more simply with hand-held cameras and available light, he is now divesting himself of modern fashions in plotting. “Dancer in the Dark” is a brave throwback to the fundamentals of the cinema–to heroines and villains, noble sacrifices and dastardly betrayals. The relatively crude visual look underlines the movie’s abandonment of slick modernism.

“Dancer in the Dark” is not like any other movie at the multiplex this week, or this year. It is not a “well made film,” is not in “good taste,” is not “plausible” or, for many people, “entertaining.” But it smashes down the walls of habit that surround so many movies. It returns to the wellsprings. It is a bold, reckless gesture.

One lady wrote to him saying:

While watching the movie Dancer in the Dark, I hovered over the DVD player for nearly an hour trying to push the stop button. It was an emotional battle. I didn’t know whether to hate this movie or to love it, and so there I stood in stasis until the movie was finished.

To which Roger Ebert replied:

If you are experiencing those kind of feelings towards a movie, it is most likely a sign of greatness.

postCount(‘reviews’);