Well...that wasn't what I hoped it would be.First off all, I did see the movie and I really liked it. I thought it was well constructed, good dialogue, great overall performances, and really (really) funny. I thought the book would be the same way, if not better. I have heard comparisons as the adult "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," which I have also read and seen the movie for. As opposed to "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" I did like the book, but I liked the movie more. In this instance, I liked the movie a whole lot more than the book. Why?First off all, in the movie the characters were more interesting than they were in the book. Pat's dad (played by the fabulous Robert De Niro) was a good character, although not always perfect. In the book, Pat's father is deplorable and uninteresting. He pretty much shoves off his son and does not want to help him after he comes back from the neural health hospital. He doesn't even care in most cases even if the Philadelphia Eagles win. In the movie, at least, his father did want to help him, although he had his own way to go about doing it. Although, I'm not sure where they got the idea about the bookkeeping or starting a restaurant from, or about the dance contest becoming a contest instead of a showcase with teenage girls. Also in the movie the mom likes football too, but Pat's mom in the book does not. They also based the entire movie in Philadelphia than just New Jersey. I thought that the character of Pat seemed really immature given his age. I know that he is supposed to be mentally ill, but not all mentally ill people think like children. It's a terrible stereotype and it doesn't help the reader stay engaged with the character. In the movie, his character seemed slightly more intelligent than he did in the book. I also thought that Tiffany in the book was really hard to relate too till the very end of the book were everything is revealed. In the movie they spread it out, so I can feel for her character a lot better. I also thought that Tiffany's story wasn't well told in the book, it was told a lot better in the movie. I also didn't think this book was as funny as I hoped it would be. The movie was laugh out loud funny, and I never once found myself laughing at all when I read this book. What I don't understand is how in the world the movie got optioned based on this book? Whoever was the screenwriter did a phenomenal job to turn a mediocre book into such a great movie. This is one of those (few) times that the movie is WAY better than the book. I felt dissapointed because I wanted that same humor, emotion, dialogue, and intelligence that the movie had. This book left a lot to be desired, and the writing wasn't all that good to begin with. Too bad, the actual book has the potential to be a classic but comes up really short. At least the movie adaptation makes up for what this book lacks.