Movies-TV

Superb! DePalma at his best.

This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. The characters in the film seem to be characatures of all the loathsome qualities of man. The characters Sherman McCoy, Maria Ruskin, and Peter Fallow, appitimize the underhanded dark side of New York's "upper" class. Absolutly outstanding cinimatography by Vilmos Zsigmond. A must see for all DePalma fans.

Great Comedy with a Zing...

The Bonfire of the Vanities is a damn good film - a comedy that deserves more attention. It is well cast, well directed, and well photographed.It is a film that zeroes in on the false pretenses of do-gooders, exposing their hidden agendas for all to see.Brian DePalma deserves kudos for zinging all these hypocrites in such an entertaining fashion. Don't believe the twaddle of naysayers who tell you to read the book; The message is in this movie.

Classic book, average movie

Inspired by but with a story and ending distinct from Tom Wolfe's novel by the same title - The Bonfire of the Vanities - fails to attain the heights scaled by the book. This shortfall in quality is by no means a reflection on the quality of acting or script but a glaring manifestation of the fact that it is next to impossible to communicate in cinematic form the details that a book can capture. The audience that has not read the book is likely to find the movie more engrossing but the overwhelming reaction is of less than fulfilled expectations.

Tom Hanks and Bruce Willis play their parts with candor but their characterization does not attain glory because of the limitations implicit in the attempt to convert a masterpiece into a movie. The protagonist of The Bonfire of the Vanities is a hero and a mere mortal and a villain in curious measures, a character so contrived that even an actor of Tom Hank's caliber fails to portray the complexity in an effective manner. Bruce Willis though has an easier task of enacting a drunkard, sometimes incompetent but finally lucky journalist and he plays his part with usual flair but no distinction.

The script has been modified from the novel to provide an ending more becoming of a Hollywood production, with the hero not ending in the predicament where he found himself in the book. However while the novel had the readers dulled into realization of the death of the vanities, the movie lets the audience feel flattered by a Hollywood finish. The book's ending is too hard hitting, the movie's merely filmy. The eternal challenge of conforming reality to art while conforming art to reality again gets the better of both the artists - the director as well as the writer.

De Palma, Wolfe, Vilmos, THIS?

De Palma....what the hell were you thinking. This movie, I don't think I liked well, because it was missing tone. The tone of the Wolfe. Let's start with a few positive things...Vilmos Zsigmond's photography looks great...Richard Sylbert designs lavishly....cool titles....NOW the bad things....Tom Hanks? Sherman McCoy? You've got to be kidding, right?...Melanie Griffith? a Southerner named Maria, with an unintentionally hilarious accent....Morgan Freeman, he is Black, and in the novel his character was discribed as a Puney Jewish guy.... John Hancock, three words Oh My God.......Bruce Willis, miscast. If I produced this movie, he would have been replaced by Michael Douglas, he can play and alcoholic(Basic Instinct) and a writer(Wonder Boys). The movie...is a mess..But, Peters probably said, "Hey, it looks good, don't it?".I couldn't really cast a vote for this one, so I had my brother do it... it aint wroth anything above a 3, but 2 and 1 are too kind to recieve such torture....I hope this gave you a good idea about this "movie" or "pretty mess".

Clever and interesting and not a little funny

Too many people have slagged this film without good reason. Firstly Bruce Willis reprises the type of character we remember from moonlighting. Tom Hanks plays his part well and it's only Melanie Griffiths whiney southern accent that spoils her role.The story has plenty of irony and twists as well. This isn't action, this isn't slapstick, this is an American soap with humour, pathos and a reasonable story.It annoys me when you get dire twaddle like "The Blair Witch Project" being touted as genius and a decent film like this being panned. Take the time to watch this and I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

An underapreciated curiosity item...

This is one of those films, which was vilified upon (and following) it's release and became a pariah for no apparent reason. The most likely cause of such ferocious backlash is that it was based on a popular book. Had it been an original screenplay, the critics and the public would have been much more forgiving. Objectively speaking, there's nothing THAT wrong with the film. It's very well made. It features good performances from good (in case of Hanks and Willis: miscast) actors. It also features what no one ever talks about: A phenomenal opening sequence, which introduces Willis's character. It's an incredibly complicated unbroken steadycam shot, which runs for well over 4 minutes. DePalma later outdid himself in 'Snake Eyes', in which he created an astounding 16-minute opening take.

Either way, this films is definitely worth a look.

Not as bad as many think

I rented this film purely on it's reputation. This film is considered a gigantic turkey, which is an embarrassment to those involved in it. True, the Bonfire of the Vanities isn't a great film, but it's not terrible. I did find the casting puzzling. Tom Hanks, as fine an actor as he is, is woefully miscast as Sherman McCoy. He did not give a believable performance for a moment. As for Bruce Willis. Well, he is a mediocre actor at best, and didn't leave an impression. Morgan Freeman is annoying. He was probably just told to shout. Melanie Griffith is rather good, showing herself to be adept at comedy, and F. Murray Abraham too is good as a stereotyped Jew. The story is at times thin on the ground, but remains interesting enough. The direction is impreesive, but you really wonder why a director of Brian dePalma's calibre wanted to make a movie like this. An amiable film, but nothing more.

A Real Gem, Sometimes the Critics Are Just Plain Wrong

Be thankful for movies on video, because this much maligned film wasn't in the theatres too long, thanks to critics (and a public that pays too much attention to them). This is a very funny, insightful film with fascinating plot and characters (thank you, novelist Tom Wolfe), beautifully filmed and edited. I read the novel after seeing the film, and I agree the book has some charms the movie doesn't catch, but Tom Hanks does a fine job as Sherman McCoy, the Wall Street whiz kid who suddenly decides to be a moral person and is caught up in the racial politics and journalistic mendacity of New York. Bruce Willis's narration as the drunken writer Peter Fallow is great fun, especially as we see him knowingly collaborating in a news story that is almost a complete lie. Melanie Griffith is good as the sluttish mistress Maria, although her Southern accent is variable. Catch this on TV sometime (with half the obscenities cut) and treat yourself to an unexpected pleasure.

some movie.

this movie is pretty dull and a good example of a bad film adaptation of a kind of okay book. sometimes it's laughable when it's not supposed to be, hahaha!! i laughed.

When I was really young, I thought that it had "vampire" in the title!

When "The Bonfire of the Vanities" came out at the end of 1990, it was slammed by the critics, and "went up in smoke" at the box office. Maybe some people thought that it was trying to capitalize on what "Wall Street" showed a few years earlier.When I saw it several years later, I thought that it was quite well done. Like "Wall Street", it does show the decadence, cynicism, and greed inherent in the lives of rich New Yorkers. But this one has sort of a comedic tone. It portrays stock broker Sherman McCoy's (Tom Hanks) self-serving lifestyle getting thrown into flux when his mistress Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) accidentally runs over a young African-American. This incident ignites people's emotions all over the board, which may be the title's implication: Sherman's vain existence is crashing down, and he's getting exposed to groups whom he had never even considered earlier.Personally, I couldn't understand why the critics and public didn't like this movie (considering that we made the kitschy "Home Alone" a hit around the same time, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for ignoring "TBOTV"). It looks at the various problems with our society: greed, racism, and yellow journalism. Bruce Willis, whom I usually find obnoxious, does a really good job here as reporter Peter Fallow, out to make a few bucks by blowing the story up as much as possible. There's also a character based on Rev. Al Sharpton.All in all, this is a move worth seeing. It's definitive proof that Brian DePalma was a lot better before he got all Hollywood with "Mission: Impossible", "Snake Eyes", etc. Also starring Morgan Freeman, a very young Kirsten Dunst, and several people (among them F. Murray Abraham and Andre Gregory) in small roles. Watch for Malachy McCourt (the brother of "Angela's Ashes" author Frank McCourt) as the doorman.And yes, I once thought that the title was something like "Vampire of the Bonnies". You know, just one of those mispronunciations when you're really young.

Excellent satire

Profound exploration of the anatomy and course of a greedy, ambitious and self-centered life, in its various forms (through several characters with unique forms of greed and ambition and lust). Various people get their just dues in humorous, often unexpected ways. Really satisfying and clever movie.

HACK!

Okay, I'm Earth's biggest Tom Hanks fan, but, come on! This is so incredibly boring!!!! Even if this is the last movie on the planet, DON'T!

One Train Wreck of a Movie

First of all, to declare my colours, I am not a great fan of Tom Wolfe's writing style but I thoroughly enjoyed "Bonfire of the Vanities" and consider it one of the better American novels of the end of the 20th century. It was well grounded in a time and place. I'll add too that I've never particularly liked Brian de Palma films (too stylized and in my view, there's no there, there).Sooooooo, anyway. This movie is a mess. And the question is why? (This is a fun game to play with monumental flops such as Waterworld, Heaven's Gate, Ishtar.) In the case of "Bonfire of the Vanities", was it the casting? The script? Inappropriate music? I'd go with direction. If I can make a really dumb comparison, this movie is like receiving a Lamborghini but delivered as an IKEA kit. It winds up as beautiful parts lying on the garage floor.For anyone tempted to see this movie, I strongly suggest reading Julie Salamon's well-written "Devil's Candy" beforehand. (Check it out on Amazon; the book follows chronologically the film's production from the beginning to the end.) Since the movie is so bad, you're not going to enjoy watching it anyway. But Salamon's book is so good that watching the movie almost turns it into a documentary. Various scenes and small roles take on new meaning. I guarantee you'll rewind to watch again the shot of the Concorde landing and then realize that somehow, it's a metaphor of what went wrong.

great film, not a great movie

This is a quality film, the problem with people is they are consumers who have no appreciation for quality films, not quality movies which are mere consumer products made like McDonald food; disposable. I see all kinds of nonsense winning awards that memoirs of a something, cardboard plot, shallow romance, you can see it coming, go and watch Oliver stones "heaven and Earth" anyway this film is amazing it keeps your interest it plays out all kinds of social issues on both sides, it isn't just an African American boy gets knocked down and goes down that old racist route, it shows the more complex instruments at work in our society where privilege and opportunity override all forms of morality across the board.I think film culture, current film culture, is sold as popular, but how do we judge films that satisfy the art criterion. Clearly films need audiences but this has no real weighting on their quality, we only need to look at the top ten films to understand this. The problem with this is the art gives way to profit, people are happy with junk the real talent needed to save the industry and develop the industry is being lost with every generation (of filmmakers). Just like music, we cant even name a new great in our era, in the 70's we have Mr Wonder, Prince, etc, the industry has got worst every 10 years, now 2000 have nobody, absolutely no popular artist have any credibility. This is the way film is going to become if we don't become sensitive to art over commercial culture.

What you talkin' about, Willis?

This isn't great, but it's not as bad as a lot of people say it is.


I think a lot of those people are fans of the book the movie is based on and the movie just didn't live up to their expectations.

Makes sense. Even though I didn't dislike the movie when it came out, I can barely remember anything about it now. The only thing I fully remember is the scene with Melanie Griffith in her underwear. Now, that was a good scene!

De Palma at his best

What a movie! Brian De Palma has done it again. In a film that is not De Palma's usual style, he manages to create a completely entertaining work. Every character is interesting and well played.Tom Hanks is especially likable as Sherman McCoy. Morgan Freeman plays the judge with sarcasm and wit, entertaining in this minor role. Support from Melanie Griffith, Bruce Willis, Kim Cattral and Saul Rubinek is a huge plus.The picture hilariously shows up the New York high life, and low life at times, with humour that is dark and sharp. Well done De Palma and team for bringing Tom Wolfe's huge novel to the screen.Friday, April 19, 1991 - Knox District CentreGreat plot and characters one can really get involved with (and enjoy watching) make De Palma's film enjoyable a second time. There are some hilarious moments and great performances all round.Thursday, January 16, 1992 - Video

Horrid

I love Brian De Palma's work and am saddened every time I see this. I own it as I am a completest, so I guess by paying for it I have helped it's cause but really it should be seen just because it shows where De Palma hit rock bottom. I don't think he has ever completely recovered from this flop. Mission Impossible came close but it is more famous for Tom Cruise than Brian De Palma. This movie, Bonfire of the Vanities, though is utter crap and the even sadder part is the large cast of good actors it has. Everyone on this must have been wasted not to see the jumble of crap they were making to sell to audiences. Their all lucky to still have jobs. Bruce Willis does nothing to make this story better and basically just sits through the whole movie. Tom Hanks whines through the whole movie, Meliannie Griffith just walks around and looks good, no acting. The only one who does some good with the piece is Morgan Freemen, he seems to be the only one awake and trying. Never watch this.

Decent, but not wholly effective.

I couldn't get past the Tom Wolfe novel; but it can be said that the movie does it justice. Wolfe's writing is as sanctimonious as the movie it is based upon. If the critics and book fans hate it, it's because it's the adaptation that was intended! I am a die hard DePalma fan and I must say that the film makes it's points (however broad they may appear). There is hidden and overt racism in politics, there are corrupt people in politics and the clergy and yes, even poor people act worse than rich people. But honestly, Wolfe's book was not the --bleeping-- Bible and should not be as revered as it was. Adaptation from book to film always has a life of its own and everyone who sees and makes films should take this into account.Proof of this is the clever prologue and epilogue where they even lampoon the bull (ish) praise this book received! Honestly though, if the film was made today, I think it should be directed by Spike Jonze and written by Charlie Kaufman (the folks behind 2002's "ADAPTATION".)C+

A Different Take

As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.

Good Movie!

This was a good movie. I have read many reviews that people thought it was awful but in my opinion it was good. There was great casting. Bruce Willis was great as the almost always drunken reporter, Tom Hanks as the having an affair type husband that gets mixed up in a hit and run accident. Beth Broderick was good too even though this movie allowed her a small role it was a very crucial role. Melanie Griffith was irritating at times but that was the way of her character, so she was great at that role. This is a movie I would recommend for teenagers and adults only considering that there is cussing and the overall moral of the movie.