Rating: 
Summary: Those of us who haven't read the book will flounder
Review: "The Hotel New Hampshire" is a very pretty movie with a strong cast, good direction and interesting ideas - so why does it fail to be a great film? Largely because as it stands, it's very disjointed; it appears that the screenwriters took only small snips from the book without bothering to segue from one development to the next, leaving the viewer who hasn't read the novel to flounder in bewilderment.In a nutshell, we view the family through Rob Lowe's character's eyes, as he tells us about their struggles over the years. While the story focuses on John (Lowe) and Frannie (Foster,) everyone has an important part to play. The family faces trial after trial, from death to rape to incest to relocating themselves to another continent, but their ties to each other keep them strong. That is, most of the time: There are moments and actions when suddenly the family can't keep itself cohesive, with disastrous results that are only barely explained. It seems everyone is looking for something bigger, better and *more*, but they cannot seem to find it, either within themselves or without. John tells the story in a very matter-of-fact way, without casting blame or judgment on anyone for their thoughts or behaviors, even though some would find room for condemnation. He seems to be saying "Folks are folks, and sometimes behave in unusual extreme ways; but that doesn't mean they're bad people, or without feeling." However, motives are usually not clear; characters act completely out of character for no imaginable reason, on small and grand scales, leading to large developments which have no foundation. Rob Lowe and Jodie Foster perform very well, especially given their age and experience in 1984, and they actually do a good job with what they're given. Paul McCrane's character could have been much more interesting, but he is relegated almost to cameo status, and we're never quite sure why he and Seth Green's character are so obsessed with Sorrow, the family's unfortunate dog (and the basic underlying theme to the entire story.) There are some very warm and funny moments in the film, as well as a couple of poignant ones - but we don't know or care about the characters well enough to truly feel their pain when someone important to them passes away. The audience is left with far more questions than answers, when it all comes right down to it. It's not a bad movie on it's own, but neither is it *good*.
Rating: 
Summary: Black-humored, subtle, inteligent, explicit - fun.
Review: "The Hotel New Hampshire" is, indeed, not "very easy". If you're into "American Pie" or something, it's likely not to work for you. It's fast, subtile, black humor, surrealistic sometimes, and there's no "audience laugher" to know when you're supposed to laugh - and that's probably why people don't like (or understand) it. It can take more than one watch to get it all, and it sure deserves it. The book's no requirement at all, like some of the obtuse reviewers above are arguing. In fact, i only know of Irving's existence from hearabouts - and still HNH was a masterpiece that made me laugh to tears. The flatulent dog named Sorrow. The (quick) way people die. Incest, clowns, rape, and Kinski wearing a bear suit. Do you want more to life than this? and there is. Like one of the reviews i've read before, in this film the joke isn't assigned, all weird is put as just normal and if you don't have the hability to laugh at the bizarre on normal things you'll maybe find this movie a bored, puzzling experience. It's ironical, thought, to think that maybe it was made to be this little hermetic and still so little people can get it. This world is ruined.
Rating:
Summary: Black-humored, subtle, inteligent, explicit - fun.
Review: "The Hotel New Hampshire" is, indeed, not "very easy". If you're into "American Pie" or something, it's likely not to work for you. It's fast, subtile, black humor, surrealistic sometimes, and there's no "audience laugher" to know when you're supposed to laugh - and that's probably why people don't like (or understand) it. It can take more than one watch to get it all, and it sure deserves it. The book's no requirement at all, like some of the obtuse reviewers above are arguing. In fact, i only know of Irving's existence from hearabouts - and still HNH was a masterpiece that made me laugh to tears. The flatulent dog named Sorrow. The (quick) way people die. Incest, clowns, rape, and Kinski wearing a bear suit. Do you want more to life than this? and there is. Like one of the reviews i've read before, in this film the joke isn't assigned, all weird is put as just normal and if you don't have the hability to laugh at the bizarre on normal things you'll maybe find this movie a bored, puzzling experience. It's ironical, thought, to think that maybe it was made to be this little hermetic and still so little people can get it. This world is ruined.
Rating: 
Summary: What does it mean?
Review: A previous review lamented the fact that a lot was left unexplained in the film (why did they end up in Vienna??), I read the book before seeing the film and perhaps because I knew the background detail I was able to subliminally enjoy it more. I now realise that the questions the reviewer asks did not even occur to me, as I already knew the answers. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book beforehand my rating would be a 2 instead of a 4.
I did however and found it thought provoking and disturbing just as I did the book!
Rating:
Summary: Not your typical movie
Review: A savagely bad movie, adapting John Irving's novel wherein the baby boomer generation attempts to digest the muddled narcissism of the '70s. That description, however, gives this flick too much credit. Mostly this is just a terrible film -- badly written, uninvolving and lurching about without apparent purpose, and without an emotional center. An incestual relationship between brother and sister, amid a wacky, unconventional family is supposed to somehow elicit our sympathies -- but its execution is as flat an unbelievable as the rest of the film. The cast, however, has some nice celeb-spotting eye-candy: Jody Foster, Wallace Shawn, and a 9-year old Seth Green. Rob Lowe is the movie's sole saving grace... As the perv-bound sibling, he was certainly breaking out of his brat pack bimbo typecasting; it's fascinating to see him working on the quirks and mannerisms he later built into a solid acting style. And at age 19, he's pretty hunky... easy on the eyes. But other than a chance to see a bunch of famous folks at an odd moment in their careers, this film is a total waste of time. (See also: "The Royal Tennenbaums.")
Rating: 
Summary: Please spare me the agony...!!
Review: A savagely bad movie, adapting John Irving's novel wherein the baby boomer generation attempts to digest the muddled narcissism of the '70s. That description, however, gives this flick too much credit. Mostly this is just a terrible film -- badly written, uninvolving and lurching about without apparent purpose, and without an emotional center. An incestual relationship between brother and sister, amid a wacky, unconventional family is supposed to somehow elicit our sympathies -- but its execution is as flat an unbelievable as the rest of the film. The cast, however, has some nice celeb-spotting eye-candy: Jody Foster, Wallace Shawn, and a 9-year old Seth Green. Rob Lowe is the movie's sole saving grace... As the perv-bound sibling, he was certainly breaking out of his brat pack bimbo typecasting; it's fascinating to see him working on the quirks and mannerisms he later built into a solid acting style. And at age 19, he's pretty hunky... easy on the eyes. But other than a chance to see a bunch of famous folks at an odd moment in their careers, this film is a total waste of time. (See also: "The Royal Tennenbaums.")
Rating:
Summary: Crowded Hotel
Review: Based on author John Irving's story about the ecletic Berry family, The Hotel New Hampshire, may boast a star studded ensemble and have a steady hand behind the camera, yet, the film isn't as good as the sum of its parts at times. Patriarch Win Berry (Beau Bridges) has an obsession with hotels, which leads to the purchase of a delapidated New England monastary, to be transformed into a hotel. This leads to the coming together of the entire Berry clan. The family's eldest son John (Rob Lowe), foul mouthed Franny (Jodie Foster), Frank the dwarf (Paul McCrane) Egg-the youngest son (Seth Green), Iowa Bob (Wilford Brimley) Win's Dad are just some of those who put their two cents in. Soon the brood is invited by a family friend (Wallace Shawn) to take over another hotel in Vienna. Upon arrival, the get more then they bargained for. I never read the book so I can only guess as to how it compares to the film. The movie, though watchable thanks to its cast, can at times seem like a jigsaw puzzle--with some pieces missing. The story as told through the eyes of Lowe's character, has great and "darkly" funny moments, with some satire thrown in. But the film can also be quite disjointed at times--perhaps so that the writer/director Tony Richarson could adapt the story for the film. The cast does their best and gives solid peformances, despite some of the scripts faults. There's enough subplots in The Hotel New Hampshire to fill two movies. The DVD doesn't have any extras on it. That is to say, save of course, for the theatrical trailer. I thought the film was good--but had Richardson reworked the script a bit--it could have been much better.
Rating:
Summary: Ze Hotel New Ham-zhire, ya.
Review: Great movie! All star cast including Jodie Foster, that guy that played the young #2 on Austin Powers, and somebody who looks a lot like Samuel L. Jackson in high school (I watched a version recorded from TV, and just as the credits started to roll the tape ended!) Full of Fruedian humor... a dog named missery, jewish doctors, young authors, and lesbiens in bear suits! A must see! But be warned, if you don't have the slightest understanding of your "inner workings" you may be a bit confused!
Rating:
Summary: Not your typical movie
Review: I first wanted to see this movie because I am a fan of Jodie Foster. I rented it and found it a little muddled. I liked it, I was just confused as to what was going on in certain parts. After watching the movie, I decided to read the book (which is very, very good!!!), and I rented the movie again after a while and found it much more enjoyable. My advice is to read the book before you see the movie!!! It's an oddly entertaining film... but you might get lost without the help of John Irving's novel.
Rating:
Summary: You'll want to check out of this "Hotel..."
Review: The adaptation of John Irving's fifth novel, and the one I've read the most times over the years, "The Hotel New Hampshire" suffers from a great many things, most notably being the appalling lack of any common sense or good judgment in the casting of Nastassia (sp?) Kinski as Susie the Bear. The character of Susie is supposed to have such low self-esteem and is described in the book as a plain-looking average woman who thinks herself so ugly that she hides herself in a bear costume. When she finally takes off the bear head in the movie and is revealed to be a gorgeous woman with supermodel looks, it's hard for us, the audience, to have any sympathy for her inferiority complex. Combine this glaring oversight with the more traditional scriptwriting dilemna of how to boil down such a multi-layered, complex, rich narrative into a two hour time frame that the average moviegoer will tolerate and you arrive at a script that simplifies and drains all the larger than life splendour of the magnificent novel. This is the Roach Motel of film adaptations of great works of Literature.
|
