Rating: 
Summary: Books against movies?
Review: The only movie I know which was truly faithful to (part of) the book is "Gone with the wind", because it did not attempt to picture the entire span of the story. Grisham's books were so obviously written with movie in mind that they can't be compared, and Elmore Leonard's twisted plots make movies as much entertaining, even if not fully faithful, as the books are. But this one, which is more like putting pieces from the book one after another is so perfectly crafted by Tony Richardson, and a faultless casting, that it fully convey the spirit of the writing, much more than "world according to Garp" or "Cider House Rules". Nevertheless, I must admit that for somebody who did not read the story before seeing the movie, it might be a bit more difficult to follow, because of all the shortcuts. But it is one of the few movies where every scene was looking like 'déjà vu', as well the characters as the backgrounds, and the only one of the 3 adapted from J. Irving's books I've seen; I can't say about "Simon Birch" since I've seen Jim Carrey before,and once was one time too many.
Rating: 
Summary: Good!
Review: This is a good movie, but as is many times true, the book is better than the film. The acting is very good, but we miss some of Irving when the movie takes short cuts.
Rating: 
Summary: A Part of the Journey
Review: This is a story about life and the many facets of love, dreams and aspirations, and the journey of discovery we all have to make in our own way in our own time. But the single thread that runs through the film and ties the characters and their lives together is sorrow; and in this instance, using an extremely overt metaphor, "Sorrow" is the family pet-- a dog-- who comes to symbolize a seemingly prevalent condition of the Berry family in "The Hotel New Hampshire," written for the screen and directed by Tony Richardson, adapted from the novel by John Irving. The story centers on the Berry family, a close but eccentric clan, and is told from the perspective of John (Rob Lowe), who tries to make sense of his too familiar relationship with his sister, Frannie (Jodie Foster), his gay older brother, Frank (Paul McCrane), his literally "little" sister, Lilly (Jennifer Dundas) who "isn't a midget," but who stopped growing too soon, the youngest of the bunch, Egg (Seth Green), his grandfather, Iowa Bob (Wilford Brimley) and his parents (Beau Bridges and Lisa Banes).John's father, Win, was a dreamer, or as Lilly called him, a "Gatsby," always looking for something better, for "it." Win and Mother Berry had met one summer working together at a hotel, and when Win tires of his job as a school teacher, he decides their town needs a hotel. So he buys an abandoned building that suits his needs perfectly, and transforms it into a hotel, the Hotel New Hampshire, owned and operated by the entire Berry family. And it is here that the memories of his formative years are made for John; memories like struggling with his love for his sister while she lives through a particularly traumatic experience that involves a boy of whom she is enamored, Chip Dove (Matthew Modine), and tasting love himself for the first time with a waitress at the hotel (Joely Richardson). It is also at this time that he experiences a death in the family for the first time. And, as it is in life, it won't be the last; nor will it be his final encounter with tragedy and sorrow. In this film, Richardson touches upon a number of themes that at one time (and not that long ago) would have been considered taboo in a film: Homosexuality, incest and interracial relationships. And he does it successfully by weaving them into the story naturally and objectively, without expounding upon or exploring them simply to enhance the drama. This is simply the story of the Berry family, for better or worse, with John telling it like it is while refraining from any sensationalism or judgment calls, to which the likes of a film of this nature would ordinarily be disposed. Lowe gives a convincing performance as John-- arguably some of the best work he's ever done-- and he underscores his role of narrator by making the story as much about the others as about himself, which is generous, and a good piece of acting. Foster, who would've been twenty-one or twenty-two when this was filmed (1984), displays an insight, poise and maturity well beyond her years, with a performance that is intuitively discerning and believable, and which serves the character so well while bringing her vividly to life. There is such a natural quality to Foster's acting that it makes her a joy to watch, and it makes Frannie a memorable character. The young Dundas is also very impressive in the role of Lilly and, like Foster, manages to bring the necessary maturity to the character that makes her entirely credible. The supporting cast includes Wallace Shawn (Freud), Dorsey Wright (Junior), Cali Timmins (Bitty), Anita Morris (Ronda Ray) and Walter Massey (Texan). The film is by turns poignant, funny and disturbing; one could say a succinct reflection of life. And, diverse as this story is, thematically, there will undoubtedly be one aspect of it or another to which just about anyone will be able to relate. Because that's what life is; a journey we all share, but which we take on different roads that sooner or later are bound to intersect, and which becomes the point at which we realize something that's inescapable and possibly the most important thing we will ever learn: That we are not alone in this. And, in the final analysis, that is what "The Hotel New Hampshire" is all about. And that's the magic of the movies.
Rating:
Summary: What does it mean?
Review: This movie is quite odd, but never boring. I didn't read the John Irving book from which it was adapted, but I can guess that, as is typical of the author, the book must juggle a multitude of characters and sub-plots. Unfortunately, it really doesn't work as a movie and ends up feeling like a series of loosely connected vignettes. The plot speeds along much too quickly and characters appear and disappear without much reason. The movie does, however, have a few positive points... First, the cast is first-rate and Rob Lowe has one of his most unusual roles (this was his third movie after "The Outsiders" and "Class"), as a confused young man lusting after his sister (Jodie Foster, who's ok). Paul McCrane (ER's Dr. Romano) has one of his few relatively large film roles. The movie looks great, with beautiful location shooting with Canada substituting for New Hampshire and Vienna. Finally, this is probably the only place you can see Matthew Modine being raped by a person in a bear suit. Overall, a very strange journey that makes little sense and doesn't bear up to much scrutiny. A definite disappointment.
Rating: 
Summary: Bizarrely entertaining
Review: This movie is quite odd, but never boring. I didn't read the John Irving book from which it was adapted, but I can guess that, as is typical of the author, the book must juggle a multitude of characters and sub-plots. Unfortunately, it really doesn't work as a movie and ends up feeling like a series of loosely connected vignettes. The plot speeds along much too quickly and characters appear and disappear without much reason. The movie does, however, have a few positive points... First, the cast is first-rate and Rob Lowe has one of his most unusual roles (this was his third movie after "The Outsiders" and "Class"), as a confused young man lusting after his sister (Jodie Foster, who's ok). Paul McCrane (ER's Dr. Romano) has one of his few relatively large film roles. The movie looks great, with beautiful location shooting with Canada substituting for New Hampshire and Vienna. Finally, this is probably the only place you can see Matthew Modine being raped by a person in a bear suit. Overall, a very strange journey that makes little sense and doesn't bear up to much scrutiny. A definite disappointment.
Rating: 
Summary: Keep Passing the Hopeless Adaptations
Review: Verdict first - What a load of (...)! And why should I bother to explain this? Nothing in this this movie is explained to me. But I will anyway. This is supposed to be an adaptation of the John Irving novel of the same name. But if you call pushing the 10 most individually photogenic pieces from a 1000-piece jigsaw into a loose assemblage an adaption, then you'll call Natasha Kinski in a bear suit a grizzly. This movie would have done much better to focus on one character, one relationship, or one section of the novel. This would have allowed the makers the chance to develop some depth or at least explain the events that barge erratically and irritatingly past us. As it is, nothing is explained. In an early rape scene involving Jodie Foster's character (of course), her brother manages to find a group of "coloreds" to belatedly rescue her. Where they come from in this rural, white, middle-class, New England environment is not explained, nor is it explained why they agree to get involved. After a few more disjointed scenes, the whole family decides to migrate to Vienna. As the movie doesn't bother to explian why, those who haven't read Irvings novl are left to conclude that they must have some kind of 'homing instinct' for this European capital. The psychology behind "Susie the Bear" is also skimped on; Lili's suicide is pointlessly included with her "passing through an open window" merely after being asked a tough question by a book reviewer; the Vienna radicals and prostitutes are only afforded comic cut-out status; and the incest between the brother and sister ends up being presented like a cartoon caper. Everywhere in this overloaded little film, eccentric facade triumphs over the intriguing insights into the strange and comic events of life that we usually get in John Irving novels. Obviously what's wrong with this film - apart from an over-young cast who aren't capable of keeping the hurly-burly circus of odd scenes and characters believable - is the whole notion of capitaliizing on a popular novel. Cinema and writing are different media. A novel can revel in a great web of causation, whereas a movie is better at capturing the subtleties of the moment. By using the novel's title, the filmmakers believe they have an obligation to touch on every character and event in the original novel with a crude disregard for artistic unity, resulting in a travesty for which the director should be thrown through an open window. "Keep passing the open windows," and don't stop for this hopeless adaptation either.
|
