The Bonfire of the Vanities

Rating:
Summary: Dreadful Adaptation of the Book
Review: I read this book and looked forward with great anticipation to the movie. I haven't been so disappointed in a movie in years. None of the characters were sympathetic.. I began to wish they'd all get killed off...

Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as many think
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Quite good in its own right
Review: I saw the movie before reading the book, and so I judged it on its own merits instead of by how well it compared to the book. By that standard, it's quite decent, more "light" than the book, but nothing wrong with that. Later, I read the book, and enjoyed the detail, the craftsmanship, but let's face it, you don't compress a 600 page book into a movie and expect it to be the same. And, quite frankly, I MUCH preferred the movie ending. Morgan Freeman wrapped everything up with a nice speech at the end, whereas in the book, the ending was horribly done and seemed to just fall apart.

Rating:
Summary: the bonfire of the vanities
Review: I started reading the book & left it behind, so I bought the movie. "Like they say,...The book is always better".

Rating:
Summary: Really a good film.
Review: I too must get on the bandwagon and say THIS IS NOT A BAD MOVIE. Not great, certainly, but a very entertaining one. When this movie first came out, I think too many people (critics) compared it to the book which was a disservice to the film. Seeing it now, we thought it was quite entertaining (two friends joined me) and Tom Hanks and Melanie Griffith were a good match. I would recommend this film to anyone. Maybe time is on its side.

Rating:
Summary: The Critics Were WRONG!
Review: I was only a young teen when this came out, but I vividly remember all of the scandalous press about how bad it supposedly was. Uh-uh, not true. Before watching it this past weekend, I noticed that almost all of the reviewers who hated it had read the book first and were upset it was so different. Well, I haven't read the book yet, and watched the movie this past weekend. It was just great - a very witty comedy/drama/social commentary of the '80s, not unlike one of my other faves, "Six Degrees of Separation". Melanie Griffith is the best one in this and yes, her southern accent does come and go, but maybe it was intentional - to show her character was a fake @$$ b!tch who couldn't even keep her accent going? Also great to see Kim Cattrall, who has obviously had a boob job since this was made. Charming also is "Sabrina The Teenage Witch"'s Beth Broderick.

I'm going to explain my book/movie difference theory using my all-time favorite movie "Valley of the Dolls" (VOTD) as an example. Yes, I know it (and the book for that matter) is considered trash, but it still proves the point. I saw the VOTD movie first and adored it instantly, so I then rushed out and read the book, which was SO different and had so many more subplots, additional characters, attributed different dialogue to different characters, etc. However, this still ADDED to my movie-going experience by giving me "bonus" footage/scenes to enjoy and supplemet the movie. Had I read the book FIRST, upon seeing the movie, I would've probably been disappointed because I already had preconceived expectations. I think the same rule applies to "Bonfire". It just isn't possible to get all of a full-length novel into a 2 hour movie and unfortunately they have to cast within the Hollywood system (who's hot, who's available, wtc.)... Please don't miss this! When Melanie gets her come-uppance, it is triumphant!

Rating:
Summary: This is a bad film
Review: It just doesn't work as a film, and it doesn't work as the adaptation of the book. As a film it lacks characterisation - the director doesn't do the work establishing the characters in the first place, so when they have moral dilemmas in the course of the film, it doesn't really feel as if anything is at stake in their lives. Tom Hanks' performance is terrible. Wall Street brokers may be effete snobs, but they are also ice-cool businessmen, something that Hanks never once gives the impression that he could be. Compared with the book, this film is really trite. There is no edginess, there is no sense of inexorability - in fact none of the things that make the book good. Don't bother with this one guys.

Rating:
Summary: AWESOME!
Review: Make no mistake. If you are thinking about buying this movie, do not think, just buy. It is laughs from start to finish. I remember when this film came out and the critics panned it. I cannot see why. Maybe because it "wasn't like the book." I never read the book so screw the comparisons. This movie is such an excellent satire of the urban rat race, I cannot find another film that succeeds it. It may have also been reviewed harshly because political correctness had really come into fashion in 1990-1991, and this film is anything but! All things liberal are lampooned in this movie (arts & humanities, the minority electoral, mass media), and the white guy wins in the end. It is also worth it to see Kim Catrall, Andre Gregory, and a 7 year old Kirsten Dunst.

Rating:
Summary: Pretty good
Review: Many people say that this film... and that it's really bad but I can't really agree with them. The cast's good and I thought Melanie Griffith did a good job portraying Maria and even though Beth Broderick, as Caroline Heftshank, had a small role I thought she did it great. Her scenes are among the funniest in the film.
No, the film can't be compared with the book, which is great, and the film is indeed very different but does that make it bad? No, not in my opinion. The film is simply entertaining, something you watch and enjoy for the moment. The first scene is very beautiful and I must say that it's one of the best opening scenes I have ever seen.
Lastly, I want to say that this is the kind of film that gets better for every time you watch it. So if you didn't like it the first time you saw it, give it another chance because every time you watch it, you will discover something new.

Rating:
Summary: I found it intriguing and quite entertaining.
Review: Never having read the book, and being a Hanks, Griffith, Willis fan, I decided to check this out. I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. With such low expectations, I found it intriguing and entertaining. I agree with most reviewers that Hanks was not QUITE right for the role of Sherman McCoy, and Willis was such a strange choice as the wimpy Peter Fallow (altho I liked him doing this more than his same old-same old "Armaggedon" type of dreck), but Griffith deservedly got most of the best reviews as Maria. I shared the movie with a friend who was adament about NOT seeing it in theaters and he liked it more than I did. So if you haven't read the book (and that's a prerequisite), place that grain of salt on the tip of your tongue and hold it inside your cheek -- watching this film may not be such a terrible waste of an evening.