Rating: 
Summary: one of the most under-rated films of all time
Review: Next to Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate, David Lynch's Dune, and Francis Ford Coppola's One From the Heart, Brian De Palma's Bonfire of the Vanities is a savagely under-rated film. De Palma once again demonstrates he is a master of wit. The film was initially criticized, or rather misinterpreted, for being somehow 'lightweight.' If anything, the film is over-the-top! De Palma's choice for lavish sets and stunning cinematography (by vilmos zsigmond) in wall street upper class New York perfectly match the subject matter and commentary on the 1980s greed infested 'me' decade and Reagan/Bush era, adapted from Thomas Wolfe's popular novel. Critics howled that the film downplayed Wolfe's themes...people act like Tom Wolfe, albeit a talented writer, is somehow as deep as James Joyce or something. The message of the book is pretty darn simple people! and it translates very obviously, perhaps even too obviously, in the film. Not to mention the fact that film is a totally different medium than literature, and one should not expect a film to be exactly like the book. as for the miscasting criticism, it is true Hanks doesnt exactly perfectly fit the role of McCoy, but he doesnt take away from the movie. The supporting cast, however, is better than him. Griffith is fantastic, and Willis gives a performance that practically carries the movie. I think this film was very ambitious and ahead of its time, and will in the future eventually be recognized as a very good film.
Rating: 
Summary: You've got to see it to believe it!
Review: No matter how bad you think this movie is going to be, it's worse. Melanie Griffith saved it from being the worst movie of all time. By the way, the book is GREAT.
Rating: 
Summary: an underappreicated film
Review: O.k - I admit it: this film has been blasted by some of the best film critics. However, not only am I glad I didn't listen to them, I feel that its a great film with alot going for it. It has drama, comedy, suspence, even romance. Not only does this film have everything, it also uses intelligent social commentary. The viewer gets the point without being beaten over the head with it. Bottom line: If you watch films for mere entertainment value, you may not have the patience for this one. But if you like smart, understated films, rent/buy this one!!!
Rating:
Summary: An extra star for being unfairly maligned
Review: OK, so it's not exactly the same experience as reading Tom Wolfe's wonderful novel, but who would expect a movie to be a perfect reflection of a book? It certainly was not the bomb that everyone claimed it was, and has held up quite well considering how universally hated it was. Tom Hanks was miscast, but he did the best he could in the role. Bruce Willis took a lot of heat for a supposedly poor performance, mainly because in the book, his character was supposed to be British. Who cares whether his character is British or American? His main job was to serve as a somewhat sporadic narrator, and he did that as well as anyone. Melanie Griffith gives an excellent performance as Maria, pushing right up to the edge without becoming a caricature. Kim Cattrall is cool and credible as Hanks' vacuous society wife. Morgan Freeman gave perhaps the strongest performance of the entire film, ruling his courtroom with an iron but equitable fist and delivering some of the best lines in the script, as well. Perhaps the expectations were just too high for this movie at the time of its release, but I enjoyed it as much as many recent films that have received critical accolades. At first I thought that the pacing was going to be a bit slow, but I was sufficiently involved in the film that the time passed very quickly. The DVD video transfer is good but not spectacular, and the sound is adequate but nothing special. There are no extras, but that is to be expected on a DVD that is sold in some retail outlets for [less money]. I give the film 3 stars, plus an extra "consolation" star for having been excessively and unfairly criticized.
Rating:
Summary: HACK!
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: A dead tire?
Review: That's about all it took for Sherman McCoy's life to change. A tire. Lost in the Bronx with his lover Maria, McCoy ends up in an alley, gets out of the car to move a tire out of the way, when two black guys come to him. Are they looking for a fight? Are they gonna ask him something? Sherman McCoy really doesn't wanna find out, so he runs to his car and in his escape and one of the two boys ends up drastically injured. McCoy, being a Wall Street tycoon, suddenly finds himself trapped in a web of racism and personal interests. His life begins to fall apart. This is a very entertaining and interesting tale that was really underrated when first released. I think it's a really good movie. Can't say great, cuz I don't think it is, but it is good, that's for sure. Acting is great, the score is really good, and even though I am not really a Brian De Palma fan, I enjoyed this movie. I think it's not what he usually does. Bruce Willis and Tom Hanks give a superb acting to the point of really believe their characters. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a movie with something to say. Too bad the DVD contains no features at all, not even the theatrical trailer, which is the least you can ask form a DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Why Critics Can This Film
Review: The "critics" trash this movie for one reason: They do not want you to hear Morgan Freeman's speech at the end -- it cuts too close to the heart of the hypcrisies they live by, and that's simply intolerable. Think not? Watch their fawning ratings for the latest "targeted audience" slop, and catch a hint. The *subject matter* of Wolfe's novel (and film adaptation) is alive and well.
Rating:
Summary: Very Enjoyable Film
Review: The reviews I see here are astounding. Either you love this movie or you hate it. I believe the film may be too intelligent for today's sensory deprived audiences. I will just tell you what I saw in the film... an all-star cast flawlessly executing an intelligent, humorous and socially insightful script. As for the plot, I will let the movie speak for itself. While this may not be another Star Wars, I certainly will not mind having this title in my DVD collection.
Rating:
Summary: De Palma at his worst
Review: This adaptation of Tom Wolfe's controversial bestseller joined the ranks of infamously bad movies (many of which seem to feaure Bruce Willis) within its first week of release; it died a dog's death in theaters and shuffled morosely to video four months later (which, at the time, was a pretty fast turnover; these days it's much more common). As the director who got handed this vast steaming pile of a script, Brian De Palma does everything in his considerable power to keep himself and us amused, and you're grateful for his efforts. But it doesn't amount to much. Even the opening tracking shot works against the movie; it's there for its sheer De Palma-ness, and it steals the movie's thunder. The leads were picked not because of their rightness for the roles but because of star power. This isn't a movie, it's a package. It might seem insane to cast Tom Hanks as Sherman McCoy, the arrogant trader who accidentally runs over a black kid and sparks a media war, but Hanks isn't actually all that bad. But Melanie Griffith (with her now-you-hear-it, now-you-don't Southern accent) and Bruce Willis (playing an alcoholic journalist who was British in the novel) are very much all that bad. De Palma's idea of avoiding charges of racism is to turn everyone into a cartoon regardless of race. Towards the end, when the judge played by Morgan Freeman makes his big, insufferable brotherhood speech, De Palma just seems to give up in disgust; he points the camera at Freeman and lets him drone on and on. As was brilliantly reported in Julie Salomon's book "The Devil's Candy," the movie might as well have been pronounced dead the moment Michael Cristofer was hired to perpetrate the screenplay. Fortunately, most of the people involved went on to better things, so that nobody really holds this movie against them anymore; released in late 1990, it has come to be seen as the last gasp of shallow '80s commentary on shallow '80s values. For a sharper look, rent "American Psycho" (a reverse case where the movie was better than the book).
Rating:
Summary: Let's set the record straight!
Review: This is a good movie! Forget about the miscasting quibbles about Tom Hanks. He does an amiable job with Sherman McCoy. If one wants to nit-pick, Bruce Willis was the odder casting choice for the drunken british journalist Peter Farrow. Melanie Griffith is perfect as Maria and the rest of the cast does just fine. The directing is handled with De Palma's usual blend of exellence and professionalism. The movie looks like a million dollars with fantastic cinematoghraphy by Vilmos Zsigmond (The opening title sequence is breathtaking!) It seems to me that the problem is that this is based on a beloved book that was on everybody's coffee table and book shelf in the 1980's and everyone had thier own preconceived notions about who should star. Maybe Hanks is too likable in the film as Sherman but having not read the book until after I saw the movie, I was thoroughly swept away by the plot and it's cast. It seems that critics were all set to destroy this film based on the casting announcements alone and De Palma could have made any variation of the book and it still would have taken a beating. Watch it with an open mind and enjoy. For crying out loud gang, it's only a movie. And a fine one at that. Give it a chance.
|
