Rating: 
Summary: Superb! DePalma at his best.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: An underapreciated curiosity item...
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: What you talkin' about, Willis?
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Good movie with a bad rep
Review: This movie got mercilessly flogged by reviewers when it was released. For that reason, I avoided it all these years. Well, that's what I get for being a sheep. This is actually a very enjoyable film. I'm sure it will continue to offend a lot of people, but what doesn't these days? I did read and like Wolfe's novel, and I really thought this was a faithful film version.
Rating: 
Summary: OK Movie, Except for Speech at the End
Review: This movie is alright, Melanie Griffith is gorgeous and fun, and Tom Hanks is at his early Nineties light comedy best. Morgan Freeman's speech at the end is lame, but not a bad way to spend a couple hours.
Rating: 
Summary: DePalma solidifies his status of Master of The Hacks
Review: This movie is astoundingly bad. It is strays so far the spirit of the book that is pathetic. I don't think Hanks is miscast. I think Melanie Griffith is. She is terrible, and her accent hurts the ears. Bruce Willis isn't bad. Saul Rubinek's Kramer is made to be a clown--as is Bacon (who comes across as a low rent Al Sharpeton). Even if you don't compare it to the book, the movie is beyond bad. It only works if you enjoy set designs. The narrative makes very little sense. The tone is wrong. The story doesn't really fit together. Morgan Freeman, as always rises above the matieral, but his climatic scene is so over the top it is funny. The ending...well, don't even bother. The best moment of the film is Geraldo Rivera as Robert Corso, the slimy TV reporter...that is great. DePalma again demostrates his inability to understand his material. The screenplay was even worse, but a good director can make do. DePalma remains the most overrated director of our time...everything is overwrought, overcooked, and underdeveloped. That comment makes no sense, just like his films. I'd love to see someone do this film with the care it deserves. Hanks and Willis weren't the problem. It can be told with the right touch. Just send DePalma to Siberia.
Rating:
Summary: some movie.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: To Kill a Book
Review: This movie version of an excellent book takes no prisoners. It is one of the worst films that I have ever seen. The actors are all miscast, and their acting is even worse. How could so many usually good actors make such a bad movie. It has to be the script, the script, the script. To say this movie is badly directed is an understatement. I am now going to reread the book to refresh my memory of its greatness.
Rating:
Summary: UGGGGHH!..
Review: This was, without a doubt, the worst movie I ever suffered all the way through in a movie theater (I walked out on Jodie Foster's "Hotel New Hampshire"). From what I understand, this film doesn't do the book justice, but I never read the book. All I know is that a movie should be made to hold one's interest, even those who didn't read the book. The script was roundly uninteresting, and hard to follow, to boot. And the acting... What acting?? This is the worst work of Tom Hanks' illustrious career. It must pain him, to be reminded of it. And Bruce Willis is as stiff as a cardboard cutout. To say that he has all the acting skill of a mannikin, would be an insult to mannikins everywhere! If Melanie Griffith's acting is the best thing you have to hang your hat on, you don't have much to speak of. I have always thought that Melanie's looks, facial expressions, and sympathetic voice were the best things about her acting. She has proven to be rather one-dimensional. Still, she deserved better than this, and it seems that her career is the one that suffered the most from being associated with this stinker.... For "The Bonfire of the Vanities" to AVERAGE out to a 3 stars, should tell you all you need to know. Avoid this one, or you'll be sorry... If, that is, you can stay awake through it.
Rating:
Summary: Not as horrible as we thought it would be.
Review: We didn't quite buy Tom Hanks and Bruce Willis in their roles, but we thought Melanie Griffith was the best cast character as Maria. No where near as powerful as the book, but not as horrible as we were led to believe. See it only if you didn't read the book -- otherwise, you'll probably hate it.
|
