Rating: 
Summary: Kurt Vonnegut is Better Read than Seen
Review: For those who love Kurt Vonnegut, you would appreciate this movie, but only immediately after reading the book version. For those who haven't read the book "Breakfast of Champions", you will be utterly lost in this film.Kurt Vonnegut stories are fantasies, written tongue-in-cheek with little reflection on reality. The characters are cartoon personifications of annoying people, and the setting is generally a middle-America, strip mall-saturated, consumer-ish nightmare. Just bringing the audience up to speed on the story environment is difficult to visually represent within the timeframe of an average movie. The acting is done well, especially Albert Finney as Kilgore Trout, Vonnegut's alter ego that appears in many of his books. Bruce Willis does an adequate job as Dwayne Hoover as does Barbara Hershey as his wife, but the story didn't allow us understand them enough. Once again, putting a Vonnegut book to film and making it complete within 2 hours is, in my opinion, an impossible task. But unlike most similar book-to-movie transitions, "Breakfast of Champions" holds true to the book, so much that it falls short of conveying the roles and motivations of the characters and circumstances. So once again, Vonnegut readers will be amused, but newbies will be befuddled.
Rating: 
Summary: Breakfast of Champions
Review: This movie is hilarious. I saw it like 20 times before I read the book, and couldn't even really tell what it was about, but was intrigued by it nonetheless. Then I read the book, and realized what was going on, and it became 20 times better. All these naysayers don't know what they're talking about. Buy this movie, I've been trying to forever but no one has it but here. BUY BUY BUY!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible Movie in it's Own Medium
Review: The movie is not as good as the book. It never is.
The movie does not closely resemble the book. It never does. These are the most common complaints I have heard most people make against this film, but I am going to leave those things adside and judge the film simply as a comedy, but first a brief synopsis. Wayne Hoover is a well to do car salesman in Midland city and he is having a very bad day. He is starting to see things that are really not there and hear voices that are really not there. He is going insane and he knows it. Kilgore Trout is a sci fi writer who writes outrageous stories that appear in pornograpyh magazines. On the whim of one of his only fans he is invited to Midland city for an arts festival and decides to go. When Wayne and Kilgore meet all hell breaks loose. The sad truth though is that all hell does not break loose as it should in a comedy like this. The performances are very subdued. For instance Wayne Hoover has a scene with an employee who is secretly a cross dresser about his clothing! What a hoot huh! Unfortunatley no, it is not a hoot it is barely even a chirp. I expected Wayne to jump up on the desk screaming and ranting as would befit a man going insane, but instead he calmly explains to his employee that he should wear more colorful clothes. I rented this movie expecting a skillfully crafted black comedy, what I got was a gray farce. If you are renting this movie and you read the book you will be dissappointed. If you are renting this movie and you have not read the book you will be equally dissappointed, it is just all around bad. As a comedy it comes up short. There are hardly any funny scenes. I do not recall laughing once.
Rating:
Summary: ...And Cut
Review: You know, some books were never meant for the world of film. Despite how popular and well loved they may be by everyone, that doesn't mean it'll make a successful movie. "Breakfast of Champions" is a perfect example of this. While it proves to be a masterpiece in the written form, it ends up being one lousy film that tries so hard to be funny and fails almost every time. The movie follows the basic premise of the book, but adds and changes things around (which I understand, because most of the stuff in that book wouldn't be able to translate on film--hence, why it should've never been done in the first place). Dwayne Hoover is a car dealer that everybody loves and trusts. Dwayne Hoover, is also losing his mind. From his pill-popping wife to his cross-dressing business buddy, Dwayne is losing his grip on reality on a daily basis. Soon, he will meet a sci-fi writer that nobody has ever heard of (except for one deranged fan), Kilgore Trout. Their meeting will be the final straw for Dwayne and chaos will be the aftermath. What made the book so funny in the first place was the actual commentary by Vonnegut as the overall narrator. It wasn't necessarily funny only because of the characters and their actions, but mainly because of Kurt Vonnegut's voice. Of course, they have to do away with the narration in order to have it work on film. The problem is, however, it doesn't work. It feels like a bad imitation of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." It's rarely funny nor is it strange, it's just plain annoying. The only way this film will be understood by others is if they have read the book ahead of time. And even if they've done that, they'll only end up being more ticked off at the debauchery that is the movie, "Breakfast of Champions." I wasn't expecting a dead-on adaptation, just something to do the book some kind of justice. Sorry to say, this film does no such thing. The DVD has almost no special features, and for the first time ever--I could care less. In fact, I'd be even more ticked off if this DVD had tons of special features while other great movies have "doodley-squat" for special features. "Breakfast of Champions," while a literary masterpiece, is a "fabulously well-to-do" dud as a movie. I can't even recommend this to people who haven't read the book, as they'll most likely despise it since they will have no idea what is going on. This movie is living proof that some timeless literary classics were never meant for the big screen. I think Vonnegut would agree with that. In fact, with all of the rants he does on entertainment, TV, and short attention spans, it wouldn't surprise me if Vonnegut structured the book to be un-filmable on purpose. Avoid it and stick to the book, if you want my honest opinion. -Michael Crane
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant, dark comedy about the insanity all around us
Review: Most of the professional and amateur reviews I've seen of this film do it no justice. It does defy typical conventions, but how many times do you need to see the same four basic storylines remade? I found "Breakfast of Champions" surprisingly entertaining and hilarious with a lot of philosophical depth (not appropriate for kids though, as it makes fun of a lot of serious topics.) Like all of Vonnegut's work this film is much more than the summary of its plot, which centers on Bruce Willis' character's mental breakdown. The acting and directing and all the oddball nuances make physical the absurdity of the situation. The way each individual character interacts with and influences the others is brilliant. Nick Nolte is incredible and so much "into" his unique role that it is a little unnerving to watch. Each viewing of Breakfast of Champions reveals new angles and facets. Kurt Vonnegut has brief cameo role and the actor playing Kilgore Trout has some great mumbled lines that you won't want to miss. Yes, the film differs from the book version in several places; a more faithful rendition would produce a less coherent film. The "Hollywood ending" is a real shock for fans of the book but I found it to be creative and satisfying. This movie will give you plenty to think about and a laughs where you least expect them.
Rating:
Summary: ...And Cut
Review: You know, some books were never meant for the world of film. Despite how popular and well loved they may be by everyone, that doesn't mean it'll make a successful movie. "Breakfast of Champions" is a perfect example of this. While it proves to be a masterpiece in the written form, it ends up being one lousy film that tries so hard to be funny and fails almost every time. The movie follows the basic premise of the book, but adds and changes things around (which I understand, because most of the stuff in that book wouldn't be able to translate on film--hence, why it should've never been done in the first place). Dwayne Hoover is a car dealer that everybody loves and trusts. Dwayne Hoover, is also losing his mind. From his pill-popping wife to his cross-dressing business buddy, Dwayne is losing his grip on reality on a daily basis. Soon, he will meet a sci-fi writer that nobody has ever heard of (except for one deranged fan), Kilgore Trout. Their meeting will be the final straw for Dwayne and chaos will be the aftermath. What made the book so funny in the first place was the actual commentary by Vonnegut as the overall narrator. It wasn't necessarily funny only because of the characters and their actions, but mainly because of Kurt Vonnegut's voice. Of course, they have to do away with the narration in order to have it work on film. The problem is, however, it doesn't work. It feels like a bad imitation of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." It's rarely funny nor is it strange, it's just plain annoying. The only way this film will be understood by others is if they have read the book ahead of time. And even if they've done that, they'll only end up being more ticked off at the debauchery that is the movie, "Breakfast of Champions." I wasn't expecting a dead-on adaptation, just something to do the book some kind of justice. Sorry to say, this film does no such thing. The DVD has almost no special features, and for the first time ever--I could care less. In fact, I'd be even more ticked off if this DVD had tons of special features while other great movies have "doodley-squat" for special features. "Breakfast of Champions," while a literary masterpiece, is a "fabulously well-to-do" dud as a movie. I can't even recommend this to people who haven't read the book, as they'll most likely despise it since they will have no idea what is going on. This movie is living proof that some timeless literary classics were never meant for the big screen. I think Vonnegut would agree with that. In fact, with all of the rants he does on entertainment, TV, and short attention spans, it wouldn't surprise me if Vonnegut structured the book to be un-filmable on purpose. Avoid it and stick to the book, if you want my honest opinion. -Michael Crane
Rating: 
Summary: Who said
Review: "Illiterates need not apply"? They were right on. No this movie will not completely mimic the book, however, I think it does an excellent job of capturing the unique essence that is Vonnegut, on film. If you are familiar with Vonnegut's body of work, you will appreciate this film, and might even wet yourself laughing. You either get it, or you don't.
Rating:
Summary: It could have been better...
Review: I feel that the people who made this movie took far too much liberty. It is not enough like the book to really even carry the title, in my opinion. The book was rather sketchy, but in a way that made it enjoyable. While the eratic behavior of the actors portraying the characters in this movie, while typically very good actors, was quite obnoxious. And i say that as a fan of just about everyone in the movie.
Rating:
Summary: This is not Vonnegut.
Review: This is a slap in the face for anyone who knows Kurt Vonnegut's work.
Rating:
Summary: I wish there was a choice for zero stars.....
Review: First off, even if you have read the book and enjoy Kurt Vonnegut's novels, if you attempt to understand this movie your face will explode. It is completely non-sensical. I had not read the book, and to me this was as fun as setting my crotch on fire. The person I watched the movie with had read the book, and to him it was as fun as setting your crotch on fire and trying to put it out with your face. Watching Nick Nolte's long and enduring preformances were like watching someone try to start a car by licking the battery. It makes you cringe and just doesn't work. The movie follows the rising insanity of Dwayne Hoover (Bruce Willis) that occurs for no apparent reason, because the reason is that his wife committed suicide, but his wife didn't commit suicide in the movie because she is a character that is alive. A character that doesn't exist in the book (?). As someone who hadn't read the book I didn't even know the wife was alive because the scenes she appears in are....confusing. If this sounds like a painfully insane and rambling review, it is because this is a painfully insane and rambling movie. I still seek for the reason behind why his son lives in a fallout shelter beneath his house if his father is a millionaire who can afford to house three people. Why does Hoover turn magically sane from hearing that "life is what you do while you hear" (or something like that)? It made me feel as warm and wholesome as throwing dead kittens at preschoolers. And what is up with his wife (the non-existant character) throwing him shoes and yelling "take the shoes!" What the hell does that even mean! He has to cross a river? To what? His freedom? What was in the water? Why is this happening? Where am I? Why am I here? Why am I so angry? Why do I hate myself enough to still be watching this? I'm sure glad the director is confident enough in his story writing and directing ability that he can throw off the terribly confining shackles of the book he chose to base his movie on entirely and make up a bunch of crazy things that makes no sense at all.
I think it's ironic that a movie about a completely insane man who eventually becomes happy at the end can make a happy man go completely insane by the end. If someone said to me, "Hey, want to watch Breakfast of Champions again?" I'd say "No thanks, I'd rather see how many licks it takes to get to the center of a car battery!"
| 
