Bruce Willis ashamed of 'Bonfire of the Vanities'

Mick Jagger was considered for the part of Peter Fallow and told US MAGAZINE, "I want that part. I think I could do it better than anybody else." And I think for the role of a dissipated, tightfisted BRITISH journalist, Mick Jagger would have been preferable. (He acted fine in THE MAN FROM ELYSIAN FIELDS.)

I saw this movie when it came out, and I really enjoyed it. I was about 18 at the time, and I enjoyed the satire, even though a lot of the real life references probably went over my head (I doubt I knew who Al Sharpton was in 1990). As the years went by, I was surprised to lean what a bad rap the movie had gotten. I didn't really get it.

Recently I began reading the book, and yes, of course, as with all books, it is much more detailed, and the character's motives are explored in much more depth. So I could see how a person could be disappointed with the movie if they had read the book.

But out of curiosity, I re-watched the movie again tonight for the third or fourth time, and I still really liked it. I think it's a great movie from a purely "was it entertaining" point of view. I loved Sherman McCoy's last speech; it's one of those great "in your face" kind of moments. The movie definitely clearly portrays him as the protagonist in away that the book may not end up doing--I don't know as I'm not finished with it. I can see that the movie is much more glib and clear cut than the book, but in the world of the movie, I liked how it turned out.

So I read Roger Ebert's original review of the movie tonight, and he pretty much says if you read the book you may be disappointed, and he finds a few faults with the movie, but it isn't a scathing review. He goes so far as to say that those who haven't read the book are more likely to enjoy the movie: "What we have here, I think, is a movie that will be enjoyed most by those who haven't read the Tom Wolfe novel. In its glittering surfaces and snapshot performances, it provides a digest version of the Wolfe story, filled with obvious ironies and easy targets. Those who have read the book will be constantly distracted because they know so much more than the movie tells them about the characters." Roger Ebert

I think with any book that is wildly popular, many more people are likely to be disappointed by whatever movie is made. But I don't think there is anything to be ashamed of, glittering surfaces and snapshot performances or not.

Morgan Freeman was on Jay Leno back in July to promote The Dark Knight Rises and they brought up this film. They were discussing Freeman's early career and Leno asked if he had any movies he was not proud of, he mentioned this and another one as two films that he didn't care for.

Every actor has some embarrassing things in their filmography, what is important is their career overall.

Hudson Hawk was very much a vehicle he himself instigated and it was ego that got the better off him.

The same with Bonfire, it was supposed to be a British journalist, but he used his star poweer to get the gig and then he could not do an English accent.

Its that man again!!

[deleted]

Hudson Hawk is a freaking masterpiece compared to the garbage pile of the Vanities.

-------------------------------------
I own you.https://goo.gl/0avZjB

He was probably embarrassed because this was his last desperate attempt to hang onto his hair...his toupee is laughably bad.

But with that said, John Cusack has also famously disavowed many of his early movies that weren't, shall we say, high art....but his fans simply love. I believe he has softened his stance in recent years in this regard...



Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?