This movie is SO underrated


This is a great movie. I liked it when it came out and I still like it now.

reply

I agree.
I can't believe that it is so ignored by moviegoers that yours is the ONLY post in this board thus far (posted 6 days ago).

reply

Is it really good guys?
I only just read the book and i adored it!
How does Bruce Willis play an Englishman? Does he speak with a British accent?

reply

I have not read the book. I just love this movie for what it is. I know it dissapointed a lot of people because it was not very close to the book.

Willis does not play an Englishman in the movie.

For a better appreciation of this movie I recommend this book about how the movie was made: "The Devil's Candy: The Bonfire of the Vanities Goes to Hollywood" by Julie Salamon

reply

[deleted]

No he doesnt have an english accent. He sounds like he always does. The book are almost always better than the movie so if you like this book and want to keep liking it dont watch the movie. IT does it no justice.

reply

This is a great film !

De Palma's work has always been underrated.

Films like Blow Out, Scarface, Body Double, Dressed to Kill, Obsession.

Now they are considered movie classics

reply

Ditto everyone else, especially... I Thought I Was Alone!

This film was great. I own it on video and watch it about twice a year--it never gets stale. Why is it so disparaged??

And the blockbuster cast: Hanks, Willis, Griffith--quintessential, Cattrall--sexy, Rubinek ("I'm... THE assistant district attorney.")--hilarious, Freeman--towering, Hancock--Jackson/Sharpton.

The film admitedly DOESN'T mirror the book--the book is serious. As with most films-adapted-from-the-books, you have to see the film first and read the book second.

reply

I have to agree, this film is totally underrated.

A great cast, who all perform at a very high level and a great story. I especially like Morgan Freeman: ...Decency...decency is what your grandmother thaught you.

reply

[deleted]

Ditto again... I too love Morgan Freeman's portrayal, not to mention that of the preacher... The first scene where we see him in the pulpit.... spectacular. Sharpton satire to a tee...

Formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal. ~ Nietzsche

reply

The first time I knew Morgan Freeman was his role in Shawshank. I thought he was great. Then I watched this movie on TV.I went out and bought a DVD. Five years later, every once and awhile, I still take out the DVD and view his two scenes with a smile. How better can any actor be?

I think with the exception of Bruce Willis and Kim Cattrall, all the actors were great, including the black kid who yelled " 2 to 6 judge". This movie was made in 1990, I have to think very hard to find a better acted film than this including Shawshank. I urged everyone to find a DVD copy and enjoy it. It might not be a politically correct movie, but it is a classic in terms of acting. The only complaint I have is that the DVD picture quality is not good, but it is a 15 year old film.

I've never read the book because I think books and films are two completely different media serving different purposes. To compare them would be comparing oranges and apples, so they say.


reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

the main complaint is the obviously bad casting. As a DePalma fan, i must concede (especially with zilmos as the cinematogropher- think i spelled his name and career wrong though) that the visuals and sweeping images are brilliant. But the main reason people slam this film is the atrocious casting, william hurt would have been better then tom hanks for the simple reason hanks is too likable. This character, even just by the films standards and not the books, is supposed to be a unlikable charachter who through hardships becomes a different (maybe likable) person. Hanks, who has a spencer tracy/william holden sort of dignity and likability, is not right for this role.
Bruce Willis, of course, is awful in this film. This film was made before willis learned to stop using his moonlighting/die hard schtick in every movie.
The way he portrays the journalist is smirky, hypertense, and unbelievable. Bruce Willis as a journalist, even one for a murdoch owned paper,is about as believable as denise richards as a rocket scientist in that bond film.
Melanie Gritteth is not bad, but A) the breast implants in the middle of the film, which should have been postponed till after shooting and B) she doesnt radiate that "damn i would leave my wife for you" sexiness that is essential to the film. It is a well filmed film, like i said, and you cant argue with the direction, cinemaphotography, locations and morgan freeman (who should have been played by alan arkin) but this is not a exceptional film by any stretch of the imagination.

reply

[deleted]

I liked the movie. I agree with the fact that Hanks was too young for the part but it didn't detract from the movie for me.

reply


Agreed about the bad (scratch that) horrible casting choices.
Bruce Willis especially.
The character was a Steve Dunleavy type.
They should have gone with someone like Ian McKellen.
Now I love Brian DePalma and the majority of his work. Sisters and Femme Fatale especially.
But I fear Bonfire just collapsed under the weight of studio cowardice and a general fear by the suits calling the shots to make an honest adaptation of Wolfe's book.
Too bad.

reply

It isnt supposed to be believeable, none of the characters, save the judge, are. It's a satire.

My Karma ran over your dogma.

reply

Definitely a great film. The reviews make it clear that the book was so diferent that, those who read it first are simply incapable of enjoying the film. Luckily, I didn't, which is why I can appreciate and enjoy this underrated De Palma gem so much.

Prog.

reply

This is the worst film I have ever seen!

reply

I love this movie. I haven't read the book though. Eitherway I can't shake off the absurdly low rating as being a conspiracy!

reply

I doubt it's a conspiracy. Critics and the public have always been rough on De Palma despite the fact that he's only made one truly bad film (Mission To Mars). Bonfire is far from a perfect movie (the comedy tends to fall flat) but the opening steady-cam shot is amazing as is the music score. I think De Palma made the best possible film he could with what he had to work with.

reply

I think De Palma made the best possible film he could with what he had to work with.

Surely you jest. Have you read the novel? I enjoyed much of the movie and had no real issue with the casting and so forth. What I do have a problem with is how de Palma trivialized the whole thing at the end. He (or the producer or the screenwriter or all of them) decided the story would be about how the mistress is the villain. What? Are you kidding? The mistress is the bad guy and that's it?

Tom Wolfe had much bigger fish to fry and did a fantastic job in the admitedly huge novel. I understand that fitting a novel into a two hour movie is a difficult task and even more challenging when it is a 656 page tome. But if you bite off something that big don't get lazy and truncate the story with an absurd attempt to get the protagonist off the hook. Besides, if he was in the car (which was his) and they fled the scene and failed to report it then his "evidence" is not exonerating.

More importantly it changes the whole trajectory of the character played by Hanks who grows and transcends the events. In the novel he is a better man at the end while in the movie he just weasels out by shifting the blame onto his female companion. As a result the movie is a failure. All the possibly good work that was attempted was wiped out by the absurd ending.

reply

The mistress is the bad guy, and that´s it? How could you possibly get to this conclusion, after watching the film?

reply

It's good I found this thread here because I would probably think I must have gone mad or my sense of humour is somehow distorted. The rating of this film is a capital proof one cannot rely on ratings.

The film might be bad as an adaptation of the novel. I can't judge that, because I haven't read it. In fact, it is only here that I found any novel exists. I understand that people who read and liked it might be critical of the film, if it's not a faithful adaptation. However, there is no reason why we shouldn't consider this film as an independent creation without comparing it to anything beyond itself.

As to the film, great acting (I don't see why "overacting" should be a flaw in a comedy), great camera work, a wonderful social satire. This is really one of the funniest films I have ever seen, and not many comedies make me laugh or even smile. The only reason I could imagine for the generally bad reviews (if they are really so bad) is the terror of political correctness that keeps the USA and increasingly Europe in its iron grip.

De Palma is probably best known for his classic gangster films ("Carlito's Way" and "Scareface"). But he is an equally talented comedy director. Check out "Wise Guys". In my private ranking of comedies, both these films are easily within the top ten. "Wise Guys" are rated even below 6 on imdb. Horror, horror...


reply

Good, now I know it'll at least be worth th $5.50 price in the bargain bin. I imagine it's better than blowing money on 3 episodes of Andy Griffith.

--Money can't buy happiness? So I guess I'll have to rent it.--

Matt S.

reply