The Bonfire of the Vanities (Widescreen/Full Screen)

 

 

Create your own review

I too must get on the bandwagon and say THIS IS NOT A BAD MOVIE. Not great, certainly, but a very entertaining one. When this movie first came out, I think too many people (critics) compared it to the book which was a disservice to the film. Seeing it now, we thought it was quite entertaining (two friends joined me) and Tom Hanks and Melanie Griffith were a good match. I would recommend this film to anyone. Maybe time is on its side.

Personally, I watched the movie without having read the book, which could be seen as both a good and a bad thing. On one hand, it allows me to judge the film as exactly that - a film, with no other conflicting point of reference to cloud my opinions. On the other, it means I'm pretty much ignorant as to whether or not the screen version succeeds or fails in living up to its story's potential. 'The Bonfire Of The Vanities' is a good film: nothing more, nothing less. So why, then, was it so universally slated by critics at the time of its big screen release? The answer, it would seem, is the overwhelming popularity of the piece of literature it was based on, Tom Wolfe's novel of the same name.

This movie is played on the borderline "tragedy and comic" the result, in my opinion, is a very interesting mix of ironic situations. Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is on top of his game and is the top dog in one of the top financial firms in the city. He has money in spades, a socialite wife, a Park Avenue apartment, a mistress and a very nice car. While out with that same mistress Maria (Griffith) in that same expensive car, Sherman takes a wrong turn and ends up in the Bronx where, in a moment of panic at being confronted by crowds of African Americans, Maria suddenly hits a black man and they drive off back to normal white society. Sadly for Sherman, this minor incident escalates when the boy goes into a coma and his car is identified as the one involved, Add to this a DA who desperately needs to win the ethnic vote by prosecuting a rich white person and a journalist who, desperate to get off skid row, talks up the story with a series of sensationalist headlines that twist the truth. As these factors all come into play, Sherman's tidy, rich, world starts to crumble.

Griffith is great along with Tom even though he didn't win anything his performance is good. Bruce Willis is very funny as an alcoholic reporter who follows this New York scandal, I know we all like Bruce in action movies but he does well on this job. Morgan Freeman really catches your attention as an no-nonsense judge, seem suited to their roles. Really the plot in this movie is odd but watch it you see how it develops and relates to the lifestyles of the characters. I know that Brian DePalma has done better than this but remember many times a novel doesn't do well on the big screen. Again, "The Bonfire of the Vanities" was an '80s story based on a Tom Wolfe bestseller so don't blame Brian he done as good a job possible the cast had plenty of talent and that's why this movie is great and out of the ordinary.

A few people have attempted to exonerate this rather tragic adaptation of Tom Wolfe's classic novel of 1980s New York and have explained their reasons.

Firstly, one reviewer stated, "Melanie Griffith is perfect as Maria and the rest of the cast does just fine." Three words: Good... God... no. And another two: Just no. Allow me to explain. Firstly it's not just that Griffith is such a far cry from the rather more refined (if supremely vapid and "no Comp. Lit. scholar") Maria Ruskin of the book (who is described as appearing somewhat Italian), though there certainly is that, rather it's that casting Griffith in any role, in any movie is miscasting, in my humble opinion. It's hard not to be annoyed by her in this movie especially... and of course there's the issue of her rather spontaneous breast enlargement halfway through filming leading to some rather unusual continuity issues.

Another reviewer said it is "funny and tragic at the same time". Much of the tragic - the inexorable decline of Sherman McCoy - in the novel is lost here because of the clear desire to make it more light-hearted and over-the-top than the book was. Whereas in the book the reader feels an almost palpable fear as Sherman lies awake in the long hours of the night before his arrest, all that is gone from the movie, replaced by scenes that can only be described as silly - such as Tom Hanks' rather clumsily executed discussion with Pollard about leaving his apartment wherein he draws a shotgun from the closet and threatens Pollard and the rest of his party guests with it. Utterly ridiculous. Furthermore there's the fact that all the cold, arrogant, pure Wasp mannerisms of Sherman McCoy (not to mention his 'Yale chin') have vanished to be replaced with the altogether different idiosyncrasies of Hanks. Additionally too much time is spent trying to make Sherman a likeable character in order to make the film more audience-friendly.

The reviewer quoted in the above paragraph puts the criticism down to politics. Apparently criticism of this film is due to some vast liberal conspiracy. I've heard this nonsense spouted before a number of times, so I couldn't help responding to it here. THE MOVIE IS A WEAK, DILUTED, POLITICALLY CORRECT VERSION OF THE BOOK. In an attempt to appease politically-correct sentiments within Hollywood the hard-edged, tough little Jewish judge Myron Kovitsky is transformed into an African-American played by Morgan Freeman (on the explicit basis that the only prominent black character is originally the Reverend Bacon who is quite a negative figure). The book had it's back broken and padded gloves put on it before it made the big screen. Which raises the question: if the criticisms this film receives are due to its controversial portrayal of liberal race politics, then why did not the much more controversial and hard-hitting novel receive similar if not greater criticism?

The answer is simple. This is a weak, poorly adapted film, suitably sanitised and dumbed down for Hollywood. If this is criticised more than other adaptations it is simply because the material has gone so much further downhill than is usual - starting at such lofty heights and plunging to such frankly ridiculous lows.

So what else is wrong with this film? Well the casting is always identified (beyond the already covered issue of Hanks and Griffith). There is the utterly bizarre decision to put Bruce Willis (an actor I quite like) in as Peter Fallow, the result being a wonderfully unique and fascinating character is lost completely. So many great British actors could have been brought in to play the role of Fallow... why on Earth was Willis chosen? Incidentally Willis would have been perfect as Assistant DA LARRY Kramer.

While some of the changes were quite necessary and sensible (merging certain minor characters, for example) in order to convert a book of this length into a two hour film, there is much that just defies understanding. Indeed the only reason I didn't give this film one star was that the technical execution is of a fairly high standard - especially the oft commented on opening shot of the Manhattan skyline.

I hope one day we see a remake that doesn't so horrendously miss the point.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 39 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars Woefully underestimated!
I picked up this movie for only $1 at a local rummage sale without knowing anything about it. I have since watched my VHS copy so many times that it finally stopped playing. Read more

Published on April 16 2004 by R. Cecil

4.0 out of 5 stars Let's set the record straight!
This is a good movie! Forget about the miscasting quibbles about Tom Hanks. He does an amiable job with Sherman McCoy. Read more

Published on April 13 2004 by the masked reviewer

5.0 out of 5 stars one of the most under-rated films of all time
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... Read more

Published on Mar 30 2004

1.0 out of 5 stars UGGGGHH!..
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"). Read more

Published on April 26 2003 by David W. Coleman

4.0 out of 5 stars This Bonfire Burns Bright
Great movie: it is funny and tragic at the same time. All of the bad reviews stem from one fact only, and that is, the brutal, unvarnished portrayal of liberal race politics. Read more

Published on Mar 18 2003 by unraveler

5.0 out of 5 stars AWESOME!
Make no mistake. If you are thinking about buying this movie, do not think, just buy. It is laughs from start to finish. Read more

Published on Jan 12 2003 by james j sitterly

1.0 out of 5 stars This is a bad film
It just doesn't work as a film, and it doesn't work as the adaptation of the book. As a film it lacks characterisation - the director doesn't do the work establishing the... Read more

Published on Oct 28 2002 by Matthew Bain

4.0 out of 5 stars Much better than I expected.
After all the horrible reviews when this film first came out, I steered clear of it. I recently watched it and I can see where some of the criticisms are well deserved. Read more

Published on Sep 5 2002

4.0 out of 5 stars An extra star for being unfairly maligned
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? Read more

Published on April 13 2002 by pm444

4.0 out of 5 stars A dead tire?
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... Read more

Published on Feb 26 2002 by Cutre

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 39 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!