Bonfire of the Vanities | | Cast : | Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Melanie Griffith | | Director : | Brian De Palma | | Studio : | Warner Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Dolby, Widescreen | | Released Date : | December 21, 1990 | | DVD Released Date : | June 01, 2004 | | Language : | Spanish (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 06, 2005 | | Summary | Tell the Critics to Take a Hike, This Is a Fine Film | Content
 | OK, everyone just "knows" that some films are really awful, like Ishtar, The Bonfire of the Vanities, etc. Funny how few people you know who actually saw those films, isn't it? I for one loved this funny, insightful film, and if there was any justice in the world, it would've won Brian DePalma a Best Director Oscar instead of being an albatross around his neck. In case you hadn't noticed, critics are (being human) subject to peer pressure, so when this movie was released in 1990, they acted like a herd of lemmings, all agreeing that it wasn't faithful to Tom Wolfe's novel (as if they had all read it), that it was miscast, etc. Well, I did read the novel, and in fact it is very faithful to the novel, though it improves on it in some ways (the final scene in court is much more satisfying in the movie than in the novel). Aside from that, any movie has to take a few liberties with its source novel (Gone with the Wind eliminated dozens of minor characters and incidents that were in the book, for example). As for miscasting, Hanks probably wasn't the ideal person to play wheeler-dealer Sherman McCoy, but he does well enough, and maybe his schoolboy vulnerability was needed for this character who would be easy to hate. Melanie Griffith does fine as the rich, dopey, randy mistress Maria, though she could've used a little more coaching on her Southern accent. The casting of Bruce Willis as the slimy writer Peter Fallow more than compensates for Hanks, as Willis perfectly captures Wolfe's presentation of this boozy, failed journalist who makes his name as a "compassionate" writer by giving the public the story if wants: heartless rich white guy McCoy injures a poor black kid from the South Bronx.
The truth is, the critics hated this movie because it is so un-PC. Journalists are depicted not as saintly do-gooders out to expose evil, but as selfish, lazy hacks who will gladly twist the facts to give readers a story they like. A black preacher character who is obviously modeled on Al Sharpton must've caused critics to groan, as did several other black characters who are depicted in a bad light. Rather than admit they hated the movie because it offended liberal sensibilities, critics claimed to base their distaste on the movie being unfaithful to the novel and to having some bad casting.
Timing is everything. This movie was released in 1990, a time when the public in general still had a lot of respect for journalists. Between then and now we've had years of talk radio and the Internet to teach us that journalists aren't nearly as objective and righteous as they appear. So I hope this film, so perfect for our skeptical age, in time will achieve status as a cult classic, especially for people who like to thumb their noses at Political Correctness. |
| Rating | | | Date | February 24, 2005 | | Summary | some movie. | Content
| 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 | | | Date | February 14, 2005 | | Summary | Good movie with a bad rep | Content
| 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 | | | Date | February 13, 2005 | | Summary | really bad | Content
| I agree with previous reviewers who have declared this movie "astoundingly bad." Indeed, while movies made after great books often fall short, I am hard pressed to think of a film that does such a disservice to a worthwhile book. Basically everything that could be bad about a movie is present here. The acting is atrocious, the directing is some of the worst I've ever seen. I would give this movie two stars for its amusement factor, but it is just tiring and disappointing. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 19, 2005 | | Summary | OK Movie, Except for Speech at the End | Content
| 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. |
|
Picture 01 (20)
