Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
an important step in tom hanks filmography, 25 Sep 2002
Bonfire of the vanities is clearly an underestimated movie. Tom Hanks and his mistress, Melanie Griffith, lose their way and accidentially kill a boy. Hanks gets the responsibility in order to hide his secret affair, but finds himself in the middle of a head hunt. Everybody wants this young, rich, succesful, guy's head for different reasons and the outcome is really satirical.Great director Brian de Palma lets Hanks to mess things up, tells the story mostly from the eyes of a rotten journalist played by Bruce Willis and sums it up with a good final. Tom Hanks in the middle of his filmographie, is not as powerful as in Philadelphia, Forrest Gump or Saving Private Ryan but this movie is certainly a step forward. In Bonfire of the Vanities you can see the coming performances after his immature acting stuff in movies like Big, The Man With One Red Shoe or Bachelor Party. Melanie Griffith in one of her best performances, plays the selfish mistress who does anything to buy her way out. Bruce Willis is as usual. If you like him as David Addison in Moonlighting series, then you wont be disappointed with this one. Solid performances from experienced actors like Morgan Freeman, Saul Rubinek and Donald Moffat is also welcomed. Dave Gruisin's musical score is good.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
De Palma doesn't do straight satire., , 8 Feb 2008
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.
|
|
|
6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Bonfire Of The Vanities, 10 April 2005
I've read several times that the film of the Bonfire of the Vanities is nothing when compared to Tom Wolfe's original book, but even so for those, like me, who have never read the book, the film version is an awfully clever piece of satirical film making.The story takes characters from all avenues of New York life and then basically picks holes and mocks each and every one of them. From the hustle and bustle of the "greed is good" Wall Street traders to the "Practise what I preach, not what I do" of the corrupt gospel church leader. From the sycophantic friendships of the well healed to the self-serving attitudes of the gold digging lover. Some of these characters do have a tendency to become slight caricatures of themselves but the film in general never slips into the realms of fantasy. The main leads are on the whole well played. Certainly Tom Hanks gives a good account of himself and makes the audience swing from distaste to sympathy with his character. Melanie Griffiths is probably the best out of the three headline acts even though personally I cannot stand the woman and cannot for the life of me work out why she is (or was) considered a beauty? Most disappointing is Bruce Willis who brings nothing to his character when the role could have really been developed and made more of. But the real beauty in the film lies with the actors in more minor roles. Pick of the bunch is probably Morgan Freeman, but lesser known actors such as Saul Rubinek as the Assistant district Attorney and John Hancock as the Reverend Bacon really put in some good work. All in all the film has some cracking one-off scenes and is well worth a watch.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|