[.ca] The Bonfire of the Vanities (Widescreen/Full Screen) (ISBN 0790742446)

From Amazon.co.uk:
Is it time, after the anonymous disaster of Mission to Mars, to give Brian De Palma's famously doomed film of Tom Wolfe's bulky novel Bonfire of the Vanities another chance? The uproarious ins and outs of the film's troubled production have become well-known via Julie Salamon's account of its making, The Devil's Candy, and fans of that might want to flick between page and screen to see just when Melanie Griffith caused untold continuity problems by having her breasts inflated. Techno buffs will surely appreciate the pointless but somehow wonderful trickery of an extended tracking shot at the outset that exists only to last a few seconds longer than the one in Orson Welles Touch of Evil (1958). Tom Hanks was rather better cast than was generally allowed, as "master of the universe" Sherman McCoy, who comes a cropper after a hit-and-run accident, since his nice-guy act shows intriguing cracks. And even Bruce Willis does his best on a hiding to nothing as the drunken writer. It is funny in parts, agonising in others, and misses Wolfe's tone--but somehow its failures might make it as symptomatic of the long-gone excesses of the early 90s as the novel was of the 80s. --Kim Newman

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. This movie taken on it's own merit is fantastic! Bruce Willis is absolutely wonderful with his portrayal of the drunken journalist, and my favorite character from the movie. Melanie Griffith makes an excellent bad girl, as she tries worming her way out of trouble. F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hanks, and many more! This is one hell of a sleeper movie, and I am glad I finally found the DVD version. My suggestion is rent it, and if you love it as much as I do, then buy it!

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. If one wants to nit-pick, Bruce Willis was the odder casting choice for the drunken british journalist Peter Farrow. Melanie Griffith is perfect as Maria and the rest of the cast does just fine. The directing is handled with De Palma's usual blend of exellence and professionalism. The movie looks like a million dollars with fantastic cinematoghraphy by Vilmos Zsigmond (The opening title sequence is breathtaking!) It seems to me that the problem is that this is based on a beloved book that was on everybody's coffee table and book shelf in the 1980's and everyone had thier own preconceived notions about who should star. Maybe Hanks is too likable in the film as Sherman but having not read the book until after I saw the movie, I was thoroughly swept away by the plot and it's cast. It seems that critics were all set to destroy this film based on the casting announcements alone and De Palma could have made any variation of the book and it still would have taken a beating. Watch it with an open mind and enjoy. For crying out loud gang, it's only a movie. And a fine one at that. Give it a chance.

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. De Palma once again demonstrates he is a master of wit. The film was initially criticized, or rather misinterpreted, for being somehow 'lightweight.' If anything, the film is over-the-top! De Palma's choice for lavish sets and stunning cinematography (by vilmos zsigmond) in wall street upper class New York perfectly match the subject matter and commentary on the 1980s greed infested 'me' decade and Reagan/Bush era, adapted from Thomas Wolfe's popular novel. Critics howled that the film downplayed Wolfe's themes...people act like Tom Wolfe, albeit a talented writer, is somehow as deep as James Joyce or something. The message of the book is pretty darn simple people! and it translates very obviously, perhaps even too obviously, in the film. Not to mention the fact that film is a totally different medium than literature, and one should not expect a film to be exactly like the book. as for the miscasting criticism, it is true Hanks doesnt exactly perfectly fit the role of McCoy, but he doesnt take away from the movie. The supporting cast, however, is better than him. Griffith is fantastic, and Willis gives a performance that practically carries the movie. I think this film was very ambitious and ahead of its time, and will in the future eventually be recognized as a very good film.

No, the criticisms are spot on:
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.

De Palma doesn't do straight satire:
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.