The Hotel New Hampshire
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.39 You Save: $6.59 (66%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.49 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Hotel New Hampshire
Movie Review: not so good
Summary: 2 Stars
I absolutely loved the John Irving book that this was based upon. Very quirky (especially for it's time), hilariously funny, and the characters he created were magnificent. In my opinion however, the movie was uninteresting and only mildly funny. Not many movies do justice to the books they've been based upon, for many reasons. This is no excuse for Hotel New Hampshire however. Irving's "World according to Garp" was a superb book (similar in length and complexity to Hotel NH), and was made into a very good movie. I'd recommend checking out that one instead if you want to see a John Irving novel of this period on film.Movie Review: Keep Passing the Hopeless Adaptations
Summary: 1 Stars
Verdict first - What a load of (...)! And why should I bother to explain this? Nothing in this this movie is explained to me. But I will anyway. This is supposed to be an adaptation of the John Irving novel of the same name. But if you call pushing the 10 most individually photogenic pieces from a 1000-piece jigsaw into a loose assemblage an adaption, then you'll call Natasha Kinski in a bear suit a grizzly.
This movie would have done much better to focus on one character, one relationship, or one section of the novel. This would have allowed the makers the chance to develop some depth or at least explain the events that barge erratically and irritatingly past us.
As it is, nothing is explained. In an early rape scene involving Jodie Foster's character (of course), her brother manages to find a group of "coloreds" to belatedly rescue her. Where they come from in this rural, white, middle-class, New England environment is not explained, nor is it explained why they agree to get involved.
After a few more disjointed scenes, the whole family decides to migrate to Vienna. As the movie doesn't bother to explian why, those who haven't read Irvings novl are left to conclude that they must have some kind of 'homing instinct' for this European capital.
The psychology behind "Susie the Bear" is also skimped on; Lili's suicide is pointlessly included with her "passing through an open window" merely after being asked a tough question by a book reviewer; the Vienna radicals and prostitutes are only afforded comic cut-out status; and the incest between the brother and sister ends up being presented like a cartoon caper.
Everywhere in this overloaded little film, eccentric facade triumphs over the intriguing insights into the strange and comic events of life that we usually get in John Irving novels.
Obviously what's wrong with this film - apart from an over-young cast who aren't capable of keeping the hurly-burly circus of odd scenes and characters believable - is the whole notion of capitaliizing on a popular novel. Cinema and writing are different media. A novel can revel in a great web of causation, whereas a movie is better at capturing the subtleties of the moment.
By using the novel's title, the filmmakers believe they have an obligation to touch on every character and event in the original novel with a crude disregard for artistic unity, resulting in a travesty for which the director should be thrown through an open window. "Keep passing the open windows," and don't stop for this hopeless adaptation either.
Movie Review: Unrelenting, spastic sequence of absurd, tasteless,unsavory moments
Summary: 1 Stars
THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE (1984) in theory should have been a
fascinating, exciting movie with a lot of crowd-drawing power, from
its all-star cast, made up of Jodie Foster, Nastassja Kinski, Rob
Lowe and more, all in their prime ... aged 20 to 30 years, at the
time.
Unfortunately, this picture was written in 1 of 3 possible ways:
someone who's adapted the painting technique of throwing buckets of
paint at a canvas, calling himself a painter, and the result, a
painting to the movies; or someone with the mental age of 10; or
someone who has not only totally lost their mind, and has lost touch
with reality, in the present, and in their past.
Of course, it's a treat to see Foster, Kinski, Lowe in action, as
they are truly talented, in bringing forth subtle human
undercurrents, and visual expressions to the camera and audience.
But, this work apparently attempts to carry to the silver screen, a
novel in the style of Kurt Vonnegut, for example, or Douglas Adams,
who wrote Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, among others. I haven't
read, (and now, would probably decline to ever read) the original
manuscript or novel, but, most would probably give the benefit of
the doubt to the underlying book author.
In terms of movie, though, there's indubitably no redeeming value to
it, as it's a unrelenting, spastic sequence of absurd, tasteless,
unnecessary, unsavory moments, involving taboo after taboo,
intermixed with a sugar coating, to perhaps confusem, fool and
mesmerize the censors or movie rating authorities.
The sugar coating of the taboos, might perhaps make palatable the
underlying sequences to those with a low IQ, or perhaps to children,
but for all others, including teenagers, or seniors or those with a
wicked sense of humor, there's really no coherent story progressing
over the 90 mins.
As such, and the best remedy is really the fast forward button on
the DVD player, or, if you prefer (as was the case, in the 80's when
this work was released), getting up from your chair, and walking out
of the theatre.
Movie Review: Unrelenting, spastic sequence of absurd, tasteless,unsavory moments
Summary: 1 Stars
THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE (1984) in theory should have been a
fascinating, exciting movie with a lot of crowd-drawing power, from
its all-star cast, made up of Jodie Foster, Nastassja Kinski, Rob
Lowe and more, all in their prime ... aged 20 to 30 years, at the
time.
Unfortunately, this picture was written in 1 of 3 possible ways:
someone who's adapted the painting technique of throwing buckets of
paint at a canvas, calling himself a painter, and the result, a
painting to the movies; or someone with the mental age of 10; or
someone who has not only totally lost their mind, and has lost touch
with reality, in the present, and in their past.
Of course, it's a treat to see Foster, Kinski, Lowe in action, as
they are truly talented, in bringing forth subtle human
undercurrents, and visual expressions to the camera and audience.
But, this work apparently attempts to carry to the silver screen, a
novel in the style of Kurt Vonnegut, for example, or Douglas Adams,
who wrote Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, among others. I haven't
read, (and now, would probably decline to ever read) the original
manuscript or novel, but, most would probably give the benefit of
the doubt to the underlying book author.
In terms of movie, though, there's indubitably no redeeming value to
it, as it's a unrelenting, spastic sequence of absurd, tasteless,
unnecessary, unsavory moments, involving taboo after taboo,
intermixed with a sugar coating, to perhaps confusem, fool and
mesmerize the censors or movie rating authorities.
The sugar coating of the taboos, might perhaps make palatable the
underlying sequences to those with a low IQ, or perhaps to children,
but for all others, including teenagers, or seniors or those with a
wicked sense of humor, there's really no coherent story progressing
over the 90 mins.
As such, and the best remedy is really the fast forward button on
the DVD player, or, if you prefer (as was the case, in the 80's when
this work was released), getting up from your chair, and walking out
of the theatre.
Movie Review: Please spare me the agony...!!
Summary: 1 Stars
A savagely bad movie, adapting John Irving's novel wherein the baby boomer generation attempts to digest the muddled narcissism of the '70s. That description, however, gives this flick too much credit. Mostly this is just a terrible film -- badly written, uninvolving and lurching about without apparent purpose, and without an emotional center. An incestual relationship between brother and sister, amid a wacky, unconventional family is supposed to somehow elicit our sympathies -- but its execution is as flat an unbelievable as the rest of the film. The cast, however, has some nice celeb-spotting eye-candy: Jody Foster, Wallace Shawn, and a 9-year old Seth Green. Rob Lowe is the movie's sole saving grace... As the perv-bound sibling, he was certainly breaking out of his brat pack bimbo typecasting; it's fascinating to see him working on the quirks and mannerisms he later built into a solid acting style. And at age 19, he's pretty hunky... easy on the eyes. But other than a chance to see a bunch of famous folks at an odd moment in their careers, this film is a total waste of time. (See also: "The Royal Tennenbaums.")