Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-20 02:31:16

An unexpected surprise

I have forgone watching this film until now, due to the very bad reviews and the fear of seeing one of my favourite authors pulverized in a travesty of one of his great works. But, one of my kids brought the film home, so I bit that bullet and sat down and watched it. You've read enough reviews by now to get some gist of the story, so I won't go into that again, except to say that it has to do with the madness that results from living a completely amoral and unfulfilling existence. Vonnegut is, I believe, primarily a philosopher and a very funny man who has the rare talent of pulling all of life's absurdities into some kind of focus. It is true that his books do not translate well to the screen because it is his dialogue that is so important and this is generally excluded. However. Breakfast of Champions, however much it could not remain completely faithful to the book, stands as a work of art in its own right. It is very Terry Gilliam in its approach and over-all strangeness, including the plethora of eccentric characters; the cinematography is superb and the acting is brilliant. If you like Gilliam and cult films and David Lynch, you'll probably enjoy this film. If, on the other hand, you tend more towards Speilberg, you will probably find the film an incomprehensible mess. I absolutely do not agree with those who off-handedly bashed the film to pieces as there was a great deal of thought and even love put into this film, and the fact that some find it incomprehensible does not mean that it isn't, only that they are incapable of understanding and appreciating it.

David Ramsey 2012-05-19 15:39:37

Brilliant. Vonnegut fans will be in Heaven!

If you're a Vonnegut fan this movie is brilliant. If you're not I wouldn'trecommend it. Breakfast of Champions is the best example of Vonnegut'sworkever to appear on the screen. It is hilarious, the acting is brilliant.Nolte deserves an Oscar!!!

rommiej 2012-05-16 08:21:21

Hello, Blue Monday

Even if you're a huge fan of Vonnegut's books (and I am), you won'tnecessarily enjoy this adaptation, but it certainly helps. It's been a whilesince I read "Breakfast of Champions," but I can't imagine why anyone wouldeven _try_ to make a movie out of it. As I recall, the book itself couldonly be fully appreciated if you'd already read "Slaughterhouse Five" and"God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater." This big-screen effort requires the viewerto have an equally extensive familiarity with Vonnegut's works, not just inorder to fully enjoy it, but to make any sense out of itwhatsoever.The video box attempts to portray "Breakfast of Champions" as some sort ofquirky, offbeat comedy, but in fact it's as frustratingly incoherent as itis relentlessly unfunny. Shame, considering the novel's mesmerizing latticeof coincidence, paranoia and hilarious satire. Of course, I was in collegewhen I first read it, and at the time generally in a chemically-inducedhaze. The (few) people who enjoy this adaptation seem to be in similarstates of mind.Anyone who hasn't read the book will likely see "Breakfast of Champions" asa sad attempt to make a wacky, surreal farce in the gonzo vein of "Fear andLoathing." Anyone who's familiar with both books knows that makes it anabysmal misfire.Very disappointing, to say the least. If you're a Vonnegut and/or Nolte fan,see "Mother Night" instead.

anonymous 2012-05-15 19:25:12

Excellent satire/conversion of book

Actually, it was quite refreshing to see the "action movie" actors, BruceWillis and Nick Nolte, playing their absurd roles in this unexpectedlywell-implemented transformation of Kurt Vonnegut's novel -- one that wouldseem to defy filming. The satire, dangerously close to American reality,was not only as true as feasibly possible to the spirit of the originalbook, but was at times quite humorous in its own right.Enjoy this film (from beginning to end), and keep a (swift) eye out forVonnegut's cameo as the "director" of the car-lot commercial.

Nadja-6 2012-05-12 11:50:48

AAAAWWWWFFFFUUUULLLL!!!!!

This movie sucks. The only redeeming portion of the movie was Nick Nolteinred satin lace lingerie. This movie doesn't have a plot, makes no sense,and IMO is a waste of money and time. I guess all actors have to make adud- you've had yours Bruce, now get on with your career.I urge anyone reading this who hasn't seen the movie - DON'T DO IT. Thismovie can be added to the top 10 worst movies of all time (to joinDune).

Alan Goodenough 2012-05-11 18:52:02

One of the coolest films i've seen in a long time

This film is one of the most insane things I have ever seen on video. Ithought it was totally trippy.. confusing, but not in that way which makesyou think "i can't be bothered to watch this."I thought it was brilliantly filmed and had fantastic performances by theentire cast. Nick Nolte was especially funny. My favorite character by farthough was the writer, Kilgore Trout. Cynical and quite quite mad.fantastic!!I highly recommend this film if you want to watch somethingdifferent.

f_boone_99 2012-05-05 15:23:05

All the right ingredients, but poorly mixed together

I thing there is a popular misconception that Vonnegut's novel cannotbe adapt to the big screen, I disagree, If you look at films likeMother Night or Slaughter House 5, it shows that with a little effortand care a Vonnegut film can be done perfectly. I think the problemthat most filmmakers have is that they try to "reinvision" his work andthis always leads to failure. This is the case with Breakfast ofChampions a movie that veers so far of the course that you wonder ifanyone involved read the book The casting is perfect, Bruce Willis andAlbert Finney as Dwayne Hoover and Kilgore Trout are dead on perfectbut all the whimsey and humor are gone this is suppose to be a story oftwo men on an journey but this film just turns it into a bad comedyabout a used car salesmen *Spoiler and correct me if I'm wrong, butwasn't Dwaynes wife being dead a huge plot point in the book, and hereshe's alive and kicking whats that all about my advise to allfilmmakers attempting to do Vonnegut, or any novel, Respect the sourcematerial

2012-05-05 05:26:06

Don't Even Trip

This is a great adaptation. Just finished reading this book, and I watched the movie before hand. To all those out there: STOP SEEING MOVIES AND EXPECTING EXACT TRANSLATIONS. If you want to read a book and see a movie, remember this tagline: The screenwriter of this movie was a screenwriting machine not a book writing machine. The book writing machine did a great job that some other reading machines hate, while the screenwriting machine did its job great, and so on. Listen: The essence was there the whole time, and yes it touched me deeply, however of course it did because I'm the only one with free will from the Creator. Okay, get it? Calm down, stop gritting your teeth while watching this movie and go watch Garbage Pail Kids and see what could happen with a movie in the worst case scenario. Ghastly!!!

Alun Ward 2012-05-05 03:44:01

You're right it's not Vonnegut, it's Rudolph and it's great!

Let's skip the "it's not like the book" stuff - I've read and loved all V'sworks, like most of the commentators here, but this is a film in it's ownright. Yes the happy end is a bit unoriginal, but also unsurprising in amajor league film like this. Can't expect miracles :-)It's also greatly superior to Fear and Loathing, mostly thanks to the superbperformances. It didn't 100% click for me - perhaps Willis was a little too distantsometimes, but the film contained some hilarious moments, especially thoseinvolving Nick Nolte, and some moving moments such as Kilgore's encounterswith mirrors. It was great to see such big movie names involved in thispretty risky off-beat movie. Visually beautiful too - even the toxic slime! So if you're a Vonnegut fan just be careful when you go to the film - leaveyour righteous reader's indignation at home, and if you haven't readVonnegut, this film should definitely make you want to.

revcosmo 2012-05-04 07:37:06

excellent adaptation of (i think) vonnegut's best work

Alan Rudolph did a fine job of bringing my favourite Kurt Vonnegutnovel to the screen. The casting selection was excellent, everyone getstheir characters down very well. Albert Finney was probably thehighlight, his characterisation of Kilgore Trout was just perfect.Bruce Willis, Barbara Hershey, Nick Nolte, Lukas Hass, Omar Epps, andGlenne Headly were also all fabulous in their roles. The tone of thefilm was a near perfect reflection of the tone of the book; a mix ofwhimsy, paranoia, confusion, and alienation.However, I can see this as being the sort of film you either love orhate. You either get it, or you don't. If you're not the sort of personwho understands that humour and suffering can be the same thing, it'sprobably not a film you'll enjoy. I think that the key to much ofVonnegut's writing, and Rudolph and his cast do a beautiful job ofbringing that to the screen.

williama 2012-05-01 17:25:40

You either get it, or you don't ...

Just as Vonnegut's books are not "understood" by most readers, anyfilmsbased on them will be beyond the grasp of most movie viewers. This is notamainstream film, but as near a delight to Vonnegut fans as any film basedonhis work is likely to be, until someone is brave enough to film"Galapagos."It may have been misleading to have Bruce Willis, Nick Nolte, BarbaraHershey, et al. in this film. This is not "Die Hard" or "48 Hours". If youhaven't read the book, you'd probably be totally lost. It is loud andquirky, much like the bulk of Vonnegut's writing. The ending wasdefinitelydisappointing, but how do you end a movie with "etc?"If you're a Vonnegut fan, it's a must. If not, it's probably amistake -go to the multiplex instead, and eat popcorn with imitationbutter.

Peculiar Julia 2012-05-01 03:36:05

The dog's breakfast

I like Vonnegut in print, but this screen adaptation was too unfocused andunhinged. I was the only person in the cinema [the biggest and newest inBirmingham] and I can see why. The message about modern life and itssoul-sapping relentless consumerism and commercialism was rather lost intheover-acting of Bruce Willis and underwhelming performance by BarbaraHershey. However... the Bunny character was nicely deranged, and AlbertFinney is always lovely. But, can someone tell me, what on earth happenedto the budgie?

the coyote 2012-04-28 00:49:06

Didn't live up to the book, but wasn't worthless

I think that the only way a viewer could get any enjoyment out of thismoviewould be to first read the book. The movie is a far from completeadaptation, however this book is far from easy to adapt. Quite probablyfarfrom possible. The only Vonnegut novel to ever be well adapted was MotherNight.Albert Finney saves this film as much as his character is capable ofdoing.As Kilgore Trout, Vonnegut's fictional alter ego, Finney shines with asortof cynical wisdom. His epiphanal little truths, however, cannot justifythedeepness that this movie so wishes it could reach. Unimpressive effectsanda haphazard script cannot begin to support the ideals that are beingattempted.Bruce Willis does better than he usually does, but still tries a littletoohard. Nick Nolte's character is portrayed with detached humor that robshimof any real emotional value. And Omar Epps is...well...OmarEpps.All this being said, I don't regret seeing it. It was a bit of adisappointment, but not as much of one as I expected. There's a tag linefor the preview.

Fritz Langlois 2012-04-27 13:46:01

Right here write now

Director Alan Rudolph only makes good films. This time he's on theloose for good, with a vengeance, for this is a RIOT and should be seenby all decent and slightly paranoid human beings. Bruce Willis hasnever been so good. Give us more of that, Bruce, and no more Armageddoncrap please. Nick Nolte is AMAZING as the car-seller dressed in women'sclothes. And there's the ever most beautiful woman in the world,Barbara Hershey, whose presence in any film is enough to send me toanother plane of consciousness. As to Albert Finney (TWO FOR THE ROAD),he's at his best as a grumpy underground writer who is about the onlyone to act like a human being. What a cast ! Accompanied by a fittingexotica soundtrack, the film is about the falsehood of the AmericanDream (or am I mistaken ?), and it hits many itchy topics. Thedirection points to new directions (repetition intended) incinema-making : as an example, words and cartoons are included in somefeverish sequences. Clever, mind-stirring, hilariously funny in itsdepiction of characters, it is up there with Cronemberg's NAKED LUNCHand Gilliam's FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS (and similarly adaptedfrom a book). How such a film could be made today is little short of amiracle. A healthy dose of iconoclastic intelligence. Rudolph andVonnegut be proud.

2012-04-25 09:58:38

I wish there was a choice for zero stars.....

First off, even if you have read the book and enjoy Kurt Vonnegut's novels, if you attempt to understand this movie your face will explode. It is completely non-sensical. I had not read the book, and to me this was as fun as setting my crotch on fire. The person I watched the movie with had read the book, and to him it was as fun as setting your crotch on fire and trying to put it out with your face. Watching Nick Nolte's long and enduring preformances were like watching someone try to start a car by licking the battery. It makes you cringe and just doesn't work. The movie follows the rising insanity of Dwayne Hoover (Bruce Willis) that occurs for no apparent reason, because the reason is that his wife committed suicide, but his wife didn't commit suicide in the movie because she is a character that is alive. A character that doesn't exist in the book (?). As someone who hadn't read the book I didn't even know the wife was alive because the scenes she appears in are....confusing. If this sounds like a painfully insane and rambling review, it is because this is a painfully insane and rambling movie. I still seek for the reason behind why his son lives in a fallout shelter beneath his house if his father is a millionaire who can afford to house three people. Why does Hoover turn magically sane from hearing that "life is what you do while you hear" (or something like that)? It made me feel as warm and wholesome as throwing dead kittens at preschoolers. And what is up with his wife (the non-existant character) throwing him shoes and yelling "take the shoes!" What the hell does that even mean! He has to cross a river? To what? His freedom? What was in the water? Why is this happening? Where am I? Why am I here? Why am I so angry? Why do I hate myself enough to still be watching this? I'm sure glad the director is confident enough in his story writing and directing ability that he can throw off the terribly confining shackles of the book he chose to base his movie on entirely and make up a bunch of crazy things that makes no sense at all. I think it's ironic that a movie about a completely insane man who eventually becomes happy at the end can make a happy man go completely insane by the end. If someone said to me, "Hey, want to watch Breakfast of Champions again?" I'd say "No thanks, I'd rather see how many licks it takes to get to the center of a car battery!"

2012-04-24 20:19:04

Another of my favourite S.F. author

I've the most of Vonnegut's S.F. books on my bookshelfs. Despite my often changing adress in my life, I've hang on to my S.F. literature, and now i'ts possible to get the movies too.

2012-04-20 22:44:46

Not an exact duplicate of novel, but in its spirit

This is a movie you have to get into. True, it isn't the same as the novel, but the message is similiar. After getting drunk and watching it again, it brings back a massage that was lost the first time. True, it didn't end the way I hoped, but it something to make Vonnegut proud. Or way else would he be in it

2012-04-20 12:18:06

Breakfast of Champions? Not!

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is the epitome of inane garbage. It is really bad. I would rather endure the "Braveheart treatment" than ever watch this movie again. This movie makes any Pauly Shore movie look like an Oscar winner by comparison. I hate to imagine how much money was wasted on this movie. It's bad. Period.

2012-04-17 17:41:21

Not nearly as "bad" as you may have heard

The truth? "Breakfast of Champions" is a very well-made, well-acted and artistically conscious film. But it is also extremely uncommercial, slow-paced and incomprehensible. The bottom line is this: If you've read the brilliant masterpiece written by "Father" Kurt Vonnegut, then the door swings both ways. You may like it or you may despise it. But, hey, at least they ATTEMPTED to do justice to the greatest book ever written. I watched it with someone who hadn't read the book, and he enjoyed the movie for it's zaniness. But he's probably one of the few. The fact is the plot will make absolutely no sense to people who haven't read the book. The book had no linear plot. The reviewer that had qualms with the "happy" ending is somewhat correct. But the ending is not as Hollywoodized as you may think, and after all, the screenplay HAD to end SOMEWHERE. It was the only way that Alan Rudolph could put his script together. He had to find some way to make it cohesive. In any case, the film is probably of interest to Vonnegut devotees only. I'm a Vonnegut devotee who "liked" it. Judge for yourself. But if you've never read the book then don't bother watching the film. On it's own it's a strange concoction that's interesting without being particularly satisfying.

2012-04-17 09:19:32

Excellent movie but hard to understand

This movie is one of my favorite movies.I have read the book and this movie is not a perfect adaption but it must have been hard to adapt to the big screen.