I'm a big Hanks fan, have seen everything he's done and this to me is the only time that he has ever looked like he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He has never looked more lost, unsure of himself and awkward in a movie. This the only bad movie he's ever done that he couldn't elevate or save. Usually he's the best thing about a crap movie that he should've had the sense to turn down...not this time
shareHanks is WOEFULLY miscast. The part is supposed to be basically unsympathetic...and Hanks always comes across like an aging boy scout.
.
Hanks is WOEFULLY miscast. The part is supposed to be basically unsympathetic...and Hanks always comes across like an aging boy scout.
“The Bonfire of the Vanities” (1990) is based on the 1987 novel of the same title by Tom Wolfe. The novel depicts with a tinge of nostalgia the cross section of New York society of the 1980s. The film, with 34-year-old Tom Hanks in the leading role as third generation “Master of the Universe” in a midlife crisis, manages to misinterpret entirely both the atmosphere and the message, reducing the storyline to a farce. It resembles a slapstick comedy rather than a witty and imaginative attempt at social critique.share
This was Hanks’s eighth film role, and it betrays his limited scope. Melanie Griffiths, who was Hanks’s choice, is desperately miscast as his “foxy” much younger mistress, his lust for whom consumes him. The actress was 33 at the time of filming. She'd already had extensive cosmetic surgery by then, and looked much older than her age due to years of alcohol and drug abuse. The chemistry between them is very poor.
Kim Cattrall of Sex and the City, who was only 34 at the time the film was made, plays Hanks’s dowdy middle-aged wife.
Bruce Willis plays a bent journalist who helps with a cover-up, but is made to look more like a university professor in the role.
Donald Moffat, cast as Hanks’s scrupulous father, is the film’s only saving grace, conveying accurately the character in the novel and, even though he was only 63 at the time the film was made, manages to appear older, adopting a Lloyd Bridges presence.
The film was a financial loss, grossing only $15.6 Million against a $47 Million budget.
Tom Wolfe was so desperate for money, that he sold the film rights to Warner Bros. for just $750,000, without retaining even a modicum of creative control. What could have been a widescreen masterpiece will be remembered as one of Hollywood’s missed opportunities.
>>> He has never looked more lost, unsure of himself and awkward in a movie
Agreed. But I would not blame Hanks for this. The director didn't have a clue, and that naturally rubbed off on the actors.
I cried because I had no shoes üntil I met a man with no sole. ~ Ancient Disco Proverb
[deleted]
Worse than Dragnet or Joe vs the Volcano.....?
-----------
Where to now Kessler?.....Ducks Breath!
While you may argue the merits of Joe or Dragnet I don't think people think of hanks as a problem in them. Personally I like both.. How about Volunteers? For a bad Hanks. I thought Hanks was a bit out of his depth here but likeable, which is what the producers wanted. Someone to play the part with a bit more likability. Currently reading the book so can't say that he was wrong for the role, perhaps just not quite prepared for it.
shareMy OP was about the fact that yes Hanks has done some bad films but the films are usually elevated by his performance. Volunteers, Man With One Red Shoe, Turner and Hooch, Punchline etc are all watchable films because Hanks is able to plant two feet firmly on the material and put his own energy into it. Bonfire that doesn't happen at all. He is actually unable to get a handle on this film and elevate it. This is what I was saying.
shareFunnily enough Hanks played a blueblood in 'Volunteers' too. For what it's worth I think Hanks did a decent job here; he never gives a bad performance. However, he was woefully miscast despite giving it his best. He simply doesn't exude the born-to-rule superciliousness of the character he's playing. Hanks is the quintessential 'Everyman', something McCoy is not.
We're meant to gradually sympathise with McCoy because of his predicament, and despite his unsympathetic identity, personality and demeanour. It's therefore fundamentally flawed to cast someone who projects 'likeability' as Hanks does.
personally the "Hanks looks lost.. doesn't know what's going on" perfectly mirrors the character of Sherman in the film. I mean.. He's a MASTER of the Universe.. then he's almost a nobody.. some commodity like so many bonds he has traded in and out.. he's being treated like an image not a person. Something totally alien to him. But he's also the meager slightest bit of conscience to the film.
Now .. with the mini series remake? I could see Chris Gere from FXX's "You're the Worst" playing a more book accurate version... but I thought for what the film adaptation went for Hanks was perfectly cast in having someone lost in the plain hell that his character is dragged into.
Obviously, you haven't seen "Cloud Atlas"!
That's the one where he gives several different career low-point performances in the same film.