Underappreciated Masterpiece - Breakfast of Champions (1999) Discussion

[–] gphunk17 21 years ago

I agree. I thought this was a good movie. I read quite a bit of Vonnegut in HS, but never read this particular book. I thought it a very good story, and seeing Bruce Willis as a nervous wreck was a really good change of pace.

reply

[–] Addivv 20 years ago

I thought this was a great, sometimes very funny movie too and I don't understand at all why it's rated 4! WTF!!! It deserves to be rated at least 7, most likely 8. And the people who dislike this movie don't give any arguments why, they just say 'It's a bad movie'. Very strange...

reply

[–] simba209 20 years ago

Did any of you even READ the book? It's just a horrible adaptation of a wonderful novel..

~FRO!~

reply

[–] marklacey 20 years ago

No kidding! This movie was awful, the book was great.

I was reading the book when I saw something on television about how Bruce Willis wanted to make this movie very badly, and a year or so later the movie was out. I anticipated seeing it, but was very skeptical of how they could possibly adapt it. I saw the trailers and it looked pretty bad, so I waited for video, and sure enough, it was awful.

reply

[–] nsf_tragedy 20 years ago

This movie is one of the best I've seen ever...read my comments.

reply

[–] steschus 19 years ago

I think the best solution is to not read the book unil after youve seen the movie

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nothalfright 19 years ago

Or people could you know, read the book, and then see the movie, and make their own judgements, instead of going by other peoples? Yes? Thought so.

reply

[–] Haus-2 19 years ago

Yes, you are right ... the movie is way from the Vonnegut style - but without having the book in mind it is a great movie

reply

[–] hornacek 20 years ago

Don't review it as an adaptation of a book, reviews it as a movie.

Many movies have been adapted from great books that have made major changes in the story. That doesn't mean the movie can't be great too.

reply

[–] Hdny42 20 years ago

I read the book and saw the movie. I enjoyed the book very much, and I LIKED the movie, nothing more and nothing less. I thought Willis was great, but I thought Nolte as Harry LeSabre was terrific. I couldn't have imagined a better Harry. I'd give the movie a 5/6 out of 10. Alright, but not great. Read the book to get a better sense of it.

"Well What do you expect; you are a FREAK!"

reply

[–] mlevans 20 years ago

The "Favorite Book Made Into A Movie Syndrome" is certainly tough to overcome. I had the same situation with Salem's Lot. The King novel was & is one of my all-time favorites in that or any genre. I made it less than halfway through the film ... because I KEPT going "No, that's not right! It didn't happen that way! What's WRONG with you people?"

I never have gone back & viewed the whole film & do not really want to. So I can't get preachy against others who do the same thing. I don't blame you a bit. However, each adaptation of a story IS a unique version. I was a big Vonnegut reader as a high school & college student & actually have had the book in my selves for years. It was one Vonnegut book I never did get around to reading, though. Therefore I escaped the dreaded FBMIMS.

Perhaps it takes a Vonnegut reader who HASN'T read this particular book to really appreciate the film. As it is, I stick by my original praise for the movie. I enjoyed the heck out of it!

reply

[–] little_boot 20 years ago

I have read the book, and greatly enjoyed it, and I thought the movie was quite a decent adaptation. Let's face it - it could have been a lot worse. In truth, I think it's impossible to adapt Vonnegut to the screen properly, but this movie coems as close as I can imagine any other movie coming. The dialogue was perfectly written to bring out all of the characters' neuroses, like Le Sabre's cross-dressing and Hoover's insanity. It even made use of Vonnegut's drawings from the book at certain points, and indeed there is constant use of signs to convey the idea of a world gone crazy.
I will, however, grant that the Hollywood ending was a bit offputting, but it wasn't a completely bad ending. Hoover did get carted off by the police, which was realistic enough. The only thing I object to is Trout finding his paradise in the "leak". The way I see Vonnegut's books is that Trout is never satisfied. Even in "Galapagos" when he's dead, Trout still manages to grumble.
All in all, I thought the movie was funny, and quite a fair adaptation of Vonnegut. While you may not think it was as good as the book, because I sure don't think it was as good, you've got to admit that the movie was quite decent. Hollywood's influences may have been a bit more present than necessary, but still a decent movie.

reply

[–] kentekeroth 20 years ago

I absolutely LOVE this movie. I havent read the book but the film stands well for itself.

And I def consider this to be a drama movie, rather than a comedy (even if its hilarious a few times, especially with Nolte). It's a tragic-comic movie.

The Prinz Igor theme song is perfect and the whole feel of this movie is a sad, contemplating, philosofical...and also happy sort of.

Albert Finney makes such a strong appearance here.

It is a wonderful movie with a beautiful ending. Really an under-appreciated movie...

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stupidbike 19 years ago

I hated it...But wait I have reasons unlike all the other people who say it sucks. For one the book is genius. The film does not stand on its own. Books with intense intropsective narration with a surrealist storyline can be made into an amazing movies, i.e. Fear and Loathing. The script stands alone for that picture unlike breakfast of champions. Breakfast of Champions is overacted, yes you are dealing with extreme nerosis and dimensia but not every character in the novel had it. Bruce Willis yes, Finney worked some what, and Omar Epps character. Other than that the rest of the supporting characters should have not overacted, Epps who is a great actor was horrable in this. Also the points of Vonneguts book, which don't all have to be included, were completely ignored. There was not a single strong arguement, ie the importance of everyone, and conformaty. The witty social satire was negated to be, "weird." Don't get me wrong surrealism is one of my favorite generas of film, Lynch, Croneberg, Felleni, etc. But there is a method to their madness. I walked away with this film dissapointed due to the rich subject matter that was at the directors disposal only to make a movie that "trippy."

reply

[–] KeithFerguson 19 years ago

I second that. Anyone who sees this movie as great has completely misunderstood what Vonnegut is trying to say. His characters aren't just weird for weird's sake; he's got a point to make. And I'm not sure how anyone could understand this movie without reading the book. It just goes so fast with so little explanation.

And it cuts out my favorite line of the book: 'African dodger!'

____________
45! 22! Fight for freedom 'til we're free!

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KeithFerguson 19 years ago

I would say that if a movie was good, it would be a good adaptation of the book, regardless of how 'true' it was. For instance, I like both the movie and the book 'The Bourne Identity.' Both of them tell a similar story that takes advantage of the medium used to tell it: the book is more complex and the film is more streamlined and action-packed.

You're correct I'm biased; I really like Vonnegut and anyone who's a fan knows that the story is only a fraction of what makes any given Vonnegut book worth reading. This adaptation failed to deal creatively in presenting the major ideas of the book (which is what I expect an adaptation to do, first and foremost). But basically it boils down to this: If the movie was good, I would have thought it was a good adaptation. Since it is not good, I do not think it is a good adaptation. Do yourself a service and read the books if you haven't done so already; forget about this movie. I'm already halfway there.

____________
45! 22! Fight for freedom 'til we're free!

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 12 years ago

>>> A movie can be a terrible adaptation of a book, and still be a great movie.

Examples?

http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

reply

[–] vygandas1024 19 years ago

I completely agree that this movie is totally underrated. I gave it 10/10. Maybe the book is better - haven't read it, can't say, but judging according to other MOVIES, not books, this one is on my top 5.
if you liked this one, I recommennd you also watch Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead; Pi.

reply

[–] marcleac 19 years ago

NO this movie was not underrated. if anything it was overrated. without a doubt this is probably the worst movie i've ever seen. it beat out monkeybone and that's ridiculous. yes, i've read the book. is it still a bad movie without that comparrison? yes. let's start with the cheezy ridiculous visuals. the completly pointless word appearances flowing through the air and into willis's ears, what the hell is that? what point to did that make that wasn't clear by the idiodic and pointless repetition of kilgore trout's name during the sex scene. is it cutting edge to use 3-d text that floats into character's ears and pasting mediocre brain illustrations over characters heads to show that 'something's just not right'? no! it's stupid and annoying. it reminds me of a cheap music video from the 80's. only worse. next, character's being eccentric and insane for the sake of what seems to be just that: being eccentric and insane. what this screenplay lacks is a little element called 'character development.' alan rudolph makes no attempt to emphasize or develop willis's midlife crisis, nor nolte's fear of his secret being exposed. and what the hell, nasal spray? that made no sense. no one huffs nasal spray to calm down. another problem, and perhaps the biggest of all, is the ending. yes! the best ending ever! kilgore trout ends up in a magic mirror land like a total fag and realizes nothing. nothing is solved. dwayne beats the *beep* out of his son and has this epiphany that he really loves him. and somehow bunny notices in the beating 'man, my dad's a great guy...he really loves me.' it just doesn't make any sense.

there were parts that were taken right out of the book, but made no sense because they were out of context and unexplained. for example: when dwayne gets out of his car and has to drag his legs. in the book you find out it's because he feels like the ground is a trampoline. in the movie he just seems to be acting like an idiot. not to mention, they completely ruined two of my favorite vonnegut characters, eliot rosewater and kilgore trout.

if you have any respect for vonnegut and his art, then i don't understand how you can even classify this as suitable for watching. i think the only reason i could even follow the movie is because i had read the book first. if i hadn't it wouldn't have made any sense and the jokes wouldn't have even been funny. maybe alan rudolph's formula for writing this movie was: find a great author with an amazing style and great satirical voice, take his novel out of context, ruin the ending, make it have a cheezy hollywood friendly ending instead, and add crap visuals that make it 'weird' and 'suspensfull'. this should never have been made into a movie. of all of his novels, there could have been so many better choices. all this movie does is make a mockery out of a brilliant novel. it blows my mind that one of my top 5 favorite novels could translate into my all time least favorite movie.

alan rudolph is officially on my *beep* list.

reply

[–] groucho_de_sade 19 years ago

I am a huge Vonnegut fan, and Breakfast of Champions might be my favorite book, so of course I'm going to be a little biased. I think this movie stinks, and here's why:
The reason the book was great was not really the story it told, but the wonderful way Vonnegut chose to tell it. The way he used words, and the way he used pictures to illustrate certain things in the story is what makes it brilliant, along with the humanistic message. The ironic overusage of the dreaded "n-word" gives the book a dark edge, and the violence at its conclusion makes it a tragedy as well as a satire.
Sure, this is far from the worst movie ever made, but it's certainly a failure as an adaptation of the Vonnegut novel. To those who say "judge it on its own merits", that's pretty hard to do, especially if this happens to be your favorite book.
I'm pretty easy on film adaptations; I enjoyed the films of "Naked Lunch" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". But when it's your favorite book, and the adaptation is done so poorly, it's hard to be so lenient.
The acting is good, the production values high... it just doesn't work. Mostly because it's not the book.

I don't want some renegade necrophile princess as MY roommate!

reply

[–] Steamboy 19 years ago

I think calling this a masterpiece is an insult to all the writers and directors who worked hard on actual masterpieces. It was weird at best.

reply

[–] ToplessHarry001 18 years ago

You klutzes!!!

This IS one of THE best films of recent times... Maybe it's cause you yanks can't stand seeing your precious middle America selves portrayed as selfish gas guzzling, Earth destroying, ignorant, superstitious halfwits??? (jokes - then again you did vote for GW - no, that's right you didn't - you don't vote at all cause your free - puh! - whatever that means)

Vonnegut rocks (I've read em' all)... and so does this movie... Nick Nolte and what's his name... err, Willis are magic together... It's brilliantly cast... The Soundtrack,gaudy visuals, incidental film clips and scenic shots of Kilgore's journey are truly inspired - the things you can do with a tacky old tune like stranger in Paradise ;) and the script is a very clever extraction of the book... course it would've been nice to include the caves etc... but hey as an author who likes to put upteen loosely related parallel plots in his novels, I agree that to make a good film you've got to be harsh and draw the line somewhere!

I've got to admit the cinema, packed to begin with was almost empty by the end when I first saw it... Maybe that's a reflection on my own perverse tastes... or the fact I saw it in the Philippines??

But to say this is worse than Fear and loathing, let-alone mention the two in a sentence is very sad... Depp is wooden and truly bad (period) - the ONLY way you can enjoy his s&*thouse wannabe acting is to be as full or fuller with the drugs they pretend to consume in that movie (F&L)... (then you'd probably die from chemical induced horror;) - That was one film I had to exit from very early in the piece - Depp is truly awful - sorry, didn't mean to bag on ya Willy though there you go;)

Look, anyone with the guts to take on a book like this gets my 10 out of 10... Sooner watch this adaptation than Lord of the faggy Rings, Harry Snotter, Shawshank Redumption or Bridget Bones!...

I just can't wait till someone attempts 'Cats Cradle'... or 'Sirens of Titan' (a truly remarkable tragedy) or any number of KV books for that matter...

I will concede however that a lot of so-called modern classics have been based on short stories... Blade Runner for instance or Apocalypse Now - (Novellas at best)... and it's sometimes hard to accept someone's abridged movie adaptaion of a complex novel unless less you're a genuine 'die-hard' fan ;)

Good on ya Bruce and Alan! Pls do it again - ASAP!!!

reply

[–] cortezthekiller23 18 years ago

just want to let you know that the movie apocolypse now is not an abridged version of heart of darkness it is a contemporized telling of Conrad's novella in the midst of the Vietnam war...blade runner was made short, heart of darkness was further develpoed upon. (I love all the books and movies)

reply

[–] rogerscorpion 17 years ago

Hey, Topless---I think a 2-3 hour film should ONLY be made from a short story. The Godfather only covered about a third of the book. One should never be expected to accept an abridged version of a complex novel--not when an HBO mini series can be made--or a series--a la 'Lord of the Rings'.
Only a short story, 'The Great Gatsby', for instance, should be presented in a 2 hour film. Look @ 'Shogun'. You can watch the full-length version or the truncated versions.
'Dune' is too complex for 2.5 hours. Many others are, too.

Carpe Noctem

reply

[–] chemicaldanny 18 years ago

I have yet to read the book (though I will very shortly), but this movie blows. Nick Nolte has cemented his position as the most repulsive actor in Hollywood. He offends every sense. While Willis' love for the material is clearly evident, Rudolph's direction is so--OH MY GOD is that Owen Wilson? What the hell is he doing in this piece of crap?--cluttered and garish that it turns the movie experience into an ordeal.

This movie is revolting.

reply

[–] soitgos 17 years ago

I think the movie is brilliant. And, I think it's a brilliant adaptation of the book. "Adaptation" being the relevant word here. No movie is completely true to the form of the novel from which it is taken. It's a different medium. It's surprising how many people don't seem to realize that. As a social commentary, this movie is a masterpiece.

reply