hellseher-759-985447 Yes, it doesn't do the book justice. Yes, people in the Bronx don't wear, nor have ever worn, such clothes. Yes, Peter Fallow is English in the book. Yes, you could say Melanie Griffith overacts. But you could also say that she a) plays herself like she behaved on the job and b) De Palma wanted her to do it that way. The point is that Da Palma did a brillant job. You simply must not compare this film to the book, but watch it in his own right, as a comedy from 1990. If you manage that you will find that it's great film. It is entertaining, it looks great (for the time, and it's a pity that there is still no really good Blu-Ray remaster), it is acted very well right across the board, it holds your attention, and it has even aged well. Bashing De Palma for it was simply never fair - it was en voue back then for many reasons. Read "The Devil's Candy" by Julie Salamon if you are a film freak and/or really interested what went on then. If not, and if you haven't read Wolfe's fantastic book, don't listen to the naysayers, the Tom Wolfe fanboys and over-intellectualizing critics. Just sit back enjoy a wonderful film from that time and of that genre. And if you have read the book (which is fun after watching the film, as it elaborates on so many points, if you will), seriously ask youself: How would you have done the film?

Leftbanker I have never seen this movie. I will never seen this movie. If I were on a flight and this movie were showing I would parachute out of the plane. If no parachute were available I would jump and try to land on something soft. Even landing on a pile of porcupines from 30,000 feet would be preferable to watching this huge mess.Why i have never watched this in the first place is the result of the deplorable casting in De Palma's film. He got everything so absolutely and totally wrong. He took one of the great novels of my era and turned it into complete crap.

Rodrigo Amaro If people knew how hard it is to make a film in the Hollywood system they probably wouldn't pick so much on "The Bonfire of the Vanities" and its disappointing outcome over the years. Plagued during its production, vilified by critics and failed with audiences, "Bonfire" simply couldn't find its way to possible success or even resurrection as a cult film. A pity. And don't think Hollywood has ever learned from its failure in adapting Tom Wolfe's debut novel - Amazon has announced a miniseries version, but maybe this time they'll get it in the proper form introducing to new audiences an outstanding novel. However, I'm not bitter about the movie. On the contrary, I'm possibly its most avid and loving supporter from the first time I saw it. And I've been through everything: De Palma's film; Wolfe's novel and Julie Salamon's amazing book about the making of the film, the excellent "The Devil's Candy" - the latter one makes me feel truly sorry about all the obstacles faced by the production and how the road to make a hit depends on people who know squat about movies (but somehow they're the ones with the money and power - which kinda reflects the movie's story itself about people who make nothing but gets loads of money for something).Aside from the obvious facts like adapting a masterful novel of epic proportions and turning into a 2-hour movie (impossible feat considering the many plot points, characters and enormous details), they didn't stand a chance with anything. This was 1990 and here's a work about yuppie generation back when they were a dying breed, so it's quite obvious that audiences wouldn't get much of the sarcasm of the period, specially the way Wolfe described those hateful folks in the early 1980's when yuppie was the trend. Flawed casting choices from a producer who exited the film to get a higher position in another studio was also a factor that damaged the film along in picking a successful playwright who sort of messed it up with the script; and the vanities, oh the vanities from stars, crew and even the director who kept changing everything about the script at the last minute. It's not easy to make a film in Hollywood. Brian De Palma's film is about the survival of the fittest in a New York jungle where one small wrong step can change a whole game and turn everything into either a calamity or an accidental triumph. Disgraced journalist Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis) gets his golden ticket while covering the story of Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks), a great Wall Street trader involved in a hit-and-run accident that sent a black kid to the hospital. A wrong turn to the Bronx, along with his mistress (Melanie Griffith) and then a disaster, specially since it's mayoral election year and a greedy district attorney (F. Murray Abraham) wants to get his photo opportunity and hunt down a possible "great white defendant" to justify to possible voters that NY isn't just sending blacks and Latinos to jail. Gargoyles-like characters enter the scene from lawyers, prosecutors to tycoons and figures of the high society and also some less fortunate ones who'll turn McCoy's life into a descent to hell and elevate an opportunist to a massive stardom.The film detractors who know the book aren't wrong when they say the film lacks in bite, Wolfe's eye for detail and descriptions couldn't be exactly translated specially his sarcastic tone about characters based on real figures and the cynicism about them. Some of the changes made for the film version are rather strange, somewhat acceptable but they hurt the film to a lot of people (the idea of changing the judge ethnicity proved to be the most hurtful one - the studio spent more money in turning the judge a black character than in leaving as he was. In cinematic views, it worked but not that much with that Frank Capra moralistic ending). Another problem is: this isn't a dark comedy, it's an elegant farce which wasn't much appropriate for that kind of material. But it's a funny film and I always get my fair share of laughter - Melanie Griffith is quite flawed but she pronounces Sherman's name exactly like Maria does in the book ("Shamann"); the scenes with Kevin Dunn as Hanks' lawyer are priceless just as Saul Rubinek as the district attorney.Despite the errors and difficulties, "The Bonfire of the Vanities" will find a little place in the spotlight for the ones who appreciate an interesting story filled with humor, drama and even minor tension. Those who haven't experienced the tasty descriptions of Wolfe will enjoy the film a lot more than the ones who read it. And if you have the opportunity to read Salamon's book about the lavish and shocking making of the film you'll understand a lot more about the movie-making process in Hollywood and how each decision affects a movie, and you'll forgive its mistakes. It doesn't justify much of the money spent in its production, a lot could be reduced but De Palma managed to make a more than decent film, one that stays with you due to some good acting (Willis is hilarious and Hanks tries some dramatic chops for the first time); amazing cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond and Eric Schwab (assistant director who captured the two most beautiful images from the film - also the most difficult ones); the unusual angles filmed from above that give a uneasy sensation we're flying above those ruthless characters. There's charm, some critique and it truly reflected an important cultural era of moral decadence disguised with wealth and power. Those Masters of the Universe didn't know anything about life and yes, progress can really cross a bridge and one day throw rich and poor into the same bonfire. No one got saved. 10/10

Leofwine_draca THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES has gone down in history as one of the worst movie flops ever made and I'm inclined to agree. I have no interest in the material and I only watched this because De Palma directed; the director does his best to keep things interesting but unfortunately he can only do so much with the material and other than the opening tracking shot there's nothing very impressive here.The story is slow and long-winded and full of unpleasant characters. Bruce Willis is in it for name value but feels badly miscast in the role of the writer. Tom Hanks looks uncomfortable throughout and his character comes across as false and artificial. The less said about Melanie Griffith and her dreadful performance the better.The film just sort of drags on and on without ever achieving anything. I understand how it's supposed to be a satire of wealth and fame and the yuppie culture but the humour falls flat and the whole courtroom drama thing is dragged out to the degree that it becomes really boring. Other than the novelty of seeing Morgan Freeman in an against-type role this really is a pointless exercise.