Lee Eisenberg First, I should note that I've never read John Irving's novel on which "The Hotel New Hampshire" is based. I didn't think that it was a bad movie. Certainly the sort of movie that today's franchise-crazy studios would be reluctant to finance. I understand that John Irving liked Tony Richardson's movie, and his only criticism thereof was that it tried to be too faithful to the book, often making parts of it go by too quickly. Now I'm eager to read the book (of Irving's books, I've only read "The World According to Garp").It's not any sort of great movie, but I thought that it was worth seeing. The cast includes Beau Bridges, Jodie Foster, Rob Lowe, Nastassja Kinski, Wallace Shawn - whom my parents met around the time that "My Dinner with Andre" got released - Seth Green and Amanda Plummer (put another way, it stars the Dude's brother, Clarice Starling, young #2, Nosferatu's daughter, Vizzini, Dr. Evil's son and Honeybunch).

TedMichaelMor The film is John Irving weird and thus delightful in its way. The sense of light in the film is what delights me, almost delights me most about the movie. I recall lines from an Alun Lewis poem "Remember in the play of happiness . . . the joy is in the sharing of the feast. . . . ." I think that is what makes this film—a sense of shared joy, of exultation. The interplay of symbols and references passes easily enough and one almost smiles—almost.What most deeply touched me was the character Lilly. I know her. The image of her not passing the windows but going to them while the wind blows through the large empty room echoes many films after the gentle scene of Lilly returning to her typewriter to write the simple message, "Sorry, just not big enough. " I have been there and know why she refuses to pass the window.For me, that is all the film really needs to be outstanding. That is the film for me.

tonymurphylee John Irving is one of my favorite authors. I've read all of his books, including his classic novel, THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE. The book is an epic, funny, and shocking read, especially for it's time, and yet it lives on as a memorable, unique, and powerful piece of literature. It is probably one of my favorite books by him. If you're a book person, I highly recommend it. This film is an attempt to put the book in film form. Did they succeed? Well, yes and no. Yes in that they managed to squeeze a lot of events and content contained in the book into a very tight hour and fifty minutes. However the filmmaker failed to tell a story. The director, Tony Richardson managed to succeed at getting an idea established, craft characters, events, situations, and characteristics in a way that that makes sense, and has created epic set pieces for these characters to do this things in. However, he has not set up any sort of perspective, conflict, or reason for a person to view this. I do, however, recommend it. The major flaw in this film is that there is too much stuff happening and not enough reason for the viewer to pay attention or care. In a sense, however, he has succeeded at putting images behind the shocking and horrific events of the book. I'm not sure, however, if I should be complimenting him for this. This film certainly gets the grotesque nature of the book down perfectly. The aspects of incest, rape, sexual fetishes, domination, murder, and brutality are captured rather bluntly and without any reservations. Those aspects were done perfectly. However, do I really want to see a film of THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE that highlights THOSE parts of the book rather than the events as a whole? I guess, yes, in a sense, because the events of THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE did get to me and did put images in my head that bothered me, and the fact that this film has these same images does much to help me identify with what's going on. However, the film also tries to comedy, and as a result it all seems more shocking. But after a while, it all becomes shock for shocks sake. The film adaptation of THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP didn't try to capture all of these horrible and shocking things that occurred within the course of the book but rather set those aside in order to concentrate on telling a story and crafting characters. It didn't work as well as it could of, but it worked in that a hell of a lot more that what the filmmakers try to go for in this. Having said that, I do love this film. As flawed as it is and as misguided as it is as a whole, I loved seeing the characters, events, and tone being in film form. The acting jobs by all the players, the look, the tone, and the general premise all translate very well. If there were a story, I would have an easier time recommending it, but I think I will have to say that this is worth seeing by fans of John Irving's book only.

littlesar77 I read the book before I even knew the film version existed and absolutely loved it straightaway. Came across the film some time later and to be honest, wasn't expecting it to do much justice to John Irvings finest.. it's a great film though and I think manages that rare feat of capturing a lot of the books essence and charm without massacring the storyline in the process. When it's funny you laugh and when it's sad you pipe your eye-Yes, I admit it! Why not?! The Berry family in 'The Hotel New Hampshire' struck a chord in me on the page first of all, then endeared themselves to me further on the screen. The film has ever since remained my absolute favourite and shall continue to for as long as I can keep on glimpsing bits of myself and my close family/friends in many of the characters, the good AND bad bits. And be moved by each Berry family members particular 'journey' through life, searching for their own personal 'it' - happiness & contentment.. Cos y'know what they say;'Love floats too..just like Sorrow..' But unfortunately thats also the case with canine flatulence so I guess we could say we're all in various perpetual states of a)Love b)Sorrow or c)Flatulence in life at various stages in it..... but p'raps t'wud be just as well if we Didn't say it though...? ;-'