Customer Reviews

The Hotel New Hampshire

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

This is a story about life and the many facets of love, dreams and aspirations, and the journey of discovery we all have to make in our own way in our own time. But the single thread that runs through the film and ties the characters and their lives together is sorrow; and in this instance, using an extremely overt metaphor, "Sorrow" is the family pet-- a dog-- who comes to symbolize a seemingly prevalent condition of the Berry family in "The Hotel New Hampshire," written for the screen and directed by Tony Richardson, adapted from the novel by John Irving. The story centers on the Berry family, a close but eccentric clan, and is told from the perspective of John (Rob Lowe), who tries to make sense of his too familiar relationship with his sister, Frannie (Jodie Foster), his gay older brother, Frank (Paul McCrane), his literally "little" sister, Lilly (Jennifer Dundas) who "isn't a midget," but who stopped growing too soon, the youngest of the bunch, Egg (Seth Green), his grandfather, Iowa Bob (Wilford Brimley) and his parents (Beau Bridges and Lisa Banes).

John's father, Win, was a dreamer, or as Lilly called him, a "Gatsby," always looking for something better, for "it." Win and Mother Berry had met one summer working together at a hotel, and when Win tires of his job as a school teacher, he decides their town needs a hotel. So he buys an abandoned building that suits his needs perfectly, and transforms it into a hotel, the Hotel New Hampshire, owned and operated by the entire Berry family. And it is here that the memories of his formative years are made for John; memories like struggling with his love for his sister while she lives through a particularly traumatic experience that involves a boy of whom she is enamored, Chip Dove (Matthew Modine), and tasting love himself for the first time with a waitress at the hotel (Joely Richardson). It is also at this time that he experiences a death in the family for the first time. And, as it is in life, it won't be the last; nor will it be his final encounter with tragedy and sorrow.

In this film, Richardson touches upon a number of themes that at one time (and not that long ago) would have been considered taboo in a film: Homosexuality, incest and interracial relationships. And he does it successfully by weaving them into the story naturally and objectively, without expounding upon or exploring them simply to enhance the drama. This is simply the story of the Berry family, for better or worse, with John telling it like it is while refraining from any sensationalism or judgment calls, to which the likes of a film of this nature would ordinarily be disposed.

Lowe gives a convincing performance as John-- arguably some of the best work he's ever done-- and he underscores his role of narrator by making the story as much about the others as about himself, which is generous, and a good piece of acting. Foster, who would've been twenty-one or twenty-two when this was filmed (1984), displays an insight, poise and maturity well beyond her years, with a performance that is intuitively discerning and believable, and which serves the character so well while bringing her vividly to life. There is such a natural quality to Foster's acting that it makes her a joy to watch, and it makes Frannie a memorable character. The young Dundas is also very impressive in the role of Lilly and, like Foster, manages to bring the necessary maturity to the character that makes her entirely credible.

The supporting cast includes Wallace Shawn (Freud), Dorsey Wright (Junior), Cali Timmins (Bitty), Anita Morris (Ronda Ray) and Walter Massey (Texan). The film is by turns poignant, funny and disturbing; one could say a succinct reflection of life. And, diverse as this story is, thematically, there will undoubtedly be one aspect of it or another to which just about anyone will be able to relate. Because that's what life is; a journey we all share, but which we take on different roads that sooner or later are bound to intersect, and which becomes the point at which we realize something that's inescapable and possibly the most important thing we will ever learn: That we are not alone in this. And, in the final analysis, that is what "The Hotel New Hampshire" is all about. And that's the magic of the movies.

The adaptation of John Irving's fifth novel, and the one I've read the most times over the years, "The Hotel New Hampshire" suffers from a great many things, most notably being the appalling lack of any common sense or good judgment in the casting of Nastassia (sp?) Kinski as Susie the Bear. The character of Susie is supposed to have such low self-esteem and is described in the book as a plain-looking average woman who thinks herself so ugly that she hides herself in a bear costume.

When she finally takes off the bear head in the movie and is revealed to be a gorgeous woman with supermodel looks, it's hard for us, the audience, to have any sympathy for her inferiority complex. Combine this glaring oversight with the more traditional scriptwriting dilemna of how to boil down such a multi-layered, complex, rich narrative into a two hour time frame that the average moviegoer will tolerate and you arrive at a script that simplifies and drains all the larger than life splendour of the magnificent novel. This is the Roach Motel of film adaptations of great works of Literature.

I first wanted to see this movie because I am a fan of Jodie Foster. I rented it and found it a little muddled. I liked it, I was just confused as to what was going on in certain parts. After watching the movie, I decided to read the book (which is very, very good!!!), and I rented the movie again after a while and found it much more enjoyable. My advice is to read the book before you see the movie!!! It's an oddly entertaining film... but you might get lost without the help of John Irving's novel.

I notice I am a little alone in this opinion. I too have read the book, and loved it, multiple times, but I also loved the movie. I thought the characters were portayed perfectly. It was wonderful to see them come to life on the screen.
I didn't get to see this movie until I rented it from netflix a couple of months ago, and the reason I'm writing this review is because I came to Amazon to buy the movie, and I happened to see the bad reviews, and decided to put my 2 cents in. So there you have it.

THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE (1984) in theory should have been a
fascinating, exciting movie with a lot of crowd-drawing power, from
its all-star cast, made up of Jodie Foster, Nastassja Kinski, Rob
Lowe and more, all in their prime ... aged 20 to 30 years, at the
time.

Unfortunately, this picture was written in 1 of 3 possible ways:
someone who's adapted the painting technique of throwing buckets of
paint at a canvas, calling himself a painter, and the result, a
painting to the movies; or someone with the mental age of 10; or
someone who has not only totally lost their mind, and has lost touch
with reality, in the present, and in their past.

Of course, it's a treat to see Foster, Kinski, Lowe in action, as
they are truly talented, in bringing forth subtle human
undercurrents, and visual expressions to the camera and audience.

But, this work apparently attempts to carry to the silver screen, a
novel in the style of Kurt Vonnegut, for example, or Douglas Adams,
who wrote Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, among others. I haven't
read, (and now, would probably decline to ever read) the original
manuscript or novel, but, most would probably give the benefit of
the doubt to the underlying book author.

In terms of movie, though, there's indubitably no redeeming value to
it, as it's a unrelenting, spastic sequence of absurd, tasteless,
unnecessary, unsavory moments, involving taboo after taboo,
intermixed with a sugar coating, to perhaps confusem, fool and
mesmerize the censors or movie rating authorities.

The sugar coating of the taboos, might perhaps make palatable the
underlying sequences to those with a low IQ, or perhaps to children,
but for all others, including teenagers, or seniors or those with a
wicked sense of humor, there's really no coherent story progressing
over the 90 mins.

As such, and the best remedy is really the fast forward button on
the DVD player, or, if you prefer (as was the case, in the 80's when
this work was released), getting up from your chair, and walking out
of the theatre.

I really dug this film. The cast I thought was quite good. Although I agree that Susie the bear shoulda been played by Amanda Plummer instead of Natasha Kinksi.

A rather underated film...showing a bit of the lesbian in Jodie Foster onscreen..

There are some uncomfortable bits especially in the incest bwtween Foster & Lowes Brother & Sister.. But, all in all a marvel of a little film worth seeking out.

I agree completely with B. Alden! The haters don't know what they're talking about! This movie has been in my top five all time favorites since I first saw it 15 years ago. It is the best adaptation of an Irving book ever (and yes, I am a huge fan of his). Sharp, funny, memorable writing and a spot on cast make this simply one of the best movies.

If you have not read the book, then this movie may intrigue you. It is quirky and interesting to say the least. As a storyline it does not lack imagination. From Maine to Vienna to NYC and back to Maine, from the Jew-hating German tourists to the radicals and the [...], from one Hotel New Hampshire to another, the dreams of a father and his colourful family unfold in a series of bizarre and at times disturbing events. And life appears to be a fairy tale that we live as we chase our dreams.

Now, in relation to the actual book, this movie can be described with just one word: RUSHED. The adaptation is so faithful that it tries to cover almost everything, all characters and all events, thereby failing miserably to project the sentiment behind the eccentric story of this highly unusual family. I could go on and on about how the accurate quotes from the original text fall flat on a screenplay that comes across truncated and patched together clumsily, how the scenes lack emotional depth, how the characters are not given enough time to be adequately developed... but I will instead characterise the whole attempt as noble but short. If the book was a long wave-like function, with a rise to a crest, then a drop followed by a building surge and another rise to another crest, over and over and over again, then the movie was just a cross-section of the top parts of this rollercoaster of a wave-like function, shaving off all the crests and placing them in a two hour blender, where they were shaken and served to please God knows what. Surely not the potential of this fascinatingly bizarre book, nor its undercurrent and extremely subtle magical tone. And it was not for lack of effort. It was for lack of realism on how to put on screen a highly bizzare story in a way that flows smoothly rather than jump spastically between scenes. A mini series would have worked much better for such a faithful adaptation. Either that or a more free-flowing interpretation that could possibly make sense within the 120 minutes that are usually allocated to a motion picture.

Thank God for Jodie Foster's and Beau Bridges's performances, who bring Fanny and Win Berry to life. Keep passing the open windows and read the book for a much richer and meaningful experience. As far as this movie is concerned, just toss it out as far as you can. And if you are to keep it, then do so to remind yourselves of how to NOT adapt a great book onto the screen. This is the only reason why I keep mine.

Verdict first - What a load of (...)! And why should I bother to explain this? Nothing in this this movie is explained to me. But I will anyway.

This is supposed to be an adaptation of the John Irving novel of the same name. But if you call pushing the 10 most individually photogenic pieces from a 1000-piece jigsaw into a loose assemblage an adaption, then you'll call Natasha Kinski in a bear suit a grizzly.

This movie would have done much better to focus on one character, one relationship, or one section of the novel. This would have allowed the makers the chance to develop some depth or at least explain the events that barge erratically and irritatingly past us.

As it is, nothing is explained. In an early rape scene involving Jodie Foster's character (of course), her brother manages to find a group of "coloreds" to belatedly rescue her. Where they come from in this rural, white, middle-class, New England environment is not explained, nor is it explained why they agree to get involved.

After a few more disjointed scenes, the whole family decides to migrate to Vienna. As the movie doesn't bother to explian why, those who haven't read Irvings novl are left to conclude that they must have some kind of 'homing instinct' for this European capital.

The psychology behind "Susie the Bear" is also skimped on; Lili's suicide is pointlessly included with her "passing through an open window" merely after being asked a tough question by a book reviewer; the Vienna radicals and prostitutes are only afforded comic cut-out status; and the incest between the brother and sister ends up being presented like a cartoon caper.

Everywhere in this overloaded little film, eccentric facade triumphs over the intriguing insights into the strange and comic events of life that we usually get in John Irving novels.

Obviously what's wrong with this film - apart from an over-young cast who aren't capable of keeping the hurly-burly circus of odd scenes and characters believable - is the whole notion of capitaliizing on a popular novel. Cinema and writing are different media. A novel can revel in a great web of causation, whereas a movie is better at capturing the subtleties of the moment.

By using the novel's title, the filmmakers believe they have an obligation to touch on every character and event in the original novel with a crude disregard for artistic unity, resulting in a travesty for which the director should be thrown through an open window. "Keep passing the open windows," and don't stop for this hopeless adaptation either.

Following the success of The World According to Garp, another offbeat John Irving novel was filmed. The Hotel New Hampshire is about another offbeat family. This time the Berry's are examined. Father - Winn and Mother - Betty (Beau Bridges and Lisa Banes) met while working at the Hotel New Hampshire. The had five children - Frank (Paul McCrane), Franny (Jodie Foster), Johnny (Rob Lowe), Lilly (Jennie Dundas) and Egg (a very young Seth Green).

Win works as a teacher at Dairy private school where his father, Iowa Bob (Wilford Brimley), is the coach. But Win and Betty want to recapture their youth and open a hotel (and name it after the hotel where they met.) They buy an abandoned girls school near Dairy school. They convert it and open it. Just as they are all misfits, their clientele are also misfits. They get an invitation to open another hotel in Vienna. And they do the same.

This film is not about story, it is about characters. This film serves you a wide variety of characters from the lovely Anita Morris as the oversexed waitress to Natasha Kinski as a woman who hides in a bear suit. And of course, Wallace Shawn as Freud.

Each of the four stars, Foster, Lowe, Bridges and Kinski, had their careers in transition. They were looking for the breakout hit to take their career to the next level. This film was widely admired but not a box office smash. Foster would only have to wait a couple of years (The Accused). Lowe would have to wait fourteen years to achieve success in The West Wing. Bridges would become the king of the cable movies.

The film is written and directed by Tony Richardson (look for his daughter Joely Richardson in a bit role at the beginning of the film).

WARNING: This film has scenes of abuse, rape and incest. So, this may not be suitable for young children.

DVD EXTRAS: None