IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,9/10
9525
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Der Film erzählt von einer Familie, die alle Arten von Katastrophen übersteht und trotz alledem weitermacht. Er ist bekannt für seine wunderbare Auswahl an skurrilen Charakteren.Der Film erzählt von einer Familie, die alle Arten von Katastrophen übersteht und trotz alledem weitermacht. Er ist bekannt für seine wunderbare Auswahl an skurrilen Charakteren.Der Film erzählt von einer Familie, die alle Arten von Katastrophen übersteht und trotz alledem weitermacht. Er ist bekannt für seine wunderbare Auswahl an skurrilen Charakteren.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 wins total
Jennifer Dundas
- Lilly
- (as Jennie Dundas)
Jobst Oriwol
- German Man
- (as Jobst Oriwal)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I just purchased this film on a Norwegian home video, and the cover bragged about the ratings it had gotten in Norwegian newspapers (5 out of 6 in the major papers). I thought this had to be a good movie, so I checked it out on this site, and was surprised to see how bad the reviews were here.
Now I've seen the film and I must say that I agree much more with the Norwegian reviewers than the users of this site (except those who gave it a good review). This movie is brilliant. Almost as good as The World According To Garp, which happens to be one of my favourite movies of all time.
The excellence of these films is that they're so focused on the main characters in the movie, that you really start to know them, and care about them. This is something you don't see in many movies. Here you follow the whole family from they're young 'till they're old, and you start understanding how they've become the way they are, and why they act the way they do.
As Garp, this movie is also very much focused on sex and love, and in the most bizarre ways possible. But so what? In the world there are many types of persons, why should a book or a movie just focus on the "normal" ones? The fact that the persons in these films are not "normal" makes them more acceptable and believable to the average viewer. "Normal" in movies normally means perfect, and very few persons are perfect... In Garp and New Hampshire the characters are not perfect, and that's what makes the films perfect...
The cast also does an excellent work with their characters, everybody is believable. And the director has done an excellent job pacing the film in a way that it doesn't move too fast, and it never bores you by going to slow.
All in all: an excellent movie that I'd recommend to anyone who hasn't yet been completely brainwashed by Hollywood's image of perfectionism. Almost as good as Garp. If you liked Garp, you'll love this one too. And vice versa. I give this film an 8 (almost 9) out of 10.
Now I've seen the film and I must say that I agree much more with the Norwegian reviewers than the users of this site (except those who gave it a good review). This movie is brilliant. Almost as good as The World According To Garp, which happens to be one of my favourite movies of all time.
The excellence of these films is that they're so focused on the main characters in the movie, that you really start to know them, and care about them. This is something you don't see in many movies. Here you follow the whole family from they're young 'till they're old, and you start understanding how they've become the way they are, and why they act the way they do.
As Garp, this movie is also very much focused on sex and love, and in the most bizarre ways possible. But so what? In the world there are many types of persons, why should a book or a movie just focus on the "normal" ones? The fact that the persons in these films are not "normal" makes them more acceptable and believable to the average viewer. "Normal" in movies normally means perfect, and very few persons are perfect... In Garp and New Hampshire the characters are not perfect, and that's what makes the films perfect...
The cast also does an excellent work with their characters, everybody is believable. And the director has done an excellent job pacing the film in a way that it doesn't move too fast, and it never bores you by going to slow.
All in all: an excellent movie that I'd recommend to anyone who hasn't yet been completely brainwashed by Hollywood's image of perfectionism. Almost as good as Garp. If you liked Garp, you'll love this one too. And vice versa. I give this film an 8 (almost 9) out of 10.
I am a big movie fan and I'm certainly not one to ever tell anyone what to watch and to not try to enjoy a movie each his own we all have our own tastes and opinions but I have to say for a film with so much talent involved I hated this film in fact it probably ranks as one of the worse if not the worse film I ve ever seen!!!In fact just like another reviewer wrote I specifically decided to review this film because of how terrible it was and bad taste this film left in my mouth, but again this is just my opinion watch it and make up your own mind This whole film though I realize it was trying to be quirky didn't make any sense at all.
This offbeat and quirky comedy is a bit too pretentious to work. It's an interesting cast, and most try but none of the characters are likable. They are too dysfunctional and bizarre and director Tony Richardson never develops them past the superficial characters they are. It goes on way too long for a film of this type. It's very disjointed and never appeals to the viewer like it should. And even though the humor is dry, I was rarely amused. Richardson's quest to be avant-garde and original misfires and we are left with a cold film with no substance. Rob Lowe is in over his head, Jodie Foster is quite good though, and Paul McCrane and Wilford Brimley do well. The rest of the cast is unremarkable.
As far as book/movie adaptations go, this one is by far better than Cider House and Garp. It follows the book wonderfully, with exception to minor details. I'm not saying it's a better MOVIE than Garp or cider house, but it is much truer to the book, and that's always been important to me. I'm one of those people who says "WHAT? THAT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED IN THE BOOK!" I once read a post where a girl said everyone involved in this movie should be ashamed of it. She obviously missed the point. The ending, which is so powerful in the book, is equally powerful in the movie. The one improvement, I thought, was the Susie the Bear character. I didn't care for her much after I read the book, but when I saw the movie I was like "yeah!". Incest, plane crashes, blind men named Frued, a bomb at the opera - and a woman in a bear costume. What more could you ask for?
This is a perfect example of why good, literary novels shouldn't be made into films. I read this book (along with his other best-sellers "World According to Garp" and "Cider House Rules") back in the 80's when they were published, and I thought they were great, serious works of fiction full of colorful, off-the wall characters fleshed out in engaging prose. Unfortunately, all of this is lost in this film adaptation.
I don't know who Tony Richardson is, and if he directed any other movies, but if they are as poorly-lit, badly-recorded, ineptly edited, and haphazardly narrated as this one is, I'll pass.
Although the movie sticks pretty closely to the original, it just doesn't work on the screen. The first third of the book, dealing with the first Hotel New Hampshire, is truncated into a five minute, voiced-over series of vignettes under the opening credits. This is all of the movie you need to see, because the director uses his entire bag of tricks here.
We seem to enter in the middle of a story, one everyone (except you) seems to already be familiar with. Random characters and situations are thrown at you, with no apparent continuity, sense, or narrative flow. When the story gets dark or uncomfortable, the director resorts to cheap gimmicks like fast-action photography. It may have been funny when the Keystone Kops did it, but it is most definitely UNfunny here.
Wallace Shawn, sporting a bad wig, motorcycle jacket and towing a performing bear, shows up and just as suddenly, disappears. (We do encounter him later in the film, but now he's bald and blind, and although he's back in his native Vienna, his German accent seems to come and go mysteriously. It's also 10 or 15 years later, apparently but somehow he's the only one who is any older.) Rob Lowe looks pretty and vapid. Jodie Foster looks sexy, talks dirty, and acts tough. Beau Bridges just looks befuddled most of the time. And the actress (whoever she is ) who plays the mother has such a tiny part that she barely registers.
Incest, rape, murder, accidental death, suicide, radical German nihilists with bombs, pornography, and a lesbian in a bear suit are all in this movie, and it's all BORING.
All I can recommend is that you read the book. Everything that is confusing, depressing, and just plain weird in this movie makes great, if quirky, sense in the book.
I don't know who Tony Richardson is, and if he directed any other movies, but if they are as poorly-lit, badly-recorded, ineptly edited, and haphazardly narrated as this one is, I'll pass.
Although the movie sticks pretty closely to the original, it just doesn't work on the screen. The first third of the book, dealing with the first Hotel New Hampshire, is truncated into a five minute, voiced-over series of vignettes under the opening credits. This is all of the movie you need to see, because the director uses his entire bag of tricks here.
We seem to enter in the middle of a story, one everyone (except you) seems to already be familiar with. Random characters and situations are thrown at you, with no apparent continuity, sense, or narrative flow. When the story gets dark or uncomfortable, the director resorts to cheap gimmicks like fast-action photography. It may have been funny when the Keystone Kops did it, but it is most definitely UNfunny here.
Wallace Shawn, sporting a bad wig, motorcycle jacket and towing a performing bear, shows up and just as suddenly, disappears. (We do encounter him later in the film, but now he's bald and blind, and although he's back in his native Vienna, his German accent seems to come and go mysteriously. It's also 10 or 15 years later, apparently but somehow he's the only one who is any older.) Rob Lowe looks pretty and vapid. Jodie Foster looks sexy, talks dirty, and acts tough. Beau Bridges just looks befuddled most of the time. And the actress (whoever she is ) who plays the mother has such a tiny part that she barely registers.
Incest, rape, murder, accidental death, suicide, radical German nihilists with bombs, pornography, and a lesbian in a bear suit are all in this movie, and it's all BORING.
All I can recommend is that you read the book. Everything that is confusing, depressing, and just plain weird in this movie makes great, if quirky, sense in the book.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesJodie Foster later said that with this movie began the lowest point of her career, as she turned down worthy roles in Splash: Jungfrau am Haken (1984), Terminator (1984) and The Breakfast Club (1985). Her career wouldn't recover until Kim Basinger turned down the role of Sarah Tobias in Angeklagt (1988) and finally the part once assigned to Basinger was won by Foster, for which she won her first Academy Award.
- PatzerIn the award ceremony scene, numerous Austrian flags are show, but all are the civil/merchant version. As an official government function, the flags would have been the state flag (the government flag.) Unlike the United States, Austria and many other nations have multiple national flags for different purposes (government, civilian/merchant, military, on shore versus afloat, etc.) Austria's state flag bears the national coat of arms in the centre, overlapping into both of the red bars. The vertical version of the state flag has the coat of arms turned 90 degrees and placed within a shield. None of the flags in the scene bore the coat of arms.
- Crazy CreditsThe opening credits misspell the word "association" as "associatiation".
- VerbindungenFeatured in At the Movies: The Hotel New Hampshire (1984)
- SoundtracksGood Golly Miss Molly
By Robert 'Bumps' Blackwell & John Marascalco
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is The Hotel New Hampshire?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- The Hotel New Hampshire
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 7.500.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 5.142.858 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 1.075.800 $
- 11. März 1984
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 5.142.858 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 49 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Hotel New Hampshire (1984) officially released in India in English?
Antwort