Hotel New Hampshire

Well, no that is probably hyperbole. I thought this movie was disjointed and difficult to grasp. Whereas Garp was a strange movie, indeed, it at least managed to capture some essence of flow. Hotel New Hampshire was choppy and more like a series of stories than one whole story. The elements that dragged the pieces together, like the Dog Who Would Not Go Away, etc, gave a comical lift to the otherwise tragic and painful story.

On an off note, the ratings for this movie listed its R rating as being caused by Language, Violence, and Nudity. It neglected to mention the rape. For those who have no desire to witness something on those lines, here's your warning should you have not read the book.

Slowly I realize what Homer Simpson meant when he said: "I wanna be John Irving!" No, seriously, that was just supposed to be a joke. The ONLY movie I know "The Hotel New Hampshire" can be compared to is "The World According to Garp" - as this one based on a novel by John Irving.

Sometimes this movie makes you think that it's a mediocre and senseless one. That it's gross and abnormal. But that is John Irving! Like in "Garp", sex plays a central role in "New Hampshire" - and it's turned upside down. In "Garp", Glenn Close *raped* a dying man. In this movie, Jodie Foster is raped, she and her brother (Rob Lowe) want to make love and know that they will eventually - and they tell each other. They also tell each other everything about their sexual relationships, they talk about whom they fancy and how they should make love with them. Sex is always present in the development of the characters, but at another level as normally, i.e. as the most normal thing of the world, basically.

The main reason why that strange movie works is that the characters are very interesting. They are grotesque, alright, but something makes them real. The point is, that the characters in this movie are allowed to dream and even to be really mad. However, there are frontiers to their freedom, it's just not the same frontiers as we know. They make the frontiers themselves. Their frontiers allow the siblings to make love - on ONE single looong afternoon. And that scene is not as disturbing as it is kind of beautiful and touching, because THESE characters CAN do this! It's the *radicals* in Vienna who bring us back to the real world - still in a grotesque way. Well, and there are sooo many important characters in this movie - that makes it!

The actors are fabulous. Jodie Foster can never be bad, Rob Lowe is believeable and Amanda Plummer is as good as always. A real stand-out is young Jennie Dundas. About twelve or how old she was then, she looks so adult in terms. She does not have to hide opposite stars of Jodie Foster's kind here, she is really great. What she does is make a quite unreal character come to life - quietly but impressive and likeable. Well, it's no normal movie and there should not be many more of its kind. But, though confusing and gross, there are so many things that you must see. The characters, the actors, the freedom to be mad. Almost as good as "Garp"; there may be worse movies that I rated 8 out of 10.

(1984) The Hotel Of New Hampshire DRAMA/ COMEDY

Co-written and directed by Tony Richardson which is supposed to be a faithful adaption of the John Irving novel, centering on a eccentric family or the oddest family standing by their fathers ambitions involving running a hotel calling it "The Hotel New Hampshire". Some of the oddest situations also include, the bear who rides bikes, incest, girl (Natassia Kinski) wearing a bear suit, the girl who never grows but has ambitions to become a famous writer and more.... all interwoven into this movie with the only thing they have in common is that it centers on them.

Plenty of very bizarre situations similar to Monty Python comedy sketches as well as films, but goes to many directions I'm incapable to understand. Actor John (Rob Lowe) does the narration and Jodie Foster plays his sister, Franny and the father is played being played by Beau Bridges.

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.

I watched this movie because I enjoyed "The World According to Garp" a great deal. But I was disappointed with it. Instead of creating a mood and focusing on the story, this movie takes its cues directly from the book, which is a mistake. Irving's books are wacky and intricate - to follow them to the letter would be ludicrous, as it is here. But I know it's possible. "Garp", at least, had a coherent story.

The makers of this film must have thought that stringing together various scenes that appear in the book would be enough to hold a movie together because Irving obviously knows what he's doing, right? Unfortunately, he does, but they don't. I read the book and the movie is pretty faithful to it, but that's the problem.