Breakfast of Champions

Midland City is a perfectly ordinary American city. Within the confines of this small world, dealership owner Dwayne Hoover is a celebrity despite the fact that his wealth and success has only served to make him more and more unstable and unhappy. His wife is suicidal and his secretary offers limited relief in their affair. Not that many others have it better. Harry Le Sabre is his sales manager and is full of guilt over his cross dressing and active sex life. With this community breaking down, small time porno-mag article contributor Kilgore Trout makes his way to the city to take his place as the guest of honour at the arts fest – not quite sure how anyone has heard of him.

Another commentator on this site has said that if you showed this film to ten people then probably eight would hate it; those praising it have claimed it to be a wonderful version of Vonnegut's novel. Not having read this, I can believe that he (and this) is an acquired taste because I found it to be an almost unbearably messy affair that was delivered in a silly manner that offered little of interest. Indeed for much of the film I wasn't sure what to make of it. Perhaps it tried to do too much but there seemed to be so many characters rammed in here that most of them just seemed out of place and with no development whatsoever. Of course it didn't help that I didn't see much about those given plenty of time either. Dwayne himself is the perfect example of this; his madness seems to have a reason but the film does a terrible job in bringing this out.

Rudolph seems passionate in his direction but it seems he is too close to the material and his direction might assume a familiarisation with the material that the mass audience will not have. The delivery is too silly and knowingly manic – it takes away from the material and it left me feeling like perhaps it was my fault for not having read the story before watching it. It annoyed me as well that such a starry cast were mostly wasted – presumably they saw something in the material that did not make it to the screen. Willis tries hard but is not supported at all. Finney spends most of the time in his own film, not really fitting into the narrative. Nolte is amusing; Hershey is wasted; Epps has been told something by the director that the rest of us aren't let into. Patton, Wilson, Haas, Lewis and others provide thankless supports.

This may well be perfect for fans of Vonnegut, I cannot say but suffice to say that I am not one of them. However for the casual viewer this is messy, disjointed and pointless to the point of being painful. I gave it two hours as I tried to work it out, hoping that it would make something out of itself but in the end I was left out of pocket with nothing to show for my investment.

I'm afraid that in the era of pop-no-where-ism, where the reality show sets the rules; films like this one will get worse and worse reviews as time moves on. I didn't read Vonnegut until my early thirties and I grew up with Vonnegut's as a kid-no kidding. When I started reading, I just read and read in one extensive gulp. First, there's no good way to try to adapt a Vonnegut book to film. To the reviewers -if you can call them that-who say I've read the book and this movie is a miserable adaptation-go figure?! This is a very good vetting of the themes Vonnegut loves, and using the rambling urban neuroses approach, mastered by Altman, Rudolph revvs us up for the big psychic upchuck that this is all about. This is not a great movie but given the importance of self reflection to American society and the rarity of it, in contemporary society-this movie is a landmark and a watermark, both.

I'll keep it short: absolutely loved the book, for over 20 years. Still holds up and retains the quirky, sarcastic and sardonic elements that made me fall in love with it when I was 15. The movie is yet another failed adaptation of Vonnegut's work. It tries, it swings for the fences, but ultimately, it completely misses. I wanted to like this movie. I tried reeeaaalllll hard, but let's face it, it stinks.

I'm not a literature snob, I think many outstanding films have been made from great books (To Kill a Mockingbird, for one), many great films have been made from sub-par books (Being There, in my opinion is one), and pretty good films CAN be made from Vonnegut (SH5 was a pretty good adaptation and Mother Night was very good, I

thought). This one was not a good film, or even a decent film. It stunk big head cheese left on a hot Texas porch in July.

It wasn't for lack of trying or talent, it just failed to understand the material or simply wasn't able to translate it to film (and I just gotta say, I don't care if BoC is Willis' favorite book, he can't pull off Dwayne Hoover and his presence, while being the sole reason for this adaptation's existence, kills the film, from his acting to his obvious control over it behind the scenes as a producer and a financier). Imagine if William H. Macy was in it. That might be a good film. Try to avoid the temptation to see if this group can pull the movie off. They can't and you will be left unfulfilled and depressed, or even p*ssed off. Like I was.

I can't believe how a perfect adaptation of one of Vonnegut's most personal works could be ignored with such intensity in this country.

Four actors from Armageddon, Bruce Willis included of course, have seen their way into the most underrated movie of the year. Do you think that was an accident? Of course not. It is from the success of movie blockbusters like Armageddon that movies like Breakfast of Champions are able to be made. And that's exactly what the movie is about.

Vonnegut's classic is among the few greatest satires of American Life I have ever known. I was a profound fan of the book, so I had high expectations for the film. Not only did the film match the qualitative relevance of the novel, I felt the movie surpassed its original intentions, fleshing out the characters and rounding out the story with a humanism often missing from Vonnegut's works.

What is success? Is it something you feel, or is it something perceived by others? What is a good movie? Can a good movie stand on its own, or does it have to be financially and critically acclaimed in our time?

Like many martyrs in history, the success of Breakfast of Champions is that it was made, and that it reaches the audience it wants to, however small.

I watch this film, and know in my heart that there is love behind every scene, and that even though it seems that the work goes on its own artistic tangents, the underlying unity of the film is sound and loyal. Everything in the film is for a reason.

Yes,"Breakfast Of Champions" is a brilliant original literary work by Kurt Vonnegut.No,the film adaptation does not do justice to the multi-layered masterpiece.Sure,maybe Robert Altman,Terry Gilliam,or David Lynch might have made better versions of it than Alan Rudolph.But a 4.1?When derivative pieces like "Disturbia",or mindless action films(I could name 50)are scoring 6's and 7's on IMDb,something is seriously out of whack.The performances alone in Breakfast are worth the price of admission,and it's got some quirky,twisted little comic moments in it.Maybe it didn't quite capture the profundity of the book like Slaughterhouse Five did,but c'mon,let's get real here.I think that maybe hardcore cult film afficianados thought it was too commercial(or something?),and the general audience out there didn't really give a rat's ass either way,so I guess that explains the 4.1.I'm giving it a well-deserved 6.Thanks.