The Hotel New Hampshire (1984)

Sixteen years ago, as a young, pregnant mother of a toddler, I rented this movie, and could not believe anyone could make a picture with so many problems, and still have a career. Last night the movie was on Showtime, and out of morbid curiosity and insomnia, I watched the entire film again, wondering if it was still the saddest attempt at entertainment I had ever seen. My daughter watched it with me, incredulously. Just like the first time, when I carried her in my belly, she kicked me and fell asleep.

Today, as a middle aged mother of four, I tried to be fair. I racked my brain to find good things in this film, as a personal challenge. The only really great moment, is when the older brother says (without revealing anything of the movie) "I am you know", and his siblings warmly and without comment say that they know. That was sweet, simple, warm and believable, revealing depth of character never again seen. Instead we get bizarre and inane scenes, sappy music, slapstick comedy, hundreds of plots thrown in a blender, and sad attempts at drama.

There are so many issues, and possible themes here, familial violence, homosexual assault, gang rape, interracial relationships, pedophilia (waitress and John, come on, both sexes can be abused and confused by it!), prostitution, bestiality, incest, violent death, family relations, terrorism, promiscuity, pornography, sexual confusion...blah blah blah. I don't want a story handed to me on a platter, with all the strings tied. I like multiple issues and confusion and ambiguity. But if your going to take me on an acid trip, at least make it interesting. Its like they put it all in a snow globe and shook it up, adding their ridiculous and inane attempts at gross humor. As for the drama, beloved family members die, and the survivors sit around looking like someone peed in their Kool-Aid. If only they had added Jodie's character humping her stuffed Sorrow, I might have laughed.

You know, it is so bad, I may have to watch it again. Could that be the director's intent? Pure genius!

Fmovies: I was disappointed in this movie for many reasons. Minute details of the book were crammed into the movie, which would make the movie very hard to follow if the viewer did not read the book. A lot of Irving's books have strange sexual themes, which sometimes do not translate to the big screen, and "Hotel New Hampshire" is one of those books. While it is one of Irving's best books, and gives a lot of history for each character, the movie left the characters shallow and undeveloped. Too bad, because a wonderful acting job by Jodie Foster was wasted on a phrenetic, nonsensical movie. Rob Lowe's performance (or lack thereof) really hurts the movie, but the adaptation of Irving's novel to the big screen (unlike Cider House Rules) left much to be desired.

Movie adaptations of John Irving novels are all bound to be weird and esoteric. The one exception is "The Cider House Rules", which was rewritten for the screen by Irving himself. But "The Cider House Rules" is also the most toned-down of Irving's novels. From such works of grandiose fiction and fantastic imagination as "A Prayer for Owen Meany" and "The World According to Garp", it stands out.

"Hotel New Hampshire" is even more difficult, and as such it is a difficult novel to adapt to the screen. But I think the director has managed to do a very fine job indeed. "Hotel New Hampshire" is very faithful to Irving's original story, and has the same way of "floating above" the hardships and adventures of the family. The characters are seemingly simple but reveal deep traits of complexity in their words and actions, especially the youngest daughter Lilly and the rough Frannie, both portrayed excellently by Jennifer Dundas and Jodie Foster respectively. The father, obsessed with running a hotel, seems to lead this family on their journey, but there are greater forces at work: disasters, death, political fanaticism, incest and sex. Love and compassion also play important roles, most of all the love between Frannie and John (the narrator) and the friendship between Win Berry and Freud (and Freud's bear!).

The macabre humor is very typical of John Irving, who is a master at writing the deepest tragedy and still make you smile, but the humor serves a greater purpose: ridicule is a way to express outrage and frustration - and "Hotel New Hampshire" has its share of that: the rape of the ambivalent Frannie, the death of the poor old dog and the insanely funny way it refuses to release its hold on the family, the ridiculous radicals in Vienna and the tragic loss of family members. This film focuses on the humor more than the book does, but the seriousness seeps through in the right places. Excellent performances, great scenery and attention to detail added to humor and wit makes this film a very good adaptation of Irving's fascinating novel. Good work.

The Hotel New Hampshire fmovies. 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.

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 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 includ