Breakfast of Champions [DVD]

it's hardly the greatest film ever to dramatize a novel. (that's LORD OF THE RINGS, as if you really had to ask.) it's not one of the most revered films ever made to say the least, which is difficult to argue with because it is indeed less than a masterpiece. it's not quite the disaster it's gone down in history as either, but it can't be denied it's a film with it's share of flaws.take the character of Fred T. Barry, for instance. in the book, he ended up resembling a Chinaman by a quirk of Nature, and that's why he's taken to dressing like one. in the film the character is portrayed by Buck Henry, who looks about as Oriental as Pamela Anderson, so it was a sizable goof to incorporate the character's sartorial eccentricity. (talk about your wardrobe malfunctions.) for clarity's sake, Henry is a fine actor and plays the part well. (how can the co-creator of GET SMART possibly go wrong?) it's just that without the Chinese-like features, draping him in Chinese wardrobe is just weird and distracting.another stumbling block is the character of Wayne Hoobler, the ex-con who assumes he was meant to work with Dwayne Hoover or they wouldn't have such similar names. the film seems unsure just what to do with the character. his frequent blathering about his "Fairyland" fantasy (as opposed to keeping it a secret for fear of embarassment, as in the book) seems to be the one thing he was given to do. his journey in the book has a certain poignancy, but said journey translates rather clumsily to film.the film makes several such desperate attempts to invoke elements of the book that there really isn't adequate room for, and which it doesn't really need anyway. why for instance, do we need to know that Dwayne Hoover was adopted? in the book, it's to set up a subplot about how the "Sacred Miracle Cave," local tourist attraction Dwayne co-owns with his stepbrothers, has become contaminated with toxic waste and has to be closed down and fumigated. this is basically yet another crisis with which to nudge Dwayne that much closer to "the edge," but cinema can build up to his ultimate suceptibility to panic without such incidental premables, and that's the way it should. so establishing Dawyne's adoption is a loose end, one of many that result in an overall lack of focus.and then there's the fact that Dwayne's ultimate rampage is toned down considerably. he wreaks sufficient havoc that we get to see him arrested, but the much narrower trail of carange in his path, to say nothing of not getting to see him lose everything in subsequent lawsuits (as in the book), is frankly an anticlimax on SO many levels. the basic story is the countdown to when Dwayne finally "snaps," but he doesn't "snap" quite enough.(which reminds me of the interesting irony about this film: despite being toned down considerably in the transition from the book, it still ended up with an R-rating.)so what was it then, you ask? how does a film manage to trandscend such severe weaknesses? what saving grace could possibly be powerful enough to take a film with this much working against it and actually raise it (albeit only about an inch or so) above the level of mediocrity that threatened to engulf it?well in this case, it's Albert Finney's masterful protrail of Vonnegut's signature character, aging literary failure Kilgore Trout. it will be remembered that Trout found his way into quite a few of Vonnegut's novels, including his most revered, SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE, but the closest he came to being a "main" character was in BREAKFAST. i've heard it's probably his most popular novel, and i hereby hazard a guess that this is the reason why.90% of when the film misfires is due to it's overemphasis on the comparatively bland character of Dwayne Hoover. Trout was never mentioned in any of the advertising campaign, and isn't even now on the videobox itself. maybe they figured that Kilgore Trout doesn't do as much, whereas Dwayne has a handful of problems to organize. i can see how that might work in theory, but in the application Finney is the one who steals the show!Bruce Willis is miscast, but on the whole a pretty good cast makes the best of what they're given to work with. Barbara Hershey makes an interestingly quirky character out of Dwayne's addled wife, which is no mean feat considered than in Vonnegut's version she had died before the story even began. Glenne Headley's secretary/mistress, like most of Headley's characters, manages to seem loopy without coming off as a complete flibertigibbet. and Nick Nolte displays a knack for broad comedy that you never would've suspected.one interesting new angle from director Alan Rupdolph is his take on commericals and how they impact our lives. Celia Hoover in particular tends to get her philosophical comfort from "mottos" which had in fact been designed to sell things. it's only fitting, given the the book's title had been an advertising slogan.when ya get right down to it, though, it is Finney who makes-or-breaks the production. he makes Trout into everything Vonnegut designed his as and more. he may not be the one and only worthy element of the film, but it is Finney (in my opinion, anyway) who lends the quality that renders the film worth at least one viewing. it is Finney's contribution which makes the film worth mentioning and recommending, albeit at a more modest level than, say, THE GODFATHER or STAR WARS.in short, the film is amusing enough to transcend at least some of it's weaknesses. BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS should've been so much more...but it COULD'VE been so much LESS.

Certain of the films Bruce Willis has appeared in definitely cross the line between tongue-in-cheek and out and out surrealism, in the sense of Salvatore Dali or Heironymous Bosch. The most well known of these is certainly "The Fifth Element" - a wonderfully droll comedy of ultimate destruction! It is only recently that I encountered "Breakfast of Champions" as a film although I had been through Kurt Vonnegut's novel previously. There is the tired argument about how film adaptations of literary works are either too literal or too liberal. Film making is not novel writing, and even though the latter may be based on the former, it has to stand on its own merits irrespective of its origins. In this case, however loose the adaptation of the novel, the film works on so many levels. The clue, of course, if the title which, for those of you old enough to remember, was the advertising phrase for the breakfast cereal, Wheaties. That's enough of a clue - the crass fantasy world of television advertising, the brittle surface veneer covering a maelstrom of emotional angst, the absurd juxtapositions, the reversal of character where the seemingly crazy loner becomes the hero, the tragic ending where release brings resolution in the mental hospital lockup for one character, and death by dissolution into the running fantasy notion of paradise for the other. The ending of the film is terribly jarring - even if you expect it. Insanity is like that, I guess.For my money, it's a brilliant bit of film making. Perhaps the most jarring part of the illusion is Willis with a head of hair and thin, steel framed glasses!This is not one for people who can only think in linear fashion - no fantasy, especially surrealism, operates that way. Too many people complained, for example about the third "Pirates of the Caribbean" - it was too complex, went in too many directions, had too much detail. Nonsense. Too much of our pop culture is single tracked hip-hop sterile. Just as in music there are more meters than 2 or 3, so too in literature, the visual arts and in cinema as well.Bravo. Well done.

This surreal adaptation of the Kurt Vonnegut novel hasn't a single sane person in it!Willis is the suicidal high-profile owner of a Midland City car dealership who seeks the meaning of life when he doesn't have a pistol barrel in his mouth. Hershey is his zoned-out-on-TV wife, Haas their fey and glittery lounge lizard organist son.Willis is having an affair with Headly, an oversexed secretary who's only in it for money: she wants to borrow from him the capital needed to open a fried chicken franchise. Nolte is Bruce's conservatively dressed sales manager who feels guilty about wearing women's lingerie at home. Epps is the recently paroled prisoner with a name similar to Willis'; he takes up residence in a purple car on Willis' lot, a place he calls "Fairyland."Finney is a spacey, philsophizing sci-fi author whose stories only appeared in cheap-o 1950s skin mags. Campbell is the eccentric millionaire who thinks Finney's the greatest writer of all time; he invites the reclusive author to Midland City for an honorarium.One of the the most underappreciated movies of all time. I love everything about it, especially Martin Denny's Exotica cocktail music (remember " Quiet Village "?).(An ANNIE V. TOP 20 FILM.)Parenthetical number preceding title is a 1 to 10 IMDb viewer poll rating.(4.4) Breakfast of Champions (1999) - Bruce Willis/Albert Finney/Nick Nolte/Barbara Hershey/Glenne Headly/Lucas Haas/Omar Epps/Vicki Lewis/Buck Henry/Ken Hudson Campbell/Owen Wilson/Shawnee Smith/Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

I bought this dvd a while ago and the other day I decided to put it on and watch it. I have become a Kurt Vonnegut Jr fan and have nearly all of his books. So as I was looking for another dvd called Slaughterhouse 5, whose plot is off the hook. I saw this and bought Breakfast Of Champions. There is nowhere on this page to say the DVD would have Belgian subtitles and my remote control for my dvd player couldn't get rid of them either. I could've sent it back but with all the rigmarole of doing that I have kept it. I may try and watch it again. I bought the book too.

A nervous breakdown for men of all ages. Excellent film, excellent cast, including cameo by Kurt Vonnegut.

very good

Une comédie d' Alan Rudolph avec Bruce Willis que je n'avais encore jamais vu et qui manquait à ma collection ,ce film date de 1999 ( comme l' excellent "6eme Sens " sorti la meme année ), il est issu d'un roman de Kurt Vonnegut sorti en France en 1974 . Je ne parlerais pas ici du film en lui même car "critique de cinéma" c'est un métier et de plus...chacun ses goûts ! Voyons donc le côté technique de cette édition DVD .Sur la jaquette est indiqué le format 4/3,et bien ...que nenni ! Il s'agit de l'édition "SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT" qui est bien en 16/9 . Le début du film commence bien par des images "carrées " mais en fait il s'agit d'une vision d'un écran TV qui diffuse une publicité vue en plan très rapproché ! La qualité d'image est bonne pour un ancien DVD et même si les couleurs sont un peu ternes , cela reste très appréciable ( film visionné sur écran LCD Full HD 1080p 400hz de 1m90 de diagonale avec un lecteur Bluray THX ). Le son ,signalé comme uniquement dispo en VF sur la jaquette est pourtant dispo en VOST français via le menu . Le Dolby digital 5.1 est clair ,net ,intelligible mais le son est essentiellement situé à l'avant, tres peu d'effets surround ici et pas plus de sollicitation du caisson de basse,ce qui n'est pas gênant en soi pour ce genre de film . Coté Bonus " autour du film " propose la bande annonce en français, des filmographies des acteurs , La jaquette de cette edition ( voir ma photo ) est à mes yeux la plus jolie existant à ce jour pour ce film . Acheté d'occasion pour quelques euros ,à peine plus cher que les frais de port,mon DVD est comme neuf (merci Momox et Amazon !) je conseille ce mode d'achat aux fans de Willis ou Nolte, pour acquérir ce film qui ne sortira probablement jamais en bluray en France. Pour finir ,même si tout le monde s'en fout, j'ai bien aimé ce film .

Der Film ist der Hammer