Lee Eisenberg First, I should note that I've never read John Irving's novel on which "The Hotel New Hampshire" is based. I didn't think that it was a bad movie. Certainly the sort of movie that today's franchise-crazy studios would be reluctant to finance. I understand that John Irving liked Tony Richardson's movie, and his only criticism thereof was that it tried to be too faithful to the book, often making parts of it go by too quickly. Now I'm eager to read the book (of Irving's books, I've only read "The World According to Garp").It's not any sort of great movie, but I thought that it was worth seeing. The cast includes Beau Bridges, Jodie Foster, Rob Lowe, Nastassja Kinski, Wallace Shawn - whom my parents met around the time that "My Dinner with Andre" got released - Seth Green and Amanda Plummer (put another way, it stars the Dude's brother, Clarice Starling, young #2, Nosferatu's daughter, Vizzini, Dr. Evil's son and Honeybunch).

james higgins 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.

tonymurphylee John Irving is one of my favorite authors. I've read all of his books, including his classic novel, THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE. The book is an epic, funny, and shocking read, especially for it's time, and yet it lives on as a memorable, unique, and powerful piece of literature. It is probably one of my favorite books by him. If you're a book person, I highly recommend it. This film is an attempt to put the book in film form. Did they succeed? Well, yes and no. Yes in that they managed to squeeze a lot of events and content contained in the book into a very tight hour and fifty minutes. However the filmmaker failed to tell a story. The director, Tony Richardson managed to succeed at getting an idea established, craft characters, events, situations, and characteristics in a way that that makes sense, and has created epic set pieces for these characters to do this things in. However, he has not set up any sort of perspective, conflict, or reason for a person to view this. I do, however, recommend it. The major flaw in this film is that there is too much stuff happening and not enough reason for the viewer to pay attention or care. In a sense, however, he has succeeded at putting images behind the shocking and horrific events of the book. I'm not sure, however, if I should be complimenting him for this. This film certainly gets the grotesque nature of the book down perfectly. The aspects of incest, rape, sexual fetishes, domination, murder, and brutality are captured rather bluntly and without any reservations. Those aspects were done perfectly. However, do I really want to see a film of THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE that highlights THOSE parts of the book rather than the events as a whole? I guess, yes, in a sense, because the events of THE HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE did get to me and did put images in my head that bothered me, and the fact that this film has these same images does much to help me identify with what's going on. However, the film also tries to comedy, and as a result it all seems more shocking. But after a while, it all becomes shock for shocks sake. The film adaptation of THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP didn't try to capture all of these horrible and shocking things that occurred within the course of the book but rather set those aside in order to concentrate on telling a story and crafting characters. It didn't work as well as it could of, but it worked in that a hell of a lot more that what the filmmakers try to go for in this. Having said that, I do love this film. As flawed as it is and as misguided as it is as a whole, I loved seeing the characters, events, and tone being in film form. The acting jobs by all the players, the look, the tone, and the general premise all translate very well. If there were a story, I would have an easier time recommending it, but I think I will have to say that this is worth seeing by fans of John Irving's book only.

Cleia Abenza First of, this is not a comedy. Where was the fun? because I somehow missed it. I believe you'll find the movie to be insensitive and sometimes even gross. Also, the acting is quite disappointing. The argument is completely ridiculous, and it gets worse as the movie develops.I can think of many ways to describe this movie; lame, boring, stupid, weak, grotesque, absurd, poor...Only if you're curious to see the young Jodie Foster or Rob Lowe I would recommend this fiasco. But even in that case, it would be better for you to just watch "Taxi Driver" or "Youngblood" for instance.This is not worth watching. It's a terrible waste of time and I do not recommend it.