ThiefHott Too much of everything

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

brianshoebridge1 The IMDb rating for this movie is really, really mystifying. Yes, it is a strange movie but then again, Bruce Willis is someone not afraid to reach, sometimes even beyond his own level as an actor. He certainly reaches here and gives a creditable performance in a very demanding role.That Bruce likes to stretch himself is a good thing and means we have seen him at his best many times throughout his career. He is a self- made actor in many ways, perhaps similarly to George Clooney, he simply refused to not be successful. Contrast with Nicholas Cage - probably a better actor but plays it safe far too often with the result his filmography is the lesser.But back to BoC. Willis is joined by a strong cast, in particular the wonderfully nutty Glenne Headly. Nick Nolte, not my favourite actor, is surprisingly strong as a stressed out salesman. Albert Finney is a strange actor - lots of talent but there doesn't seem to have been any movie that suits him other than Erin Brockovitch.Yes, the movie is less detailed than the original Vonnegut book and this can make it bit spotty when it comes to understanding just exactly what is going on. But in a world of cookie-cutter films, BoC - for better & for worse - is decidedly not just another one.

tone143 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.

bob the moo 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.

Vygandas Simkus (vygandas1024) It is really great movie, I think that it is greatly underrated because most of people came to see it expecting fights, action and bloodshed, but it is not the kind of movie. A bit unusual to see Bruce Willis in such a role, but he's a good actor and done very well here.The meaning of the movie is more spiritual and psychological than just a mere tangle of various script twists. Lots of things here are symbolical. For example I love the scene where main character misunderstands the words of the wise man, and turns violent. Oh, and have in mind - the second half of the movie is totally different than the first one, so be patient.Maybe the book is better - haven't read it, can't say, but judging according to other MOVIES, not books, this one is on my top 5. if you liked this one, I recommennd you also watch Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead; Pi.10/10