Rating: 
Summary: Good but not Great
Review: I saw the movie before reading the book (actually the movie inspired me to read the book). I realize that the book and movie have separate meanings which try to spell out the insanity of Hoover's world and Trout's harsh reality. This is a feel good movie and the book is good too. The problem with the movie is that a lot of the characters are portrayed wrong, but everything eventually sums up in the end.
Rating:
Summary: I've never read the book
Review: I have never read the book, and maybe thats why i really like this film. You can tell from the first ten mins of this movie that its not going to be your normal mainstreem Bruce Willis picture and you should also be able to tell if your going to like this film or not. You are dragged through the crazyness of Bruce Willis' breakdown with him, which gives the director prime opportunity to use many Cool camera gimmicks. As well as being a very well made film it is also very very funny in its quirky way. FOUR STARS
Rating: 
Summary: I think I'm gonna have nightmares...
Review: Okay, a friend rented this movie and asked me if I wanted to see it. I knew nothing about it, so I was like, sure. Oh man was that a huge mistake. This movie is just plain BAD. Let me summarize: - The plot makes no sense
- The movie is majorly [expletive]d up
- It's not funny WHILE being messed up
- The acting is sooooo cheesy, overdone, and unbelievable
- There isn't a single character in the movie who is even slightly SANE
- This movie gave me NIGHTMARES for WEEKS. Trust me, if you value your time, your sanity, etc... and are NOT trying to scare the ... out of yourself, don't watch this movie. If you do... well... don't say I didn't warn you...
Rating:
Summary: what a waste...
Review: Im usually into bizzare, off-beat movies. so as i looked for a movie to rent i came across this one and the back claims it is a "critically acclaimed oddball comedy". I loved movies like "Being John Malkovich", "suburbia", and "the house of yes" yet this movie is beyond bizzare. Its not the good kind of bizarre, its the bad kind that just doesnt make any sense. There is so much terrible acting despite the good cast (this is possibly bruce willis' worst performance ever...just terrible.) it reminds me of a bad 80's comedy with a shoe-string budget. How the hell did they get bruce in this one? This movie doesnt have much of a plot. And i appreciate bizzare and off beat comedies, but this oen isnt entertaining in the least bit. And the critically acclaimed part?! 3.1 out of every 4 critics in the US slammed this movie as a terrible movie. Dont be mislead.
Rating: 
Summary: I'd Rather They Hadn't Tried To Make This A Moovy....
Review: ...and no disrespect to Vonnegut, I don't think he writes novels that are easily adaptable to cinema. I had BIG trouble with the "Slaughterhouse Five" moovy. In this I found Albert Finney's Kilgore Trout the best thing about the moovy. He looks like someone who is as confused at the accolades as much as he is willing to get per diem from a bunch of middle class denizens whose major attribute is that they nearly know how to run a good stripmall. Barbra Hershey also does well as Duane's daffy wife.
But, the other players? Children, repeat after me. O-VER-ACT-ING!
Read the novel, skip this moovy.
Rating:
Summary: Don't quite know what to say...
Review: Breakfast of Champions is my absolute favorite novel of all time. Reading it was something of a turning point for me, and there are some parallels between Dwayne Hoover's middle-age angst and my own teenage angst at the time (although my reaction to the written word was more introspective and less, er, physical than Dwayne's). I was a bit apprehensive about watching the film version--enough time has gone by for me to have a pretty solid visual image of the story--but curiosity won out. Two things really stood out to me. First, my impression of the book was that the characters were isolated from one another, and any interaction was at best superficial. The film presents the characters in each other's faces (probably an attempt to make the film more humorous), and seems to miss the sense of alienation that drives Dwayne into his madness. The stereotyping of the characters does create a kind of "ostranenie" effect, but the result is neutralized by the actors apparently bouncing off the screen. Second, the novel was set in the early seventies, whereas the film seems to be more present-day (okay, I admit, early seventies was present day when the novel was published...). The backdrop of Cold War anxiety and the social upheavals that dominated the sixties is missing, and without that context the story loses its existential edge. If you want to catch more of Vonnegut's existential sense in a film that's closer in time to the novel, check out "Slaughterhouse-Five", directed by George Roy Hill. Other than that, I actually enjoyed the movie. Having read the book beforehand helped me follow the story immensely, and I can certainly understand why anyone who hasn't read it wouldn't appreciate the film interpretation. Even if the interpretation didn't match that in my own mind, I appreciated the effort.
Rating:
Summary: An unexpected surprise
Review: I have forgone watching this film until now, due to the very bad reviews and the fear of seeing one of my favourite authors pulverized in a travesty of one of his great works. But, one of my kids brought the film home, so I bit that bullet and sat down and watched it.
You've read enough reviews by now to get some gist of the story, so I won't go into that again, except to say that it has to do with the madness that results from living a completely amoral and unfulfilling existence. Vonnegut is, I believe, primarily a philosopher and a very funny man who has the rare talent of pulling all of life's absurdities into some kind of focus. It is true that his books do not translate well to the screen because it is his dialogue that is so important and this is generally excluded. However. Breakfast of Champions, however much it could not remain completely faithful to the book, stands as a work of art in its own right. It is very Terry Gilliam in its approach and over-all strangeness, including the plethora of eccentric characters; the cinematography is superb and the acting is brilliant. If you like Gilliam and cult films and David Lynch, you'll probably enjoy this film. If, on the other hand, you tend more towards Speilberg, you will probably find the film an incomprehensible mess. I absolutely do not agree with those who off-handedly bashed the film to pieces as there was a great deal of thought and even love put into this film, and the fact that some find it incomprehensible does not mean that it isn't, only that they are incapable of understanding and appreciating it.
Rating:
Summary: VERY FUNNY MOVIE
Review: ...I THOUGHT IT WAS HILARIOUS AND CLEVER. I DONT THINK IT IS THE FUNNIEST OR BEST MOVIE EVER MADE,BUT IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR 4 STARS.
Rating:
Summary: awful
Review: first off: i'm a huge vonnegut fan. i remember hearing that they were going to make a movie from breakfast of champions and thinking that it could never be done. the plot of the novel is secondary to vonnegut's rants on modern america and without his narration the plot falls completely flat. this is exactly what happened with the movie. please don't be turned off to the novel because of the film, it is one of the funniest books out there. the movie is very non-sensical and leaves out the suicide of hoover's wife which is really what sets him off. i was very frustrated with this adaptation, they should have just left it alone.
Rating:
Summary: unbeleivable
Review: i cant beleive i sat through it.i did because it stars two great actors]willis and nolty].but there not very great in this rubish.i couldnt even follow the story half the time.what a waste of tallent,how could they sink so low to appear in this so called movie.RUBISH.its going straight in the charity bag.at least the people that watch it next wont waste so much money.
| 
