The Hotel New Hampshire

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 includes Wallace Shawn (Freud), Dorsey Wright (Junior), Cali Timmins (Bitty), Anita Morris (Ronda Ray) and Walter Massey (Texan). The film is by turns poignant, funny and disturbing; one could say a succinct reflection of life. And, diverse as this story is, thematically, there will undoubtedly be one aspect of it or another to which just about anyone will be able to relate. Because that's what life is; a journey we all share, but which we take on different roads that sooner or later are bound to intersect, and which becomes the point at which we realize something that's inescapable and possibly the most important thing we will ever learn: That we are not alone in this. And, in the final analysis, that is what `The Hotel New Hampshire' is all about. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 7/10.

Slowly I realize what Homer Simpson meant when he said: "I wanna be John Irving!" No, seriously, that was just supposed to be a joke. The ONLY movie I know "The Hotel New Hampshire" can be compared to is "The World According to Garp" - as this one based on a novel by John Irving.

Sometimes this movie makes you think that it's a mediocre and senseless one. That it's gross and abnormal. But that is John Irving! Like in "Garp", sex plays a central role in "New Hampshire" - and it's turned upside down. In "Garp", Glenn Close *raped* a dying man. In this movie, Jodie Foster is raped, she and her brother (Rob Lowe) want to make love and know that they will eventually - and they tell each other. They also tell each other everything about their sexual relationships, they talk about whom they fancy and how they should make love with them. Sex is always present in the development of the characters, but at another level as normally, i.e. as the most normal thing of the world, basically.

The main reason why that strange movie works is that the characters are very interesting. They are grotesque, alright, but something makes them real. The point is, that the characters in this movie are allowed to dream and even to be really mad. However, there are frontiers to their freedom, it's just not the same frontiers as we know. They make the frontiers themselves. Their frontiers allow the siblings to make love - on ONE single looong afternoon. And that scene is not as disturbing as it is kind of beautiful and touching, because THESE characters CAN do this! It's the *radicals* in Vienna who bring us back to the real world - still in a grotesque way. Well, and there are sooo many important characters in this movie - that makes it!

The actors are fabulous. Jodie Foster can never be bad, Rob Lowe is believeable and Amanda Plummer is as good as always. A real stand-out is young Jennie Dundas. About twelve or how old she was then, she looks so adult in terms. She does not have to hide opposite stars of Jodie Foster's kind here, she is really great. What she does is make a quite unreal character come to life - quietly but impressive and likeable. Well, it's no normal movie and there should not be many more of its kind. But, though confusing and gross, there are so many things that you must see. The characters, the actors, the freedom to be mad. Almost as good as "Garp"; there may be worse movies that I rated 8 out of 10.

I just purchased this film on a Norwegian home video, and the cover bragged about the ratings it had gotten in Norwegian newspapers (5 out of 6 in the major papers). I thought this had to be a good movie, so I checked it out on this site, and was surprised to see how bad the reviews were here.

Now I've seen the film and I must say that I agree much more with the Norwegian reviewers than the users of this site (except those who gave it a good review). This movie is brilliant. Almost as good as The World According To Garp, which happens to be one of my favourite movies of all time.

The excellence of these films is that they're so focused on the main characters in the movie, that you really start to know them, and care about them. This is something you don't see in many movies. Here you follow the whole family from they're young 'till they're old, and you start understanding how they've become the way they are, and why they act the way they do.

As Garp, this movie is also very much focused on sex and love, and in the most bizarre ways possible. But so what? In the world there are many types of persons, why should a book or a movie just focus on the "normal" ones? The fact that the persons in these films are not "normal" makes them more acceptable and believable to the average viewer. "Normal" in movies normally means perfect, and very few persons are perfect... In Garp and New Hampshire the characters are not perfect, and that's what makes the films perfect...

The cast also does an excellent work with their characters, everybody is believable. And the director has done an excellent job pacing the film in a way that it doesn't move too fast, and it never bores you by going to slow.

All in all: an excellent movie that I'd recommend to anyone who hasn't yet been completely brainwashed by Hollywood's image of perfectionism. Almost as good as Garp. If you liked Garp, you'll love this one too. And vice versa. I give this film an 8 (almost 9) out of 10.

I watched this movie because I enjoyed "The World According to Garp" a great deal. But I was disappointed with it. Instead of creating a mood and focusing on the story, this movie takes its cues directly from the book, which is a mistake. Irving's books are wacky and intricate - to follow them to the letter would be ludicrous, as it is here. But I know it's possible. "Garp", at least, had a coherent story.

The makers of this film must have thought that stringing together various scenes that appear in the book would be enough to hold a movie together because Irving obviously knows what he's doing, right? Unfortunately, he does, but they don't. I read the book and the movie is pretty faithful to it, but that's the problem.

Well, no that is probably hyperbole. I thought this movie was disjointed and difficult to grasp. Whereas Garp was a strange movie, indeed, it at least managed to capture some essence of flow. Hotel New Hampshire was choppy and more like a series of stories than one whole story. The elements that dragged the pieces together, like the Dog Who Would Not Go Away, etc, gave a comical lift to the otherwise tragic and painful story.

On an off note, the ratings for this movie listed its R rating as being caused by Language, Violence, and Nudity. It neglected to mention the rape. For those who have no desire to witness something on those lines, here's your warning should you have not read the book.