Breakfast of Champions (1999) User Reviews (139)

A disappointed fan of the book

[muscato · 4/10 · 21 May 2000]

After a recent Vonnegut reading binge I was eager to see Breakfast of Champions when I saw it on the video shelf. A great cast, a director (Aland Rudolph) who has made several films I've enjoyed (Choose Me, The Moderns, Trouble in Mind). Sadly, BofC is quite a disappointment.

Two things really stick out for me. Although Bruce Willis was quite good as Dwayne Hoover, too many of the other characters, notably Harry LeSabre (Nick Nolte) and Wayne Hoobler (Omar Epps) are portrayed in frenetic over the top performances. OK...we get it that there are all sorts of crazies running amuck in Midland City, but the point Vonnegut was making in his novel was that this madness is displayed in the "normal" everyday way that we live our lives in America. The values (consumerism, greed, violence) and actions that are considered normal in the United States are themselves proof that we are all suffering from a form of madness...showing these fine actors jumping around and uttering indecipherable gibberish shows only that they are annoying.

The film also has a problem in creating a consistent point of view. In the novel the author guides us through Dwayne Hoovers' unfolding madness and is actually a character in the book. The movie can't give us the background information the books' narrator did and I would guess that anyone who hasn't read the book will find the movie tough going...perhaps downright incomprehensible.

Lastly, as a great fan of Kilgore Trout (Vonnegut fans know him as a character who pops up in several Vonnegut novels) I thought Albert Finney did quite a nice job; he had just the right air of unkempt, curmudgeonly, insane genius that makes Trout my favorite Vonnegut character of all time. Still, it's hardly enough to save this mess...I admire the effort in bringing Breakfast of Champions to the screen, but in the end it's likely that this is an unfilmable novel.

4.1?

[tone143 · 6/10 · 12 October 2007]

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.

Not for fans of the book

[jcc-6 · 4/10 · 23 March 2017]

This movie had an excellent cast and was based on a wonderful book by Kurt Vonnegut. So what went wrong?

Most of the performances were a bit over the top but that wasn't the movie's main failing. There was a character, Dwayne's wife, who shouldn't have been in the movie at all except in possible flashbacks before she committed suicide. This still wasn't the movie's biggest fault.

The biggest problem was the ending. Anyone who's ever read Vonnegut knows that happy endings aren't forthcoming. Dwayne shouldn't have reconciled with his son and wife (who, as mentioned earlier, was dead). It's too tidy and Vonnegut was anything but tidy.

But probably the saddest part to me is that they actually had Vonnegut in the film without including the wonderful scene from the novel in which he interacts with the character Kilgore Trout. That alone could have saved this movie from all its other shortcomings.

Y2K NBK

[nunculus · 17 September 1999]

Though it's bound for negative comparison with the sober, Joe Pro, Oscar-friendly AMERICAN BEAUTY, I vastly preferred Alan Rudolph's vision of suburban life gone bonkers. His adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's best (and most scabrous) novel starts with one genius style choice: Rudolph mates the Pop Art Expressionism of Oliver Stone with the group-hug ensemble of his mentor, Robert Altman. Beneath the blizzard of smily-face pins, digital-display Colonel Sanders, and chain-diner Muzak lies a Tiffany cast. Bruce Willis is the face of desperation under a stick-on grin as the car-salesman hero, Dwayne Hoover, a small-town hero who doesn't know why he's a few cards short of a full deck. As his second banana, Nick Nolte is a dream as a hard-working joe who's so guilty about his sexual kinks they seem to leak out of him like flopsweat. And as the movie's resident seer and soothsayer--a derelict sci-fi genius named Kilgore Trout--Albert Finney is so perfect Rudolph seems to have plucked him from out of an Iowa City dumpster.

Rudolph's attempts at stars-and-stripes Expressionism don't all work; some uncharitable folks will be reminded of late-sixties I-hate-America bashes like END OF THE ROAD. But I have always had a soft spot for those pictures, and I feel protective toward BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS as well. Blessings are showered upon Bruce Willis for scratching this dark-horse project out of thin air, and upon Rudolph too. He must have known that propelling himself out of his usual world of downbeat, canoodling romanticism would pull out of him the best work of his career.

Utterly atrocious

[bcotton-2 · 1/10 · 1 July 2006]

Wow. I have never seen a more awful adaptation of a wonderful book. If Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. were dead, he'd be rolling in his grave. I don't think Alan Rudolph even read the book...MAYBE he read the "Cliff's Notes." Everything that Vonnegut made captivating in Breakfast of Champions was completely spat upon in this movie. That it used many of his sketches from the novel is the only real positive thing I can say. Bruce Willis was a surprisingly convincing Dwayne Hoover. Glenne Headly was well-cast as Francine Pefko. The rest of the cast selection could have been done just as well picking names out of a hat.

I understand the necessity of removing back story and minor sub-plots when adapting a novel to the big screen, but so much was lost here that I wouldn't have been able to follow the story had it not been for the fact that I've read the book so many times.

To the user who called this a drama, you are wrong. Vonnegut did not write dramas, he wrote dark comedies. There is a fine, yet crucial difference between the two. This movie failed on so many levels to achieve even a fraction of what Vonnegut said.

One of Vonnegut's best, butchered on screen.

[pressman-1 · 1/10 · 24 November 2001]

Breakfast of Champions is one of Vonnegut's best novels and it was just butchered. The story is about a man who is suffering from a case of bad chemicals rotting his brain. The movie failed to truly convey the fact that the man was slowly, almost imperceptibly to himself, going insane. The movie succumbed to the Fear and Loathing, overly trippy approach to to a very subtle story. BOC is not Fear and Loathing and should not have been treated as such.

Simply awful

[cbvb · 1/10 · 3 May 2001]

It is clear that everyone in this movie worked extremely hard. Bruce Willis ALMOST saves this movie. His performance is fantastic, particularly in watching him agonizingly drawing a painful smile across his face. He and Albert Finney are, unfortunately, the only well cast actors in the movie.

I've not read the book; it may simply be that this was not possible to translate to film. A lot of interesting ideas fly around, but in the end, to quote the bard, it's sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Avoid at all costs.

[mockturtle · 1/10 · 17 November 2001]

Alan Rudolph should get "a hammer and the inclination" and live out George Lucas' reported fantasy of what he'd like to do to any copies of the "Star Wars Christmas Special" with this film. It is a point by point rape of the source material. Despite being peopled by actors that I am simply happy to see getting paid (among them Owen Wilson and Chip Zien in small parts, in the larger there are Glenne Headley and Barbara Hershey), not to mention Albert Finney who has the potential to fulfill everything one could hope for in a Kilgore Trout, this film calls to mind Kubrick's film of "The Shining" in making me ask: "If you didn't want to make a film of this book why didn't you just write your own script?" The only example I'll give is that in the book, Dwayne Hoover's son is a lounge pianist and "notorious homosexual" who calls himself "Bunny." In the movie he is a "sound stylist" whose name is due to the bunnies on everything he owns. This and other incredibly pointless and deleterious changes call to mind the little things like Kubrick changing the number of the hotel room with the lady in the bath in "Shining." Why? No idea. Alan Rudolph, a sort of Altman protege, has been good before. I greatly admire "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle," particularly because of its sometime aimless and anecdotal quality (it is another of those "who's who" films of people I'm glad are being paid, among them Wallace Shawn, Martha Plimpton and Campbell Scott). Reading the book, one might wonder to oneself: "My, race is such a prevalent issue in this book and addressed in such a way that is might cause offence or controversy in a widely viewed film version; I wonder how an astute and sensitive director like Mr. Rudolph would handle it?" If you have asked yourself that very question, though perhaps not in those words, the solution is that he ignores it entirely. And for good measure he turns the novel's main black character, Wayne Hoobler (played by Omar Epps), into a psychotic, mugging cartoon.

Nick Nolte's involvement is a puzzle. He starred for Rudolph before in "Afterglow," but he was also in one of the two faithful film adaptations of Vonnegut, Keith Gordon's excellent "Mother Night." I don't know. But file this one next to the Jerry Lewis "Slapstick of Another Kind." I can only think that Vonnegut was simply too benevolent to consider himself as having been screwed on this film (he's even in it, for the blink of an eye, and during one of the terrible invented scenes). I hope to god that when they finally get around to making a movie of "Cat's Cradle" that this isn't what becomes of it. Just shoot the book and be creative in the adaptation of text into dialogue in setting without getting all "creative" with it, unless your film is more of a response to the material than an adaptation of it like Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch." It's not that hard.

Foma! A pack of Foma!

[jcasetnl · 2/10 · 9 September 2001]

I had to laugh like hell when I read the other reviews of this movie defending this hopelessly confused, jumbled mess as pure Vonnegut - "because that's how Vonnegut's novels are!"

Wrong.

My God, the excrement hit the air conditioning when they made this movie.

Everything Vonnegut is lost. Vonnegut's trademark sardonic wit is nowhere to be found. Instead of Vonnegut's subtlety, instead of his ability to convey both tragedy and comedy in the seemingly mundane, this movie simply throws up all over the viewer continuously in depressed version of Brady Bunch optimism. Only Kilgore Trout and Harry LeSabre's characters are even remotely close to the novel's intention. Barbara Hershey is utterly useless and unecessary.

Though Bruce Willis delivers a very acceptable performance he is plagued by perhaps the worst writing possible. From the opening of the film he's a neurotic rampaging idiot. We never see the transformation of this character. We never identify with him. We never feel compasion for him.

Not one single character in this movie is believable. Wayne Hoobler is the worst offender. From the first moment he appears on-screen the viewer is forced to dismiss him instead of realizing the tragedy of his position.

Everything Vonnegut conveys in the novel about American Idealism is never even touched. Oh sure, they thought they were conveying all this in the film by flooding the viewer with a non-stop acid nitemare of advertisements and such but it's so cliche and forced the viewer can't possibly take it seriously.

To the makers of this movie, let me say the following: Vonnegut was never about creating a totally unblievable, bad acid trip, as this movie is. He was about showing life as it is and showing how absurd and complicated it can be if we just stop and look around a little - how tragic and comedic and in some cases, meaningless it can be. The book, especially, was about adapting to chaos because order is simply a fantasy so many would like to believe in.

To this end, the creators of this film performed the greatest injustice by tacking on the hokiest pokiest pie-in-the-sky ending. The ending of the book has Vonnegut transcending his characters - throwing out all that is meaningless. This movie says, in effect, "well it's just life, thanks for playing."

Kurt Vonnegut now has a novel's worth of material on how ridiculous this movie is.

Look, if any of you out there read the book you will realize something. Next time you go to work, or to school or anywhere you will see that there's a lot more beneath the surface of your fellow man: tragedy, comedy, heroism, and evil - all us in this world adapting to chaos in the best way we know how. This movie, on the other hand, is about what happens when you throw up in a blender, turn it on, microwave the contents, bake it for five hours and then film it.

It is utter trash. An insult to everyting Vonnegut. Another reviewer said it right when he said that Magnolia was a much better translation of Kurt vonnegut's book. And I thought Slaughter House Five was a failure (although an ambitious failure).

Gah! I can say no more. It's just too awful. Even if you just buy the novel and beat yourself over the head with it you will get move Vonnegut than this film could ever hope to deliver. Even a written apology from the producer and director could not make me feel any sympathy for this film.

Just like the book, as if that happens often.

[xena-20 · 7/10 · 15 November 2000]

I know many people didn't like this movie by reading what it was rated on the poll, but I had read the book first and enjoyed it and actually was surprised to find it had been made into a movie. The drawings that were in the book kept sneaking into the movie which only added to the hilarity. I've seen better, and I've seen worse. If you didn't particularly like it, read the book then watch it again. If nothing else, I got a kick out of so many of the Armageddon players showing up here, and where else can you find Bruce Willis with a comb over or Nick Nolte in drag?

This movie is painful to watch

[wmwheeler8 · 1/10 · 22 May 2014]

A down in dumps suicidal owner of a used car lot Hoover( Bruce Willis ) comes across a quirky writer( Finney) and things get out of hand. Not sure if there is a defined plot or reason for the characters doing what they are doing.The movie goes on to make little to no sense that is extremely hard to follow. None of us knew what is truly happening and it was very badly written. Omar Epps, Vicki Lewis, Will Patton, Owen Wilson and Nick Nolte round out this cast and they probably wish they hadn't. I'm a huge Bruce Willis fan but it's hard to be kind about this movie, it's awful. Nothing enjoyable at all, not even a stupid funny moment. So to recap, don't waste a second of your time on this film. You're welcome

Vonnegut's novel blasts to the screen in a stunning adaptation

[the_professor · 10/10 · 23 January 2000]

"Breakfast of Champions" successfully brings Vonnegut's bizarre, abstract writing style to life. Of course, it would be impossible to incorporate all of the odd elements of the novel into a film that is only 2 hours long, but, surprisingly, this movie nails just about all of them. In a hybrid between "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Cadillac Man," this film captivates the audience from the moment Vonnegut's illustrations accent the opening credits to the extremely twisted ending. The entire cast puts on an unbelievable show, especially Bruce Willis, who gives the comedic performance of his lifetime as Dwayne Hoover. Fantastic filming combines with Vonnegut's ideas to weave the seamless tapestry of insanity that is "Breakfast of Champions."

A Mess

[851222 · 4/10 · 8 January 2017]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"Breakfast of Champions" (1999) is a movie i really wanted to like, but at the end it turn out to be a one big mess of a film. There were a potential here to create something unique, and it is in some sort a unique movie but unfortunately not in a good way. Saw this movie like 15 year ago and the best thing what i can remember about it that the ending was kinda nice, i mean the message it showed (i will keep it to myself). Performances were OK, but the script is a one big mess. They tried to make many things in one story but at the end everything just felt short. Directing was also not good, because this is a very difficult movie to watch - it does not engage the viewer, but leaves it alone with the hard to swallow material.

Overall, "Breakfast of Champions" is just a mess. It tried to many things in one picture, but failed first off all to show it in a more approachable way. Not a good movie by any means.

To the casual viewer this will be messy, pointless and disjointed to the point of being painful

[bob the moo · 10 September 2007]

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.

do not waste you time on this crap.

[exreckid · 1/10 · 25 November 2001]

when i heard that they were coming out with a film adaptation of my favourite book ("breakfast of champions", natch), i was pleased as punch. when it (finally) got to detroit, i went the first night, giddy with anticipation. well, what a let down. i cannot believe k.v.j. had anything to do with this flick, because as you have read above this is absolutely nothing like the book. they even changed the ending to some happy hollywood ending. everyone responsible for this should be ashamed. now it'll be years before anyone or any studio will be interested in putting time, effort, and money into doing this book justice and filming it properly.

Terrible adaptation of the book

[carlgt1 · 3/10 · 4 February 2001]

I give this movie a 3 of 10. It had some promise but due to the Hollywood-style dumbing down of the movie to give it a "feel good California" ending it's really just an abortion of the Vonnegut novel. It was a good chance to show the absurdity & hypocrisies in our American society but it ended up looking like a Chevy Chase film. If you are not familiar with Vonnegut or this book; then it may not bother with you and there is probably enough zany campiness to satisfy the average viewer. But if you want to see a real adaptation of a Vonnegut work go rent or buy "Mother Night" (prior reading not required). Warning: There is no "gee it all worked out" BS injected into the story unlike "Breakfast of Champions."

Yikes... I can't believe I watched the whole thing!

[Wedge-27 · 1/10 · 19 March 2000]

(may contain slight spoilers, but considering how spoiled the movie was to begin with, read on... it may save 1hr45 min of your life that you'll wish you could get back)

Ok... allow me to preface this by stating that I am a HUGE fan of the novel upon which this, uh, "movie" was based, and therefore more than likely came into it with a large bias. That said... the movie really really really sucked. No point in trying to present this in a more eloquent manner, it SUCKED! I mean... come ON, that hokey reunion in the end? WTF? And what's with Hoover's wife being alive? Why set it in the present? The narrator (Kurt) being omitted.. in fact that whole bar scene in the end really came up limp ? I could go on and on like this, listing various faults all day... As I said to my friends after viewing the movie "don't let THAT fool you, the book is actually good!". I don't know if I laughed at all, to be honest... except at the aforementioned reunion scene, sappy music and all. Nothing against the performances by the actors/actresses (which were fine)... but WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? This was not a novel that would translate well to the screen.... not at all. The "movie" hit on SOME of the basic plot elements (but the novel wasnt about the storyline, was it?), and... some of the themes... but left FAR too much out, and what was left in was a disgrace. Think of it as the sharp satiric wit of Kurt Vonnegut dulled down to Bob Saget kinda levels.

In sum, I have found it very hard to DISlike a movie. I have often seen a film (ex. Doom Generation, Eye of the BEholder) that I REALLY hated at the time, only to reflect back on it later and manage to pull some positive points, or in the case of Doom Gen. actually change my mind completely. Nothing like that with this one. Avoid. Like, we're talking surgeon general warnings on the video box kinda hazard here. Read the book instead

Is this a comedy?

[Kouto · 1/10 · 18 August 2000]

One of the worst movies ever made. You may think that it's a comedy, but it's just a pretty stupid film. It's truly amazing how Mr. Willis and Mrs. Headly can make love with their panties on. Please, do yourself a favour: don't see it. Instead, go watch any Monty Phyton movie to understand how real nonsense comedy is done.

This could be the worst movie I have ever walked away from

[rwilde88 · 1/10 · 30 June 2000]

This movie is mind-numbingly dull, incredibly incoherent, and a waste of my time and money. I almost went back to the video store to yell and scream at them for having the nerve to put it on the shelf. I don't know what kind of pictures the producer had of Bruce Willis to blackmail him into doing this, but they must be real bad. Earlier today I visited a web page that had a webcam showing corn growing, and that was far more interesting. I think I'm going to go watch my grass grow, right after I stop hitting my head against the wall.

Misunderstood Brilliance

[Dead_Head_Filmmaker · 7/10 · 30 December 2007]

I don't understand why this movie is so misunderstood. It is a dark comedy, but very dark. I think most viewers were either looking for:

A- A comedy, but this film is more absurdist and tragic than out and out comedy...

--or--

B- A regurgitation of the novel.

Now I have not read the novel, nor have I read any of the author's book - yet...I will now, based on Breakfast of Champions. No movie will ever include enough of a book to satisfy the viewer, for the simple fact of time...A 30 page short story usually translates into a 90 minute film, so a full novel will be missing many elements (see Davinci's Code...the film was horrible and made little sense unless you read the book) I thought this film (BofC) was brilliant as a stand alone piece. Why? It was a thought provoking tragedy, which focused on the darkly comedic side of tragedy...

deliberate incoherent ugly mess

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 9 February 2016]

Dwayne Hoover (Bruce Willis) owns a car dealership in Midland City. He's on his own commercials, married to Celia (Barbara Hershey) and is suicidal. Francine Pefko (Glenne Headly) is his secretary. His sales manager Harry Le Sabre (Nick Nolte) is just as crazy behind closed doors with his wife Grace (Vicki Lewis). Wayne Hoobler (Omar Epps) gets out of prison vowing to work for the similarly-named Dwayne Hoover. Reclusive Kilgore Trout (Albert Finney) is invited to a local arts festival.

It's loud. It's crazy. It's ugly. It's incoherent. It's messy. I would rate this lower but this is done deliberately. I give it credit for its audacity. I think it might work better if Alan Rudolph is a better visual director. I'm willing to go with the craziness but this is too tough to watch.

a misunderstanding

[juustas · 10/10 · 10 July 2004]

This movie is one of the best I have ever seen. True. I am very surprised seeing the average mark only 4.1. "Why it is so?", I wondered. I'll try to explain. Firstly, "Breakfast of champions" is'nt a comedy, but drama. How it can be a kind of comedy if the only one laugh is hysterical always and, besides that, the main hero tries to commit a suicide several times? Secondly, it's a story how an unhappy man - despite challenges of life - can find a path into his soul.

Okay, this movie isn't an entertainment though. Ir requires much more attention, cerebration than any comedy does. And it forces to think about your place in the world. That's it. And please do not sneer at my comment:)- it's only my opinion, of course:)

Good effort, ending fails to deliver

[Labassu · 7/10 · 9 August 2000]

Over all, this adaptation didn't live up to the book. There were some great moments and some superb acting jobs (Nick Nolte played a fabulous cross dresser and Bruce Willis was a perfect Dwayne Hoover), but the ending especially lacked the excellent writing of the book, and seemed to be just that; a way to end the film. I can easily appreciate the negative opinion expressed by a person who hasn't read the book. It's like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in that respect. Neither films nor books are mainstream enough for the average viewer these days, who want movies that involve as little thinking as possible. Moving on to the fantastic conclusion, Breakfast of Champions is a film of substance, but lacks a worthy ending.

A Waste of a Good Novel

[dover · 3/10 · 25 June 2000]

This wasn't a very good movie at all. If you've read the novel, you'll see how the movie adapts some of the novel (some actual dialogue), but entirely loses the spirit. If you haven't read the novel, I can't begin to imagine what you might think of this film.

The problem, to me, was incredibly obvious. The writing was awful. The acting wasn't really all that bad, and Bruce Willis was actually pretty good in the lead role. But three of the main role, Harry Le Sabre (Nick Nolte), Wayne Hoobler (Omar Epps), and Kilgore Trout (Albert Finney) are written entirely wrong. We are meant to see something of ourselves in these characters, when instead we saw what is almost animation.

This is the whole problem with the movie. The material is treated almost as a comedy (look at the category it's listed under), which it is most certainly not. Between Epps bouncing around like an idiot, Nolte mumbling through 3/4 of his line, and Finney portraying Trout all wrong (there's supposed to be a quiet dignity to him which is missing until the end), this movie just misses on all cylinders.

As an interesting side note, Michael Clarke Duncan of Green Mile fame has a cameo here as a prisoner - it may be the only role he's ever played where his character isn't revealed to have a sweet personality under a gruff exterior.