Description

Originally rated X, this film combines historical, comedic, and surrealistic elements to tell a tale of politics and witchcraft. In order to take over pre-rennaisance France, Cardinal Richelieu and his power-hungry followers will have to eliminate Father Grandier. Grandier controls the one town that keeps Richelieu from having total control of the region. The plan is to convince the townspeople that Grandier is a warlock and that all of his nuns are possessed by devils. The accusations are heard at a public trial - whose results may surprise you. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Hell will hold no surprises for you, indeed...
Ken Russell's film, "The Devils"--based on John Whiting's play of the same name and Aldous Huxley's excellent historical treatise, "The Devils of Loudun"--is a drama set in seventeenth-century France dealing with the tribulations of one Urbain Grandier, a Jesuit canon of a self-governing, fortified, provincial town called Loudun. Because of his opposition to the demolition of the city walls and the subjugation of the resistant Protestant Huguenot population, the priest is accused of bewitching a convent of Ursuline nuns and subsequently tried and condemned by ruthless, conspiratorial Catholic authorities of Cardinal Richelieu's incipiently theocratic nationalist regime. As a film, "The editing is clumsy and disjointed and the murky photography makes everything--particularly the Brueghel-inspired shots of maggot-infested corpses borne up on wheels--look like regurgitated sour milk. Although the aspects of historical drama are potentially fascinating, Russell is just too crude and literal-minded a director--and with apparently too jaundiced an eye--to give the story any real deep sense of tragedy or social injustice. The movie merely sets out to shock and horrify with a monomoniacal emphasis on extremely gruesome forms of physical torture, and needless to say, the cautionary elements of Huxley's complex, thoughtful book get lost amidst all of Russell's garishly overwrought baroque-burlesque horror theatrics. What holds the film together if anything does is Oliver Reed's formidable if slightly (inexplicably?) creepy portrayal of Grandier's spiritual regeneration in the face of the unimaginable pain and death awaiting him. However, it is Vanessa Redgrave who truly inspires dread as Sister Jeanne of the Angels, the perverse, crook-backed, self-loathing yet narcissistically deluded mother superior who becomes violently infatuated with the priest. The most flamboyant of the villains is the grimly fanatical "professional witch-hunter," Father Barre (Michael Gothard), a young, athletic, wild-haired, hippie-Dionysus-type whose raving, crucifix-brandishing hysterics and seemingly insatiable fits of sadism grow repetitive and tiresome--not to mention silly--real fast. "The Devils"' climactic scene of Grandier's burning at the stake--in deliberate imitation of Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc"--might be the most horrible and graphically overwhelming cinematic immolation ever, but the brazenly sloppy staging and the underlying adolescent vulgarity of the whole conception renders it little more than shallowly sensationalistic on Russell's part. And the final elegiac image of Grandier's bereaved mistress climbing through the destroyed city walls and into the barren wastes beyond is certainly artfully bleak, yet it's also a somewhat pretentious, dispiriting "historical" nightmare with surprising little real insight.

RUSSELL AND REED AT THEIR BEST
Why 4 stars? Because this VHS contains a cut version of the original british film release. What we now deserve is a DVD with the full uncensored version of this masterpiece by Ken Russell.
Oliver Reed at his best, a powerful performance by Vanessa Readgrave, a beautiful and daunting photography surely confer classic status to this work of art, with surrealistic undertones.
Based on a historical facts, as told by Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun, this is a riveting story about father Urbain Grandier's martyrdom, during the reign of Louis XIII.
After Richelieu convinces the King that self-government of small provincial towns must end, the feudal nobility lose their independence by an edict calling for the destruction of their castles and walls, whilst the Hughenots are being crushed by force. One of these towns is Loudun, where the priest (a Jesuit) is Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed), an intellectual young priest, that knows the meaning and consequences of the edict calling for the destruction of the fortified walls of Loudun. Consequently, when Laubardemont, an agent of the Cardinal Richelieu arrives in the town, he is confronted and stopped by Grandier.
But Father Grandier is strikingly handsome and a sensualist. His vows of celibacy have not prevented him from fathering a bastard child with the daughter of Trincant, the town magistrate, and performing an illegal marriage with Madeleine, a young lady with whom he has fallen in love.
Meanwhile the Convent of the Ursulines in Loudun is ruled by Sister Jeanne of the Angels (Vanessa Readgrave), a young humped back noun, with a beautiful face. She develops an obsession with Grandier and has sensual visions which involve the young priest. When she hears about the illicit marriage, she loses control and falsely accuses the priest of sorcery and lewdness.
Grandier's enemies (Laubardemont, Trincant, Father Mignon and others) grasp the false accusation as an instrument for the destruction of the priest. They accuse Grandier of sorcery and call for an exorcist, Father Barre, who starts performing a series of exorcisms never seen before in France. The methods used by him and his assistants to extract the devils reputedly within the bodies of the nuns are base and sadistic. From Sister Jeanne's altered mind come the screams and the behavior that affect the other nuns. From there, collective hysteria spreads and as the nouns bask in their notoriety, their fantasies become more and more unreal. Those who oppose this infernal circus, on the grounds that the exorcists are the ones depraved, deliberately provoking the nouns, are arrested by Laubardemont, who wants to see the matter through. Both Richelieu and his agent are well aware of Grandier's innocence but the raison d' Etat calls for the destruction of the young priest.
Not surprisingly, based on the hysterical accusations of the nouns, Grandier and Madeleine are arrested. Grandier is brought to trial and found guilty of sorcery. He is viciously tortured, vainly, in order to extract a confession of his guilt. When Grandier is burnt alive at the stake, in the public square of Loudun, we see, in the background, that finally the walls of the city are starting to be destroyed...........
A DVD full version of this underrated classic is a must, for the sake of the history of cinema, and to keep alive a strong spirit against political manipulation and religious fanaticism.

A macabre tale of religious mania, power, lust, possession
This movie, partly based on The Devils Of Loudon, by Aldous Huxley [author of Brave New World, Brave New World Revisited, among others] features Oliver Reed, as an indiscreet priest, doing very unpriestly things with a young daughter of a nobleman, and Vanessa Redgrave as a demented nun. It centres [centers] around the "possession", supposedly, of a town, and the convent in Loudon, after the religious wars of the 1630s.
Moderately acted, a few familiar faces appear in the movie (i.e., to viewers of British films and television); including Dudley Sutton [Tinker in the Lovejoy mysteries and John Woodvine, who appeared in the "Armageddon Factor" in the Dr. Who series]. After the Protestant/Catholic religious wars are over, a new priest, Reed, comes in and has his way with a young lady [which later comes back to serve as the basis for his trial]. Vanessa Redgrave, as the aforementioned demented nun, has a lustful fantasy about the priest, very unnunlike. Along the way, a power hungry cardinal seeks to gain the favo[u]r of the king, and to destroy the town of Loudon, and the walls of the city. There are several representations (or misrepresentations some might say) of figures of the church, the royalty of the time(s), and others. Russell's twisted vision paints a dark, horrific, and unfavo[u]rable time in religious history that's hard, though fascinating, to watch. With a few "naughty bits", i.e., unclothed nuns, unnatural couplings, and general hypocrisy, it paints a disturbing vision of religious mania that serves as a chilling portrait of what power, corruption, lust, greed, and a multitude of other "sins" can evoke as it turns "religious", so-called, people into "Devils". Not for the squeamish, or easily offended, i.e., religiously speaking. Particularly for Catholics, like me, this movie shows that the "Church" had its own dark moments, not only in its persecution of "separated bretheren", i.e., the Protestants, but in the use of "religion", to justify a multitude of wrongs, committed in God's name. Heaven help us all.

DVD edition of 'The Devils' MUST be released!!!!!
'The Devils', "one of the most controversial films ever made in the UK," is not only Ken Russell's BEST film, but probably the most IMPORTANT religious commentary ever put onto film (thanks to the glorious union of Aldous Huxley & Ken Russell). Although you can purchase the widescreen, least censored, Maverick Directors series, UK version (PAL VHS) from www.amazon.co.uk (ASIN: B00004CUX5, Catalogue Number: S015401) -- where the heck is the director approved DVD edition of this film, already???!!! This is an outrage to the film appreciation community, and especially to Ken Russell fans (who have the availability of almost every other Ken Russell film EXCEPT 'The Devils', arguably his VERY BEST, on DVD)!! Every rational reviewer of this film cries the same thing (hello, Warner Brothers!) -- consumers WANT a director approved DVD edition of 'The Devils' (NOT the butchered, US version), including Flim Four's 'Hell on Earth', "an hour-long documentary presented by Mark Kermode on Ken Russell's 1971 film" PLEASE, ALREADY!!!

Blame the transfer, not the movie!
I wish people would stop criticising the photography in The Devils. The photography is superb. Unfortunately, when The Devils first appeared on VHS, it suffered the double insult of being released in the censored American version, rather than the full UK print, in a completely hideous transfer which looked as if someone had filmed it off the TV with a camcorder. In the UK, the full version of the film was finally released in a decent print in 1997 in the Maverick Directors series. However, Warners will not release this version of the the film in the States. The Devils was being prepared for DVD release in Europe, with audio commentaries by Ken Russell and Vanessa Redgrave. However, it seems that Warner has postponed the DVD indefinitely. Why are they so determined to sabotage this film? ... Read more

Reviews (18)

Kathleen Turner fans need this film in their collection
In 1984, Kathleen Turner was doing big Hollywood films such as "Romancing the Stone". However, on the side she did a more obscure Ken Russell film called "Crimes of Passion". This film truly showcases Kathleen Turner's talents as she portrays an advertising executive by day, and a Hollywood hooker by night. Anthony Perkins plays a 'preacher' trying to correct Ms Turner's wrong-doings, while John Laughlin plays a husband searching for intimacy. Any fan of Kathleen Turner will want this film in their collection. I borrowed my friend's copy, and am eager to get it my own.
DVD SUMMARY:
A great transfer to DVD by Anchor Bay, with some deleted scenes thrown in. Full uncut version of film, but only a mono soundtrack.

a plea for honesty
as Ken Russel says, that's what this film is about, and it is a supurb artwork of cinema in my opinion. I've watched a beat-up 1984 VHS of the original U.S. release so many times that I've memorized some of the zinger one-liners, and the unedited, uncensored DVD is a real treat. The director and writers' commentaries give you something new to think about every time you watch it. Russel does a great job of flouting American suburban hypocrisy with this film; it's raunchy and unapologetically un-PC, shows that we all have to have our illusions to believe in

No passion, only a crime to have been made
It is easy to see that this movie was produced in the drug induced 80's, as someone was on the best stuff to even consider producing, let alone releasing this movie. I believe the intent was to mimic Brian DePalma's thrillers, "Body Double" and "Dressed To Kill", but this falls woefully short in almost every way. The uncomparably campy performances by all the principal actors makes this unbearable to watch, not to mention the complete lack of relevance in so many scenes. I could go through those scenes one by one, but I don't want this review to become a spoiler. Just believe me, there were many. I will admit Kathleen Turner's quips with her tricks are indeed good, they alone are no reason to watch this movie. There is no compelling story told here. This movie is a chaotic display of different images and scenes loosely bound by sexual activity and some perverse form of the struggle of 'good' against 'evil' or 'sin' and 'salvation', if you prefer.

No, Just a Crime
Don't get me wrong: I'm not a prude. I'd love a challenging, sexually-charged film that ignited and then scorched its characters with desire and passion and obsession. Wind them up and see what happens to them. LAST TANGO IN PARIS and BODY HEAT come to mind. But CRIMES OF PASSION, even this Unrated! version, should not.

From the crude, obnoxious opening dialogue to its garish "sex scenes" (not to mention the truly embarrassing "H.P." scene), CRIMES OF PASSION plays like an attempt at high-minded art by an immature juvenile working with the staff of Hustler magazine.

The lead actor comes off as wooden and inexperienced. His character never appears sympathetic or even interesting: he's just a shallow lout who dumps his family for a hooker.
Kathleen Turner and Annie Potts are above this horror show.
According to the commentary, Anthony Perkins really is snorting something--which would explain his usual madness this time.
At first, I thought the cheap music was intended as a parody of cheap porn film music, but director Ken Russell professes his admiration for it. (He also says, "This is one of the best scripts I've worked with"!).
The climax plays like a ridiculous rehash of PSYCHO--even if it didn't include the original Norman Bates stumbling around in drag.

If you're getting this for the Director's Commentary, be warned: Ken Russell abandons it about twenty minutes into the movie. Writer/Producer Barry Sandler glosses over Russell's departure ("Ken had to catch a plane back to London") and then soldiers on, not so much giving any insight into this mess as merely overstating what you're seeing.
No real depth here. Sleazy, pretentious, offensive for the sake of being offensive. Not even very funny.

I have no intention of keeping this DVD (a first, and I have a lot of BAD DVDs). I'm just trying to figure out whether to trade it for credit at a used CD store.
Or just throw it away.

Frightening (ly funny).
That blue dress! That casitone score! Anthony Perkins! That music video! That I wrote the first part of my review in slogans should enlighten you as to the type of film on offer here. It is loud, brash, unsubtle and suffers from a severe lack of dramatic (?) consistency. Whereas these indications should point towards an awful film, this one just seems to work (dementedly). This is a far greater diatribe on exactly what went on in those nether years also known as the eighties. Far more effective than the patina of after the fact examinations (and far scarier than anything Brett Easton Ellis could think up). A must own! An AMerican Classic! ... Read more

Reviews (9)

A trashy work of Ken Russell.
The only one reason that I have seen this film is the director of this film, Ken Russell who is one of my favorite directors. However, contrary to my expectations, it gives only disappointment. As the title shows, it describes a life of one prostitute who threads streets of the city. At the beginning, this film progresses with her conversation to the audience that how she has became a prostitute and how she has lived. This kind of form makes a characteristic feeling, but as the whole, this film has lost persuasiveness. Unfortunately, I think, the director of this film, Ken Russell did not show what he really wants to talk about. This kind of film has to evoke sympathy from the audience, but it is lacking in this point. So, it was not particularly interesting and has no impression or excitement. After all, it just became a trashy work of Ken Russell¡¯s films. He brought forward a problem well, but solving this problem was little bit clumsy.

What pretty woman should have been...
Banned!

I won't pretend that this is even one of my favorite movies, but it was good. I had to go way out of my way to see this film as it was banned where I lived and I think that was a disgrace to this country. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to let my children watch this film, but I would take the time to explain it to them... on the other hand I'd do anything in my power to keep my kids, especially my daughter, from seeing Pretty Woman.

Semi-Interesting tragi-comedy
This movie fails as something serious, but it isn't quite bad enough to be "so bad it's good" either. Sure, it has some quite hilarious moments and dialogue, but only of the campy "Mommie Dearest" or "Valley of the Dolls" variety. But these few moments are not enough to make it a good camp movie either. It's extremely predictable (abusive pimp tells her he loves her but abuses her; she always falls for it), chalk full of cliches (can't get her son back, watches him from afar at school), some of the dialogue is laughable ("I learned not to get into vans....the HARD way."), and, as much as I love Theresa Russell, she really is not a strong enough actress to convincingly pull of the monologues. Half the time you end up laughing at her character, which I don't think they intended. It's good for one viewing, but that's about it. Any (...) who thinks street prostitution is like "Pretty Woman" ought to see this, but it's done in such a silly manner, I'm not sure someone would learn to stay off the streets after watching it either. The soundtrack, however, is first rate. Again, it's not really funny enough to be entertaining, but it flops as a drama as well. It's a semi-interesting mixture.

Incredible Sountrack
The dialogue and soundtrack to this film are brilliant in their courseness and ability to deliver their message. This movie should be required viewing with "Pretty Woman". Hey, girls, Theresa Russell is prettier than Julia Roberts, and Richard Gere didn't offer to set her up!

Pardon me while I puke on you.
A flat, uninspired, meat parade of a movie. Didn't Theresa retire after this? Whoever produces Ken Russells's films has got to be the biggest con artsit of all time because his films don't ever break even. This movie's so bad, Burt Reynolds collects royalties. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Lisztomania, Ken Russell's follow-up to Tommy (both films were released in 1975) finds him even more in the mood for desultory spectacle than his garish pop artistry adapting the Who's rock opera. Seeking to tellthe story of superstar composer Franz Liszt through a freewheeling series of pop allegories, kitsch, quotes, and pastiches, Russell hopes to reflect in contemporary terms the runaway train of Liszt's celebrity, love life, andalleged rivalry with Richard Wagner.

Roger Daltrey, the Who vocalist and star of Tommy, returns to Russell's circus as Liszt, a great pianist nevertheless seduced by the ease with which he can make women squeal by playing flamboyant renditions of"Chopsticks." Floating on a sea of groupies, Liszt struggles with the possibilities of real love while also encountering the vampiric Wagner's exotic plans for world domination. Intuitive impressions, not history, are what this film experience is for, and toward that end Russell pulls out all the stops, planting Liszt into a heartbreakingly Chaplinesque short film, casting Yes keyboardist Rick Wakeman as a cryogenic viking, and placing the hero in phallic jeopardy when his genitals are subjected to a guillotine.Some of this striking stuff works, some of it doesn't, but all of it is determinedly undisciplined. With Paul Nicholas as Wagner, and Ringo Starr as the Pope (!). --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Offensove at times but funny
There are many long reviews here analyzing every detail of this film. I will only say that it does become too phantasmagoric and even in its deliberate excess and offensiveness the measure of good taste is a bit lost. I do think that it's great and entertaining that some scenes are shocking, but when the shots become too fixated on the same thing, it feels like a great joke that is being told too many times - it looses its zest. To me, Mahler was a better one in terms of being better balanced. This picture is still a good entertainment, though.

ART OR FILTH?
Watch out for Oliver Reed, Georgina Hale, etc - yes, Russell alumni and up and coming Russellites are in this one! You can't quite review this one accruately based on what has been cropped out of the picture, like reviewing Mona Lisa's nose, lefteyebrow and ear ....tough! This I believe was the first dolby processed video - hence the 2 stars, the sound ain't too bad!

Now, if you can deal with synthetic rectums expelling questionable vapors, stylistic phalli as part of the Russian court decor, and yes folks, we do have that rather gigantic male member sequence ......... I believe that Roger Daltrey bequeathed this prop to his grandma after the shoot. It's a fun house devised by Russell, premise? Franz Liszt was the first POP Star! Ex Playboy bunny Fiona Lewis is spectacular as Mrs Liszt the first. Sarah Kestelman fresh off "Zardoz" as the Russian dominatrix, also have Ringo Starr, etc. etc. It's not date movie, so keep the kids away from this one [err pre-teenies!] this one grabbed an initial "x" rating - later dropped [explains itself].

Just a pity about this unletterboxed version - it must be restored and issued on DVD. [Odd sidenote "Mahler" is available on DVD, but also cropped!] What's this? Is this Ken Russell bashing? Just think of what old Ken might have done for Madonna if he directed "Evita"!

Uneven
Even if one admires Ken Russell's visual flamboyance (which I generally do), and accepts the extreme and bizarre liberties he takes with historical events, it becomes difficult to ignore Lisztomania's flaws.

Russell works with an interesting concept here: he grounds the story of Liszt (and Wagner) in psychedelically-charged historical revisionism, tinged with postmodern asides (consider, for example, the scene where Franz Liszt and his bride reenact their 'meet cute,' Chaplinesque style). And some elements are startlingly effective (the Chaplin sequence; Rick Wakeman's lyrics for "Love's Dream," set to the music of Liebestraum, that actually enrich the piece; Liszt's opening seduction, set to a metronome). But in most cases, Wakeman's lyrics drown out Lizst's genius, and Russell never rises above this production's most significant weakness: the mise-en-scene (particularly the flashy backdrop behind Liszt's glitter-covered piano) looks cheaply made and sloppily thrown-together. With a quick glimpse of Roger Daltrey flying through the air on his pipe organ-space ship (which looks about as credible as a scene from the Bugaloos), one realizes that a heftier budget would improve this film substantially.

But most critics still miss the boat when they pan Lisztomania by attacking Russell for his excessiveness. The truly rich, excessive moments in this film are the moments that make it work: in particular, Liszt's visit to the Russian countess -- where he collapses from breathing poisonous gas that comes from plaster rectums on the wall, and eventually rides into court on a twelve-foot high penis (only to have it guillotined) is hilarious and visually kinetic.

This film isn't without its rewards, particularly if you're a die-hard Russell fan, but it remains flawed and uneven.

HEAVEN SENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE IN GOING TOO FAR
I loved this movie! Don't try to make sense of the "plot"; just sit back and let it assault you. Roger Daltrey has charisma to spare. Lisztomania makes Tommy look like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. It is bizarre, funny, flamboyant, and a sheer joy to experience. Too bad there isn't a letterboxed version available.

Fascinating Mistake!
Only Ken Russell could have created this strange film which mixes fact with comic book fiction. One can only wonder how a major studio ever gave the green light to this production, but I am so glad it did! This is not a good film, but it is fascinating to watch. While it is typical for a Ken Russell film to be over the top, none of his other films go this far over. Rick Wakeman's adaption of Liszt and Wagner music is very interesting and the set designs are beyond strange. I suspect this film contains the most phallic symbols of any musical. Ha! And to fellow Who fans --- This movie captures Roger Daltrey at his 70's best! ... Read more

Reviews (11)

ken russell is the antichrist!
The main problem of this film is that it fell into the hands of Ken Russell, England's bad boy of cinema. He had a chance to make The Who's amazing rock opera into a visual treat--and totally let his penchant for garish imagry and bad taste ruin it! Perhaps if the project fell into the hands of a better director (Alan Parker, Stanley Kubrick, Norman Jewison, anyone!) then this would be a better film.

For those unfamiliar with the story, "Tommy" is about a boy who becomes psychosomaticaly blind, mute, and deaf after watching his mother's new boyfriend (Oliver Reed) kill his father (it was the father killing the boyfriend in the original album). His parents take him to see a Marilyn Monroe worshipping cult led by a barefoot Eric Clapton (probably a satire of Catholicism, the very same religion Russell converted to) and the hooker/junkie the Acid Queen (played brilliantly by Tina Turner). He is abused by his Cousin Kevin and Uncle Ernie (Keith Moon), and defeats the Pinball Wizard (Elton John). After Tommy is cured, he becomes a false messiah.

Russell's verion does away with the spiritual vibes of Pete Townshead's original concept and makes the film more of an anti-organized religion message. Russell also includes images that absolutely make no sense (young Tommy with a box over his head on a beach, Tommy's father in a crucifix pose, and let's not forget the beans and chocolate coming out of the TV). Oliver Reed cannnot sing to save his life, and Ann Margaret's performance (although she was nominated for Best Actress) is pure ham. Plus, the original rock music that made the album so great is replaced by an overkill of synthesizers! You can't help but laugh at how absurd it is.

Bottom line: go get the original Who album and let your imagination do the rest!

not great in my eyes
holy shizzle. I really got bored with all of Daltrey's shirtless scenes and his running around, swimming and whiny babbling. not for my taste. Oliver Reed and Ann Margaret are smashed as Daltry's parents and Jack Nicholson only has a cameo part. like I said before it wasnt great in my eyes

Nicholson Croons, Ann Margret Swims in Beans & Chocolate..
...and, I heartily concur that The Acid Queen and EJ in those huge platforms nearly steal the show. Daltry is adequate as Tommy, since most of the lead vocals done in the original production are his, but he's like Ross in The Wiz. A touch older than what's required. 'Salright, I guess. For campiness and for whatever makes a cult film, this has it. I would dig seeing a remake with current stars. Lessee, Ashton Kusher as Tommy, Demi Moore as the Mom, Jack Black as Uncle Ernie, Beyonce as The Acid Queen, and Justin Timberlake as the Pinball Wizard's foil...I can see Timberlake in those platforms

See it for Eric, Elton, and Tina.
When this movie came out I was in high school and the consensus amongst the oh-so cool high school rock critics was that "Tina Turner's pelvis saved the movie!" Turns out, we may have been overly harsh; the Eric Clapton and Elton John scenes are also worth a peek. But in the end, without Clapton paying homage to Maryln Monroe, John's Pinball Wizard, and the amazing-beyond-belief Turner as the Acid Queen, this movie would only be laughable.

who's inconsistent?
After seeing the broadway version and listening to the movie soundtrack, I was anxious to see the video. Unfortunately the movie was a disappointment from the start, beginning with a shaky zoom on a waterfall and continuing through some drug inspired but shoddy special effects. The music is - as always - spectacular and it was nice to see a different take on the plot from the one in the Broadway version. The movie is worth renting just to see the masses pay homage to a huge porcelain Marilyn Monroe and the bizarre, syringe covered armour that appears during the "Acid Queen" number. Also memorable are Elton John's outfit (aren't they all memorable??) and the number where Mrs Walker shatters her TV screen allowing a flood of baked beans to spread across her bedroom.

Final advice: rent, don't buy. ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Wicked!
Hideously kinky, delightfully depraved and woefully witty... this is Ken Russell's masterpiece! Where else can you see ex-"Dynasty" trollop Catherine Oxenberg trussed up as a virginal pagan sacrifice to a 90-foot long demonic albino snake? Or ex-L.A. Lawyer Amanda Donahoe running around in just a thin layer electric blue bodypaint and two-inch snake fangs? Or the pre-"Four Weddings and a Funeral" Hugh Grant act like the smug, upper-class twit that he is instead of a hangdog shy wimp? What a great movie!

The DVD looks good... not a huge improvement over the VHS release, but the trailers and TV spots are funny and Ken Russell's commentary is droll and entertaining. I highly reccomend this film for anyone who likes vampires, thigh-high leather boots, Tommy: the Movie or dry-humored immortal pagan snake-god priestesses. Hail Dionin!

First Class Trash
This one was despised by the serious critics, but all that means is that they weren't weird enough to enjoy it. All right, it's trash. But it's great trash. It's my idea of a feel-good movie. It's kinky, erotic, scary, and funny. And bright. Literally. After zillions of creepy, dark, scary scenes in movies, the sunshine and well-lit rooms in this one emphasize the horror scenes. But who cares about the lighting? It's main attraction is an over-the-top performance by Amanda Donohoe as a very bad girl. Upper-crust Hugh Grant and his cohorts have a lot of fun trying to evade her slithery grasp. That's about all you need to know. But for heaven's sakes, don't take it seriously. If you hate it, you'll really hate it.

Campy as hell
but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is typical Russell; weird non-fitting dreams, and definietly not enough violence, horror or sex when, here, it wouldn't be superfluous, but highly helpful in making the film better. The acting is interesting, to say the least. Worth a watch or two, but try to get a cheap used copy.

Bite me!
Yes, it's over-the-top! Yes, it's gorey and heretical but this only adds to the movie's drawing power. Both Hugh Grant and Amanda Donohoe are absolutely terrific in their performances. {Darn}can she be so scary and still so sexy, as in the scene where upon hearing a recording of a snake charmers music, she emerges from her wicker basket and sexily slithers across the room and out of the house, dressed in skin tight black leather (how else would a snake wear it's skin?). Another impressionable scene occurs when the lovely Catherine Oxenberg is ready to be fed to the white worm. The poor victim is hanging by her wrists over the lair and the half-serpentine Donohoe, nude and painted blue, doning yellow snake eyes is summoning up the serpent. If you're uptight or prudish, see something else. But if you enjoy a good campy scare with some gore and sexy imagery, don't miss this one!

LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM
Based on a novel by Bram Stoker. Stars Hugh Grant, and the lovely Amanda Donohoe.
It's pretty "campy" which I usually don't like, but I DO like this movie.

Hugh Grant plays James D'Ampton, who returns to his ancestral castle in the English countryside. James' distant ancestor was said to have slayed a dragon, the white worm, who supposedly dined on the flesh of young virgins.

A legend that James immediately dismisses, but when a local amateur archaeologist discovers the huge skull of a reptile and what looks like a site of worship on James' property. It has James rethinking his original dismissal. Especially when his virginal & virtuous girlfriend, Eve, disappears.

James and the young archaeologist, Angus, decide to investigate the the dark cave, rumored to be the lair of the great white worm.

Living in the same small locality is the beautiful vamp Lady Sylvia Marsh, a so-called "snake watcher" Really a devotee of the snake deity. She wants to get her hands on the reptilian skull and make some "offerings" to the white worm.

She really has everyone in the village entranced, but James is able to resist her. He's very suspicious about her activities. And acting like a snake charmer, attempts to stymie her plans.

Donohoe is excellent as the sultry and dangerous Lady Sylvia . Her costumes, make-up and unique cars! are fabulous, lots of fun. :-)

The film contains some dream sequences involving extreme images of followers of the white worm (who worship the snake deity) in some kind of shocking ecstatic frenzy together with some nuns, and an image of Jesus. Filled with blood, nudity, suggestive activity & some pretty big phallic shaped objects! :-).. I wasn't offended by this, but some overly-prudish people might be. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Bravura Filmmaking, Great Performances
This is probably Ken Russell's best film after "Women In Love." It is truly unfortunate that only a pan-and-scan video is available; the brilliant opening "Winter Carnival" sequence, which introduces all the main characters - AND establishes their relationships, without a word of dialogue! - is particularly damaged by the cropped aspect ratio. Chamberlain was never better, and still in his physical prime, and Jackson is briliant as always. This is worth the price just for the drunken honeymoon train-ride scene. Why in God's name this isn't on DVD is beyond me- Chamberlain's fans alone would put this one in the black! Hellooo MGM, WB or whoever owns this title now, we're waiting for a widescreen transfer!

Not a masterpiece, but certainly an excellent film
No film critics seem to like THE MUSIC LOVERS, and Cinebook even scored this film 'zero', claiming that this film should be avoided by all 'music lovers'. The film's focus on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has always been considered inappropriate. While Cinebook scored 5 stars to AMADEUS which places emphasis on Mozart's impudent and vulgar character, I think it should be fairer to this film. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not up to Ken Russell's other masterpieces like WOMEN IN LOVE, but in terms of film-making, this is a marvellous film. In the film's opening, Tchaikovsky (Richard Chamberlain), playing wildly with his sleigh, has a brief encounter with Antonina Milyukova (Glenda Jackson), later his wife. This opening is simply as witty as David Lean's DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, where Omar Sharif has a brief encounter with Julie Christie on a tram in the beginning, not realizing at that time that this is the woman who will become part of his life. Indeed, this is how THE MUSIC LOVERS brings these two important characters together, Nina attending Tchaikovsky's concert, imagining herself having a good time with the soldier she loves, who later turns out to be an abuser. In Nina's imagination and with the 2nd symphony as the background music, Tchaikovsky shoot the soldier dead in a duel for Nina, and the two embrace. Audience will learn that this is Tchaikovsky's fantasy too, resulting in their marriage, which soon becomes disastrous. Throughout the film, Tchaikovsky's music is combined with perfect editing. His 6th symphony is used in the scene on a train, where Nina gets drunk and takes off all her clothes while Tchaikovsky feels sick as he sees Nina's breasts and vagina. The montage here alternating between Tchaikovsky's face of agony and Nina's body is simply perfect. Symbolism is also the key to success for this film. In the house of Madame von Meck, Tchaikovsky's secret subsidizer, fireworks form Tchaikovsky's face, and this is when Madame von Meck finds out about his homosexuality. The fireworks become dimmer and dimmer, signifying the end of their relationship. Now he has to compose without subsidy, and this comes the climax of the film, the use of 1812 Overture, in which we watch Tchaikovsky's fantasy of getting rid of all the people in his life, the canons being used to blow off their heads one by one, again done through the best montage ever. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not at all faithful to Tchaikovsky's life, but which biographic film is? Even LUST FOR LIFE has received the same criticism. When you watch THE MUSIC LOVERS, I think you should be looking for more than just the story itself. Anyway, I have read about Tchaikovsky in encyclopaedia, and I don't find THE MUSIC LOVERS that untrue. The film is not one of Ken Russell's masterpieces, but certainly one of his most stylish. Also, I am convinced that a first-class actress like Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar just a year before, in WOMEN IN LOVE, would not have agreed to act in a film which she believed to have a bad script. She really sacrificed a lot for this film. Besides showing her breasts and vagina, she even cut almost all her hair for the asylum scene by the end of the film, and this is unquestionably Glenda Jackson in her ugliest. I think such sacrifice should have at least earned her an Oscar nomination, but of course, she was already nominated for another film, SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY, that very same year.

Watch and enjoy !
When is this little gem* going to come out on DVD ?

*for the squared minant.

Tchaikovsky's Genuis Laid Bare
Ken Russell is one of the most underrated directors in cinema, and although his later output does not reflect the great potential he possesses, it is his earlier films that showcased his true talents in their unique and controversial style.
Russell was instrumental, along with directors like Lindsay Anderson and Nic Roeg,in giving British cinema its own more subtle version of 'nouvelle vague' in the early 70s.
His great passion for literature and classical music was a constant source of inspiration,from his adaptation of D.H Lawrence's 'Women in Love' his most acclaimed film to date, to his biographies of Elgar,Liszt, Mahler and Tchaikovsky.
The British film establishment along with almost all critics liked nothing better than to dismiss Russell and his films as pompous and over indulgent.Micheal Winner has always had his share of these snide reviews and remarks, but although he is a remarkable socialite and bon vivant, his direction talents can not be compared to Russell's at all ,thus making the cold shoulder the latter received totally unjustified.
Music Lovers, was one of the first films I ever saw, and it was largely responsible for two main developments in my life,
my love and appreciation of classical music on one hand, and a passion for cinema that remains as strong and vibrant to this day on the other.
It is a biography of this greatest of composers,Tchaikovsky, like nothing you are likely to see..Amadeus was majestic and grand..Beethoven's Immortal Beloved was too polished...Russell in Music Lovers gives us a biography that is troubled, anxious, raw and unashamedly personal.
The crazy camera movements, the use of music both as part of the plot and as a background, the emphasis on an aspect of the great composer's life rarely written about or known:
Russell in Music Lovers was able to show the viewers the human with his failings, successes and indulgences that were behind the creative genius, and the agony, despair as well as joy behind the music.
Critics have slammed the film as an bombastic emphasis on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, but they did miss the point totally..for I believe Russell was not trying to talk about the composer's sexual orientation, rather more about the demons that haunted him and the confusions and anxiousness that followed him throughout his life, his loves, disappointments, and friendships and from which many masterpieces came to life.
I loved the fact how cleverly Russell uses the music to enhance the drama and the mood of the his film: in a way the music of Tchaikovsky speaks in itself the story of its composer..this Russell I believe understood very well and used it to his benefit.And of course it is safe to say that Richard Chamberlain as the Russian composer gave his best performance to date, while actress turned politician Glenda Jackson who worked with Russell on Women In love,is one of the best actresses in the world, in the Rampling-Dench-Redgrave league, and had she not chosen a different career, I am certain she would have delighted cinema lovers with many more great performances.
The sad fact that Music Lovers is not yet released on DVD just confirms how underrated that great director is. At a time when really awful films get a two disc releases with tons of extras, classic films such as Music Lovers, remain out of stock and out of sight to cinema lovers everywhere to be seen again or rediscovered. It is time to give this film a proper release, and its director the recognition that he truly deserves.

Fantastic!
I must say this is about the best movie I saw that I never knew that it existed. The whole thing is a masterpeice from beginning to end. Never a dull 5 minutes and always stays interesting. Perhaps the best "under-the-influence" movie ever made! Can't wait for the DVD release! *crosses fingers* ... Read more

Reviews (1)

"ART , LOVE .... and the older woman........"
FINALLY AVAILABLE! This 'lost' Ken Russell dealing with the somewhat wild, short life of French Artist Henri Gaudier-Brzeska [1891 - 1915].

Starring Scott Anthony as Henri with Dorothy Tutin as the woman in his life - [although never married he accepted her last name]! Interesting move for a man during those years, but then again he was very unconventional and now known as a brilliant sculptor/artist. [Even turned his WWI issued rifle into a work of art!]

'SAVAGE MESSIAH' is possibly one of the most understated of the Russell movies [fits into the "Mahler" group]. The images somewhat remind us of Fritz Lang ["Metropolis"]. The slow pace is deliberate - a 'thinking person's" movie this is! Much more than just love story between an older woman and a young man - and at the end it's the woman one worries about - what will she do? Will she move on?

DOROTHY TUTIN - is quite, quite superb during these concluding moments - a talent rarely seen on screen, but once seen - never quite forgotten.

Exquisite costume and art direction - it should be restored to full DVD splendor, along with the other Russell gems.

[Beautiful scene at the train station with Gaudier and Brzeska with the roses and the train - great editing!].

This movie also introduces us to Helen Mirren - another stellar talent. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Golden Turkey Award Nominee Par Excellance-:-(
Caught this lamentable, execrable, piece on TV last night-and I
can see why it BOMBED bigtime in theatrical release-1. continu-
ity stank, 2. None of the scenes made any sense-like they were
thrown together a la an amateur movie, 3. acting was at an equally dismal level, 4. Gratuitous nude scenes-ho-hum, another
bum....5.written like a tax-writeoff movie, 6.a Ken Russell oer-
vre-why this psychedelic pinheaded amateur was ever given a cam-
era or a director's job is beyond me, 7. It just plain did not
offer any biographical info, just silly scenes......in short,
save your money, and DO NOT buy this piece of crap-rent it if you absolutely MUST see it.

Positively one of the three WORST movies ever made-it reeks!!!!!
P.U. Bleagh!!!!!!

TANGOS, TRIOS, TRAVESTIES........
The is the one where Princess Margaret saw "Rudi Nudi" - for some or other reason it was selected as a Royal Performance!

Not really one of Ken's best, it's stil kinda worth seeing, if you get my drift! A fractured vision of Hollywood, circa "when it all began and when we had faces", i.e. the Silent Years, and granted Valentino was probably the first real male movie star, although today - it IS rather difficult to understand the attraction - was it the eyes? The close-up? [The other pre-Valentino male stars? Check out the make-up!]

BUT, back to this movie - it's a sad re-telling of Valentino's short life, emphasizing the menage [?] between Valentino, his ex-ballet-dancing wife, now Art director Natasha Rambova/Michelle Phillips [relax, she was a local gal, an heiress, not an import, eventually banned from the Paramount lot] and the now oddly neglected, but spectacular Alla Nazimova [Leslie Caron as a lesbian? Check out the dialogue between Caron and the newly widowed Mrs. Valentino - right over the casket! Mortice is not even rigor and the two are planning a new life! Intentionally funny??? Well, Nazimlova was bisexual, and a damn good business woman too - another Hollywood casualty. She was also Tennessee Williams Muse.]

The movie does go on and on - Nureyev is too exotic, but provides the necessary eye-candy. There are hints of Valentino's bisexuality - the "Pink Powerpuff" sequences, but we don't learn much about the man. Carol Kane shines as another vapid vamp. There's even boy-boy dancing - Valentino/Nijinsky episode in New York, pre-Hollywood. Valentine worked as a dance "escort" ["Roseland?"]. The tango sequences are good, but this Ken Russell is not too memorable - good as part of your Ken Russell collection it does not quite hold its own. Costumes and art direction ARE rather superior!

Better by faris the TV version with Franco Nero and Yvette Mimeiux - much stronger casting!

Deserves to be watched and bought for you home collection
I am not gonna talk about "Valentino"'s cinematic merits or Ken Russell's ones, for that matter. Previous reviewer has done a pretty good job on that. I'll just say that I own this movie and I watch it every so often. I enjoy it, because it is full of satirical images and it DOES take me back to the Hollywood of 20's. Of course, people should not consider it a real biographical movie about RV, but rather a huge satire with terrific costumes and wonderful cast. I must say that the film looses its edge half away thru; in the beginning you are taken by it, then it becomes more of a toy for Ken Russell himself. As for Nureyev's playing Valentino, I think that was THE INGENIOUS PART OF RUSSELL'S PLAN. Yes, it was Nureyev's first role in cinema (first and the only one, buy the way). Yes, he seems stiff at times, but I believe this was part of the idea: to "ham" it up a little in order to heighten the effects of constructed set (Hollywood of 20's). Anyone who saw Nureyev on stage/in ballet/ should have no doubts about his actor skills; he did not simply dance, he ACTED. Besides, for anyone who saw movies with Rudolpho Valentino (well, I did), com'on, how much "ham" is that, especially from today's perspective?.. NOW, think about it, Valentino and Nureyev: they had the same name, they were both dancers, they were both immigrants (suffering from not ever seeing their mothers again), they were both gay, they were both surepstars, etc. I think the similarities are uncanny! Russell took full advantage of them, by constucting a surrealistic plot, where you are not always sure whether you are watching Nureyev as Valentino, Nureyev as Nureyev, or even Valentino as Nureyev. That is possibly why Nureyev would want to play this role, even though he had not done any films before. ONE SCENE ESPECIALLY PROVES MY POINT ON THIS: right in the beginning we see young Valentino, who lived in NY then, is supposedly giving tango lessons to the great Nijinsky, who was also in NY at the same time with his troop ("Russian Seasons Ballet"). No such encounter ever happened in the real life, I am sure (Valentino was young and handsome small time jiggalo...Nijinksy's each move was monitored by Sergey Diagilev, troop's director and Nijinsky's pathologically jealous lover... Diagilev would have never allowed Nijinsky to see a handsome/ gay/Italian for private lessons or any such thing). So, how fanastic was it of Russell, to put two of the 20 century's greatest ballet dancers together in a marvellous tango? I just loved it: the idea itself and the scene! Anyway, if you watch this movie, you'll see it for yourselves. This movie is well-worth watching repeatedly.

A cinematic fantasy that provokes and enthralls
Ken Russell's "Valentino" was released in 1977 to the condemnation of most of the critical populace as well as the Catholic Church.Most of this disapproval was due to an ignorance of Ken Russell's artistic method,his intentions,and the extreme nature of some of his work.Over twenty years later with baroque directors more common and sexual and violent imagery less outre, "Valentino" deseves to be recognized as the undeniably flawed yet vital work of art that it is. Influenced by "Citizen Kane",Valentino's narrative is presented in a series of flashbacks by the people who admired,pitied,despised and loved the silent screen superstar.Ken Russell weaves tragedy and satire together to criticize the absurdities and nightmares engendered by the pursuit of the American Dream.The film dissects the obverse and reverse of stardom with its mindless and volatile adulation on one side and jealous hatred and contempt on the other."Valentino" also depicts the ethnocentism and homophobia of the 1920's-and by implication,as in most of Ken Russell's films,depicts ours as well.The film's tone is mercurial and constantly challenges you to think about what is being depicted as you are affected by its power.It enthralls as it provokes. Yet the film is not without its flaws.Rudolph Nureyev in his first acting role displays charm,grace and sex appeal-but he is sometimes stiff and lacks emotional depth.The great actress Alla Nazimova is savaged (in a very funny performance by Leslie Caron)as a pretentious and vain phony.Natasha Rambova(a very beautiful Michelle Phillips)is depicted as a shrill,grasping shrew.The screenplay as written by Ken Russell and his co-scenarist sounds unduely influenced by films of the early 1930's(though this does give the film atmosphere,you sometimes feel as if you were watching an R-rated Lloyd Bacon picture). Yet the film's merits make it worth experiencing.One can mention its exquisite art direction and costumes,its tour de force cinematography by Peter Suschitsky.But its Ken Russell's direction of its many great setpieces -choreographed with great intensity that are the ultimate proof of its genius.Not every setpiece works-one involving an empty-headed starlet brought to orgasm through sheer fantasysing while going through the motions of having sex with Valentino falls flat.But others such as Valentino's revenge on Fatty Arbunkle or the Nijinsky photo session with Nazimova and Rambova are emblematic of Ken Russell's use of images rather than words to achieve poetic comedy.Much more disturbing are Rambova's seance turned nightmare as well as the jail sequence in which various lowlifes sexually taunt Valentino and force him to urinate on himself.It is one of the most horrifying scenes in film history. "Valentino's" faults(such as its occasional historical inaccuracies and the aforementioned depictions of Nazimova and Rambova)seem irrelevant when you begin to understand that Ken Russell's intentions were not to tell Valentino's life story but to explore satiric and tragic themes based on his and his contemporaries' lives.His method is similiar to Shakespeare's Macbeth.Macbeth's raison d'etre was to enact corruption through ambition.The biographical or "real" Macbeth is of no significance to the play.Ken Russell's method is the same.This is not to say that he willfully distorts history for distortion's sake-but that he presupposes his audience will have prior familiarity with his subjects and will be able to reference both his fidelities and his departures from fact. Is "Valentino" a great film?I think it is, despite its uneveness-though I don't think it is one of Ken Russell's best films.But other great works of English art such as "Women Beware Women","Paradise Lost" and "David Copperfield" are all admittedly uneven and hopefully one day "Valentino" will be judged upon its strengths and not weaknesses -as they are. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

The Best of Ken Russell's Efforts
Or at least the best that I've seen. A very amusing, highly satirical film. It's not a straight-forward biography, but rather it tries to capture the important milestones in Mahler's life. Russell introduces a number of sly references to other films including Visconti's 'Death in Venice'. Russell doesn't make Mahler an entirely sympathetic character especially in his treatment of Alma, but he does bring out their love and devotion for each other. Also, Mahler's nonchalant discarding of his Jewishness to gain a position at the Vienna State Opera doesn't make him particularly admirable. The scene in which he placates Cosima Wagner is very funny and may not please some Wagnerites. Watch for the various Wagnerian icons there! Other segments I liked were the dream funeral and the interview with Hugo Wolf. Robert Powell is a handsome and intense Mahler, and the boy who plays young Mahler is, for once, not conventionally cute. I don't know what the complaint about the DVD is, but mine seems quite all right.

Poor quality transfer
While I love the movie, the quality of the transfer to DVD is very poor. It's not much better than the VHS tape. It definitely is in need of remastering. If they ever do that, I'll buy another copy.

Strictly for "art movie" fans. Mahlerians be wary.
I look forward to Ken Russell's Mahler listening to the hype, but it ended up in a horrible disappointment. Never mind if it's an art movie, Ken Russell ended up making more of an abstract mess of what-he-thought was an interpretation of Mahler's life. If you can stomach bizarre movies like Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, then you can bear the scenes like the Mahler's mock funeral and the Conversion with Cosima Wagner. I don't mind all of these supposedly symbolic and dream-like scenes of Mahler, but it expands little on his private life unlike movies like Amadeus and Immortal Beloved, no matter if the movies are partly fictional. I was under the impression that Robert Powell was going to conduct his Symphony no 8 and then Mr Russell will accompany the score with more symbolic events or picture narratives. It didn't happen eventually. There are vital stories of Mahler's life that are missing; how he became a world-class maestro from being a lowly conductor in a spa resort, his reputedly eccentric tantrums with his players, struggle with anti-Semitism in Vienna, how he met Alma Schindler and of course, the triumphant performance of his life; the Eighth Symphony.

It also seems that Ken Russell made this film as if intended for only Mahlerians. Sadly, viewers will be left baffled about Mahler by the end of the film. How are they suppose to understand the justopoxition of irony in scenes of Mahler's childhood? (for example, Mahler's father found out his son had skipped piano class and the whole family was struggling from getting Mahler hurt, the scene where young Mahler locked himself in a storeroom was accompanied by brass band music). Viewers do not understand why Mahler dominated his wife to such an extent she was forbid to compose. We didn't see Mahler conduct any orchestra at all except for the part he imagined himself conducting a Landler in his home. What is so damned special about Mahler? What is the hype? In Amadeus, moviegoers familiar by Mozart are convinced by his genius through demonstrations shown in film.

The music in this film is AWFUL to extent Mahler's music is clattered around the film as snippets using when suited to Russell himself. Haitink isn't a mature Mahlerian yet compared to Bernstein and most of the music conducted by Haitink is trash, even though at his later years his interpretations mature steadily. Seriously, I thought it was led by some Hollywood conductor when at the ending credits, I cannot believe the soundtrack was conducted by Bernand Haitink! Simply baffling when considered his interpretation of Symphony no 9 is so legendary that Deryck Cooke, a Mahler scholar, declared it the finest he ever heard.

To sum it up, if you're looking for chronological biography of a film like Amadeus, this is a let down. If you're a Ken Russell fan, a rent is considered. Otherwise, just stay your bloody hands elsewhere.

For any Mahler lover, a DVD worth having in a collection
As a Mahler lover, I could say that the music in the dvd is excellently played. The sellection is right. Most scenes seem to be adequate to his life.
Some parts of the film resulted rather funny to me,e.g. when Mahler is forced to fight a dragon and comes out of its cave with a pork head, then eating part of it. Some would say it is symbolic, but this part seems to be in contrast with the rest of the film, which could be said to be serious. But anyway, it is ok, I mean it is not disgusting. I think that any Mahler lover just does not want any representation to be unrespectful of the artist we love so much. This film is respectul.
A scene in which Alma is represented as being shadowed by him is twofold, as you can take her as death walking behind him. There is also a scene with death arriving in a boat, mixing her with the soprano singer who practiced with Mahler. Interesting.
Just the beginning of the film, pays its price. With a shocking fact plus the climax of his unfinished tenth symphony.
Even though there are many scenes in which Alma is depicted as to prone to flirt, the emphasys, in my opinion, does not go beyond the line. In fact, a scene starting with Beethoven`s statue in a graveyard, in a time close to Mahler`s death, is I think, depicting quite acurately the state of mind of Gustav.
I mean, I think Alma could have been just waiting for his death in order to find for herself a younger lover. Maybe I am wrong.
To finish, as a Mahler lover I always end up deeply sad, because he died early. I wonder, what if he had lived for 60 years. Why Albert Camus died in his 40s.
In fact there is no god; but had there been one, he was the one who killed Mahler and Camus, because he would have seen that these guys were creating perfect art, and his universe is chaos.
We all know that Gustav Mahler is the only God ever existed.

Mahler/Christ/Ken Russell
Film auteur Ken Russell made at least six biographical movies about celebrated composers, three of which enjoyed commercial release in the United States: "The Music Lovers," about Tchaikovsky; "Mahler," about its titular subject; and "Lisztomania," really about Wagner as much as it was about Liszt. Unseen in commercial release in North America (and unseen by me) are studies of Frederick Delius, Sir Arnold Bax, and Bela Bartók. Known for his extravagance - and, let us be honest, his vulgarity - Russell nevertheless believes passionately in these projects and endows his composer-artists with an especially powerful aura. (At one point, in the late 1960s, Russell apparently tried to help in the promotion of Lyrita's release of symphonies by Bax, although his plan was eventually scuttled by Lyrita's management.) The Tchaikovsky, Liszt, and Mahler films are all studies in the link between neurosis and creativity and portray the artist not merely as a social outcast, unfit really for society, but as a martyr to his own talent, which inevitably consumes him. "Mahler" (1974), as fantastic as portions of it might be, maintains the closest marriage with reality. Robert Powell (famously Jesus in Zeffirelli's film of that name) as Mahler represents perfect casting. For one thing, he looks the part. British beauty Georgina Hale (where is she twenty-five years later?) is alternately innocent and whorish as Alma Schindler, who, twenty years younger, became Mahler's wife only to betray him, as Mahler perhaps betrayed her, too. There is enough neurosis in their story to go around. Russell gives us not so much a straight narrative as a series of vignettes in flashback from Mahler's point of view as he returns by train to Vienna for the last time in 1911, the year of his death. Using Bernard Haitink's recordings of the Mahler symphonies (with the Concertgebouw Orchestra), Russell illustrates the music in the visual fantasies or episodes that make up the film. Examples? To the apocalyptic "organ chord" from the First Movement of the Tenth Symphony, we see Mahler's lakeside hut at Maiernegg burst into flames; then a cocooned female figure gradually emerges from her chrysalis in a weird ballet. To the death-march on "Frère Jacques" from the First Symphony, with its interruptions by an oompah-ing klezmer band, we see Mahler watching his own funeral and interment helplessly, his coffin carried by black-uniformed SS men while Alma, in matching SS miniskirt and jackboots, does a lewd dance on the grave. In a crucifixion scene accompanied by bleeding chunks from Wagner's "Ring," Cosima Wagner, the Mistress of Bayreuth,gives him a pass for being circumcised, then compels him to eat pork, thus licensing him to conduct the most Teutonic of Teutonic music. (This follows the announcement of the composer's conversion to Catholicism - as I said, nothing is too vulgar for Russell.) For the "Veni, Creator Spiritus" from the Eighth Symphony, Russell gives us a cinematic suite of Gustave Doré engravings based on Dante's "Paradiso." And so it goes. At one point, a reporter claiming to be "Ernst Krenek" bursts into Mahler's Pullman compartment. (The real Ernst Krenek would have been about three years old at the time.) What holds the sequence together is the music in combination with Powell's remarkable performance. He even convinces when he undertakes the thankless job of conducting an unseen (and of course nonexistent) orchestra for the camera. (We all do it, but none of us wants to be photographed while doing it.) While room remains for as less surreal treatment of Mahler, Russell's, despite its eccentricity, is still a worthy attempt. Aficionados of Mahler will especially want to have it. I recommend it with the cautions implicit in what has gone before. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Not exactly Sandy Wilson's The Boy Friend, but...
...it's a wonderful (and hilarious) movie!!
Most of the play is in this movie (on stage), but everything funny in this movie is on stage but has to do with things off stage or off stage.
I love the show, The Boy Friend and I am not at all offended at what Ken Russell did with it: one of the mains things is the Busby Berkeley style numbers (hilarious).
Other things I like about this movie is much of the casting: Twiggy is absolutely wonderful as Polly; Glenda Jackson makes an unforgettable appearence as Rita; Moyra Fraser has a great stage presence, playing Mme Dubonnet; Antonia Ellis is hilarious and steals the movie as the jerky Maisie; Georgina Hale is both cold and sweet as Fay; Tommy Tune could not have been better as Tommy (originally Bobby); Barbara Windsor is priceless as Hortense; Sally Bryant is great as the thick-headed Nancy; Murray Melvin is sweet as Alphonse; Max Adrien is fun as The Show's Director and Catherine Willmer is delightful as the Director's uptight wife.
I didn't really care much for Vladek Sheybal (De Thrill). I thouht he could have done much better. Christopher Gable (Tony) is much better off as a dancer. And Bryan Pringle was pretty lifeless.
The dream sequences are beautifully put together and wonderful with Christopher Gable's choreogrophy. The sets were beautiful (and way too complicated for an actual performance of The Boy Friend) and the props were hilarious. The backstage charactor personalities (along with reat actors) contributed so much to making this film funny. And I couldn't get enough of Busby Berkeley styled numbers.
As for singing: Twiggy suprised me with her nice and gentle voice; Antonia Ellis sung with many diferent levels and she was great at it; Tommy Tune can sing, of course; Barbara Windsor's voice may not have been beautiful, but her voice is warm and charming and that absolutely fit the part she played; Georgina Hale's voice is thin and a little flat, but her seductive tone fit her (offstage charector) part; Moyra Fraser may be the only one who SANG all the way through "Fancy Forgetting," but I wasn't convinced that she could actually sing. When she spoke through songs, I felt that it was to cover up the fact that she has an exremely limited range, however "Fancy Foretting" was good; Max Adrian sung just right for his character (while carrying a tune), but outside of that, he probably wouldn't be on Broadway; Christopher Gable was good; Bryan Prinle was also good.
The movie also has many memorable moments:
Maisie (snobbish) [Offstage Charactor]: Don't cry Polly, you weren't that bad.
Tommy's Life Story
Rita's entire part
Everything Polly had to do to memorize lines
Maisie's ad-libs/Attempt to seduce De Thrill
Fay's attempt to seduce De Thrill
Nancy trying to learn French
Bad Props (on stage)
...and many, many more.
The reason that I give this movie 5 stars instead of 4 or 3 (which my review may sound like thats right) is that I can re-watch it and still find it Fabulous! This movie is definetly going on my 10 Funniest Movies list!

That certain thing called...MAGIC.
This year 2003 marked the 50th anniversary of Sandy's Wilson's THE BOY FRIEND. Not only the stage musical is a hit but Ken's Russell's film The Boy Friend should have given more credits.The film was cleverly put togther and the production is A class.At the right time this film should get a lot of oscar nominations for best director, best choreography and most of all best musical. If ever they produce the 50th anniversary cd of this UK muiscal you should buy it. Just to hear Lilian Montevecchi singing as Madame Dubonnet is worth getting the cd.

Twiggy's show
No this is not based on the original "Boy Friend", so all of you original fans will have to go elsewhere. I thought the original was outdated so was delighted with Ken Russell adding a backstage story and straight out going druggy.. I think 30 minutes should have been edited, (explains why it's only 4.)
The main surprise in this movie is Twiggy. People who dismissed her as a phase in modeling should watch this. She sang wonderfully back in the 70's. She had a sweet gentle voice. I think the soundtrack of this movie should be released. I just bought the record and am happy with it. Also this movie is flat out magical. I had many daydreams about it when I was 15.

I LOVED THIS BUT........
Say what you will - it's not the sweet stage version but it's pretty wild - and how great is TWIGGY?

Now, if I loved this movie then why only 3 stars instead of 4 or 5? Simple... the darn video was modified to "fit my screen". If a movie ever deserved widescreen letterbox, it's THIS one! In fact, some of the musical numbers are so large, the video pops into widescreen for them and then retuns to formatted when finished (wouldn't that be even harder to do?!).

Anyway, if you're listening MGM, it's time to release this one on DVD, letterbox - and don't forget to add lots of tasty tid-bits... how bout comentary by Tommy Tune, Twiggy, Glenda Jackson and Ken Russell???

By the way, the stage version is really wonderful and deserving of a Broadway revival - the movie is indeed VERY different and in some ways Ken Russell erases the innocence of the stage version - but for a film, this movie is GREAT... just eliminate your expectations of what the stage version is like because there's no comparison.

What tha......??????
I have had the good fortune to work on a production of the original Broadway musical script and score of "The Boy Friend" written by Sandy Wilson. This video of the same show (supposedly) is incredibly derivative and quite frankly, frightening. I wish I could give it 0 stars, but.... "The Boy Friend" VHS is a mix of "42nd Street," "Noises Off," and some horrible acid trip. Twiggy - as good as she is in other vehicles - is simpering and annoying in this one. The fun of the original has been removed - gone are the carefree spoofs of love, gone is the energetic silliness of the girls, gone is the utter fun of the typical "boy meets girl/boy loses girl over misunderstanding/boy and girl get it together for the end" theme of the late 20's and early 30's movie musicals. In my opinion, this was a misguided attempt at.... something. I haven't figured out exactly what yet. Please see and enjoy and have FUN at the original stage show being performed in your area and ignore this bit of druggy tripe... you'll feel better in the morning. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The combination of Prokofiev's masterful score with Rudolf Nureyev's choreography for the ballet company of the Paris Opera could hardly make thisRomeo and Juliet anything but a success. However, as it's Nureyev, God isin the details, and while the sheer exuberance of Manuel Legris and Monique Loudieres in the leading roles is undeniable, it's the little things that count, such as Romeo's shyness as he shuffles from one foot to another in the presence of the object of his affections (it's one thing to do dying swans and amorous raptures, but not everyone can effectively choreograph a fidget). The production is visually stunning, although there's anoverstatement in the glary lighting that can take one aback somewhat. --RogerThomas, Amazon.co.uk ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Great production
This production of Romeo and Juliet is absolutely great. The technique is second to none-male lead, female lead and the corp as well, the set and costume are better than Kirov's (even Kirov's!!), the Nureyev choreography is a bit over-done (especially the balcony scene-I really missed his own solo in the 1966 Macmillan production) that the dancers seemed to be too busy with steps, but overall was very beautiful. I especially liked the "Montague and Capulet-aka "War" scene very much. The choreography here was a lot better than MacMillan's.

Finally, the acting of the female lead is breath-taking. Loudieres is not only gifted with dance but also acting. The way she expressed grief at Tibalt's and Romeo's death was heart-wrenching.

The orchestra under Phan was very impressive as well. Excllent brass, wind solos and string. Bravo to the 1995 production!!!

Absolutely beautiful!
The Paris Opera Ballet's version of Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet is absolutely the most beautifully performed ballet I have ever seen! The emotional way it is performed propels this ballet to a whole new level. An absolute must-see! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

subtitles missing
There is no way to turn the subtitles on and I have bought 2 DVDs at this point and neither of them have working subtitles. Outside of that is a suberb performance. No company is better than Opera Lyon's at this type of production.

Outstanding and great fun
This Opera National de Lyon production is simply delightful. The singing is excellent and the audio quality of the DVD is as good. The video is of an equal quality.

The staging is unusual but comes off brilliantly. The use of the minimalist sets works very well and I wouldn't have expected it to do so. It is slightly surreal but this is a slightly (?) surreal opera. The sets work with the opera and never detract from the opera or become intrusive.

The singers seem to be enjoying themselves and inviting you to enjoy it with them. In fact, joy might be a good one-word description of the entire opera.

There is some slapstick in it but never at the cost of the opera. Instead, it seems to enhance it. The scene with the cook and her "deadly" ladle is delightful but only slightly better than the other scenes.

This is my first experience with an Opera National de Lyon production and I throughly enjoyed it. I got the opera several months ago and find I watch it about once a month.

Excellent!
Everything about this video is just wonderful! It is humorous & delightful, the acting is great, the choreography is wonderful, the singing and orchestra is great, the tempo is brisk, the sound mixing is good, the sets are fabulous (they are a bit avant garde, but it works ok here.) This is the 3RD time I've watched this video (1st time on DVD.)

I upgraded from the laser disk version, and it was a good thing too. The laser disk had problems with the sound mixing which was fixed on the DVD version.

There are no extras, just the performance and a chapter menu. The menu does not even break up the contents between Act I & Act II, so it is very rudimentary. That's the only downside to this otherwise great DVD!

Even my 8 year-old son liked it
After I bought "Des Contes d'Hoffman" (DVD, 1993, Dir. Pierre Cavassilas), I was so disappointed and reluctant to buy any unorthodox opera staging. However, I am happy to have this copy. The audio and visual effects are very good. The stagings are un-traditional yet logical and powerful. Even my 8 year-old watched the most part of it with me.

Slapstick opera
If the Marx Brothers were to write an opera it might come out like this one. Prokofiev's wacky, quirky Love of Three Oranges is a strange trip into something between a fairy tale, satire and farce. The L'Opera de Lyon's production gives this tale of the hypochodriac Prince and his triple-citrus curse a sort of "twenties chic" look. Despite its silliness there is at least one truly chilling moment when Fata Morgana, the witch fresh from Hell, gives the Prince the curse of the three oranges. Biting, acid music, a bizzare story and the most slapstick you've ever seen in an opera make this a totally unique and entertaining experience. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Before director Ken Russell's name became synonymous with cinematic extravagance and overkill, he actually directed what is one of the most passionate and involving adaptations of D.H. Lawrence in recent memory. Oliver Reed and Alan Bates star as friends who fall in love with a pair of sisters (Jennie Linden and Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar for the role). But the relationships take markedly different directions, as Russell explores the nature of commitment and love. Bates and Linden learn to give themselves to each other; the more withdrawn Reed cannot, finally, connect with the demanding and challenging Jackson. Shot with great sensuality, it was surprisingly frank for its period (1970) and includes one of the most charged scenes in movie history: Bates and Re