This was bad


The film is about a gangster hiding from the mob at the home of a former rock star. The film is strange and a mess. That might have been alright if it was entertaining, but I found this film really dull and pointless. It just did not work for me. I didn't find it entertaining or impressive, at all. My rating is a 4/10.

reply

That's you're opinion of course. I think it's masterpiece of early 70's cinema, and the start of the late great Nicholas Roeg's great 70's run and late Donald Cammell. That's why I love it for the reasons you dislike it, that it's strange, it's editing is unique and it's got a bleak end of the 60's now into drug fueled 70's feel to it. To have got such a art house film made by Warner Brothers deserves praise. A great turn from James Fox, really eye opening as he usually played upper class toffs in his films, and he goes agaisnt type to portray a East End working class gangster. Watch is performance in The Servant then his turn in Performance and it's mind blowing. Mick Jagger is basically doing a Brian Jones impression, and he bring a awesome song called Memo From Turner to the film and you get a 70's classic, and I think it's one of the best films of the 70's. 10/10 for me.

reply

interesting. i have to watch this.

reply

"To have got such a art house film made by Warner Brothers deserves praise"

They didn't make it. They distributed it. It was made by GoodTimes Enterprises. Warner Brothers were very reluctant to distribute it precisely because of how weird and controversial it was.

reply

It leaves a bad first impression. I thought the first half was confusing and the second boring. But then I read the Wikipedia article to see what I was missing and for my second viewing, I skip to the good parts and I thought it was more interesting. I kinda like it. There's a good idea behind this movie.
It's not for everyone, that's for sure.

reply

i tried to watch it and lasted ten minutes.

reply