LISZTOMANIA (1975)

Written & Directed By: Ken Russell Cinematography: Peter Suschitzky

Editor: Stuart Baird

Cast: Roger Daltrey, Paul Nicholas, Ringo Starr, Sara Kestelman, Rick Wakeman, Fiona Lewis, John Justin, Veronica Quilligan, Nell Campbell 

Composer and pianist Franz Liszt attempts to overcome his hedonistic life-style while repeatedly being drawn back into it by the many women in his life and fellow composer Richard Wagner.


This is a movie it has taken me a while to finally watch and its legend has only grown over the years. It’s writer Director Ken Russell’s second collaboration with The Who singer Roger Daltrey as his star.

This is definitely a film of its time period a very experimental look at the composer Franz Liszt. A very hedonistic film and the character 

The film sets the tone early as we are introduced to the character in the middle of a sexual seduction with a married woman. Whose encounter is interrupted by her husband and a sword fight happens meanwhile Liszt is mostly naked throughout. 

After that we kind of fast forward into little vignettes of surreality that happen throughout the film. W see him perform to roaring crowds of teen girls who all cry and want to touch him as he plays. That is where we are introduced to many composers but mostly It’s Richard Wagner who will become important later in his life and this film. 

Next, we see him in domesticity with his wife the woman from the opening scene. Here we see their life played out like a silent film homage to Charlie Chaplin and his leading ladies. Though we know the road and his hedonism will tear away from this seemingly love story bliss.

The early parts of the film play more like a traditional biofilm as far as pace and l learning about the character. Once he decides to become an abbey and therefore more religious while still maintaining His monstrous libido. The film takes a strange turn that allows for the return of Richard Wagner as a kind of vampire. Who decides to build his own Aryan Frankenstein

At that point, the film becomes more of a surreal fantasy film with history and politics thrown in. As with most Ken Russell films you never quite know what you are going to get, but it will be original and quite shocking. As he is a provocateur. 

He made many biographical films about composers. This is one of the mroe outrageous ones. Where he tries to make it fun and a kind fi satire. Though can admit at the beginning it is kind of slow but as the film goes along he keeps building the scenes and sets. So that by the end you can’t help but watch in awe. He doesn’t always hit his targets, but he gets close often. 

It’s hard to believe but at a certain point, the film becomes somewhat predictable for the most part. Though offers plenty of homages and allegories 

The music throughout is actually Franz Liszt’s compositions only with added lyrics to make them mroe modern songs that express emotions. Which isn’t needed and doesn’t exactly work. As it is like trying to update masterpieces.

This film doesn’t reach the heights of TOMMY, maybe because this film is forced to stay within certain boundaries when it comes to facts. While it doesn’t seem to have as much Joy and deeper meaning as that film. This is quite a nice attempt at offering something different and artistic. Even with the melancholy sadness that the film Carries at times 

Grade: C+

A HARD DAY’S NIGHT (1964)

Directed By: Richard Lester
Written By: Alun Owen 
Cinematography: Gilbert Taylor 
Editor: John Jympson 

Cast: The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, Wilfrid Brambell, Norman Rossington, John Junkin, Victor Spinetti, Anna Quayle 

Over two “typical” days in the life of The Beatles, the boys struggle to keep themselves and Sir Paul McCartney’s mischievous grandfather in check while preparing for a live TV performance.


The film is shot in black and white that makes the film feel timeless. As well as give it a classic fresh feel.

The movie moves along briskly is pretty episodic almost like a Group or music video and live performances with a rather than story built around it. 

Director Richard Lester was ahead of his time based off of this film. He paved the way for music videos. Not just putting out clips of live performances. Fast-paced, rapid editing videos of songs with the band and a storyline of sorts that can be self-contained.

Wilfrod Brambell plays a frisky uncle to Paul. Here to add comedy and have a reason for the hijinks and confusion that keeps the story afloat. 

The film tries to give each member a different personality to play off and their own space to have a singular adventure. It also allows them to be goofier and show a sense of humor and enjoy their youth giving them range And full personalities. After all, this movie is about them.

Even though most of the film feels like filler and comes off as a lark to kill time. Though it has its fair share of memorable visuals.

The film is energetic and freewheeling that feels loose like you can go anywhere at any time. 

It also seems to show how normal the Beatles are despite the fame and situations they find themselves in. More a service to their fans to get somewhat up close and personal.

The film works as a time capsule of the times and culture. As well as a place to show and satirize the level of fame they had, that was the beginning and how they dealt with It in behavior and attitudes. 

It’s a fun film that helps if you are a fan. As it’s an inside look to a degree. This first film is their best film. Not quite as surreal as the others, but more artistic, comedic, and simple.

So that there are constantly scenes and moments to remember. Even if just the songs as the soundtrack is an original album itself.

Remember the excitement for this movie when it got re-released and finally came out on DVD. Which is when I first saw it. It was kind of my introduction to the Beatles. As I had heard of them and a few songs from them before but never quite got into them to kind of learn about them and investigate them and their music until I saw this film. 

Grade: A-

CANDY (1968)

Directed by: Christian Marquand 
Written by: Buck Henry 
Based on the Novel Written by: Terry Southern & Mason Offenberg 
Cinematography: Giuseppe Rotunno 
Editor: Giancarlo Cappelli 

Cast: Ewa Aulin, John Astin, James Coburn, Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, John Huston, Walter Matthau, Sugar Ray Robinson, Charles Aznavour, Ringo Starr, Anita Pallenberg, Elsa Martinelli, Lea Pedoucni, Judith Malina 

Governed by a mysterious and utterly delicious fate, the innocent high-school student, Candy, summons up the courage to embark on a life-changing journey of enlightenment, eager to discover the elusive meaning of life in the four corners of the world. Little by little, the open-minded girl unlocks the secrets of the world, as a seemingly endless parade of unusual characters–including an eccentric drunkard poet; a Mexican gardener; a chaste U.S. Army general; an overzealous surgeon from hell; a filmmaker, and a smug, all-knowing wandering guru–are more than willing to lend a hand. Will Candy’s scandalous journey of sexual awakening bear fruit? Is there a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?


This film has gained cult status over the years as an adaptation of a controversial Terry Southern novel. That has buck Henry as the screenwriter but even he was challenged by this film.  The film went into production before he could finish the script. Had to keep adapting to avoid problems. 

Will admit never read the books. One can understand the allure of the film. It’s all-star cast making a comedy as most were more dramatic actors. Not to mention making a sex comedy of the new generation in 1968. But as usual when studios get ahold of something challenging and youthful. It seems they take all the cool factor out of it in trying to market it and figure it out and by the time they do make it. It all feels too late and like they are just off 

As exploration satire with little to no sex or nudity. Just implications of it and once there is sloppily edited so that you can barely tell what if anything happened.

The film is an all’s tar extravaganza which is truly it’s Calling card and the only reason why anyone would be interested In watching it. Even though Marlon Brando’s involvement in it as a favor to the director is what got the funding and other stars interested in the first place. Even as most would fully admit it was the worst film they made or appeared in.

The film is stylish and creatively filmed. It’s nice to look at.

The lead played by Ewa Aulin is given nothing to do but look attractive but it comes off as not understandable why she is so desired by all. As she seems to have the intelligence of a 10-year old in which the film seems to want to show innocence. So that throughout the film Offers so any other characters to be more interested in which might be by design. It might also offer how many evils there are in the world out to victimize those trusting innocents and how easy youth was at the time to influences without much research. How they discover just how corrupt and empty those influences are in the end and those who seem to be heroic icons are easily susceptible.

It also works against what the story might be trying to say by making the men who are powerful and yet misogynistic. It shows them as driven only by list as she offers nothing else but beauty to really keep them interested and short changes her as that seems to be the only quality she has even though she is kind of our hero.  

James Coburn gives one of the better performances. As well as John Astin In a dual role it’s obvious he is having fun and relishing the role. Richard Burton has the most entertaining scenes as his character has a constant air about him. As wind seems to always be blowing his hair and clothes like he has a personal wind machine.

The film ends up being Boring and dull as we watch respected actors embarrass themselves 

Personally felt more interested in some of the side characters who were more entertaining played by Anita Pallenberg and Elsa Martinelli. 

The whole motivation of the film was to show how powerful influential men. Who act above it all and are enlightened,  who have the same misogynistic attitude behind closed doors. Only one thing in mind that leads them to ruin or that she is that desirable that she makes men weak and lose it. As they know this certain woman has that power over them so they must conquer.

The material might have been shocking at the time. It’s rather tame now. Though definitely, a time capsule of it’s time. When Hollywood allowed psychedelic free-thinking movies made of climate and culture which was more freewheeling but shows Hollywood in trying to exploit didn’t quite get it and this film feels over the top and indulgent in it’s thinking. Like a bunch of older people trying to look hip. As the film tries to be profound but feels embarrassing and funny in an unintentional way. 

Remember when the film was released on DVD. As it seemed to be a film That was lost, again more a film that seems better remembered for some than experienced it better In Theory and legend rather than once you see it.

It seeks to be artistic and smart it what passed for it at the time. Though comes off as juvenile. 

What is more disturbing is that some of the actors are doing brown face and being culturally inappropriate that certainly is distasteful and raises eyebrows under a current lens. Where Ringo Starr plays a Mexican character and Marlon Brando plays middle eastern not in any way tasteful.

This feels like a case of catching a bunch of well-known actors with their pants down. Choosing to be I in this film for whatever reason, be it a paycheck, a chance to act amongst other big names, trying to appeal to youth, attracted to the star of the film, Whatever. Only here it’s not as funny or entertaining as you hoped, instead it’s just embarrassing.

The film ends like a Fellini film. As all characters come back for a surreal scene and a kid. If reveal that this is all a production 

GRADE: D