Valentino (1977)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Am I Missing Something?

The first must-see film of the year.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

like each of his films, it is a demystify. precise, ironic, seductive in a special way, provocative. the first challenge - Nureyeev in the lead role. using his talent and art and body. for give the portrait of a world more than the portrait of a man. because it is a film about media and Hollywood and idols and sparkles. about image. and, sure, about glory , success and its large cages. so, a Ken Rusell film. and, maybe, nothing more.

With the possible exception of costuming, this film is horrible. Another example of director Russell laughing at the audiences who pay to watch his over-blown crap.The acting is mostly overacting, no doubt encouraged by Russell, who presents a film of caricatures. Swarzenegger playing Hamlet would be nearly as good as Nureyev playing Valentino. He has a physical presence, but he cannot act. Michelle Phillips and the others fall prey to Russell's misguided exhortations to act as if they are on stage, aiming for the back balcony. Huntz Hall is mere stunt casting.The script is abominable. The story bears no resemblance to the actual life of Valentino or reality, in general. The viewer should remember that Russell was a fan of Warhol and Fellini. It would be fair to call this one of his Campbell Soup Can films. This film is craftsmanship (adulterated by what must be a sick view of the world) masquerading as art.

Ken Russell could certainly do a period picture. Detail, feel, mood, elegance and style, you name it. In his depiction of 1920's Italian heart throb Hollywood star, Rudolph Valentino, all these key aspects are in place.Lacking some of the more outrageous flourishes of sexual and violent depravities that marred/enabled (depending on your point of view) many other of Russell's flicks, this is still certificate 18 with some moderately explicit nudity.The locations are inspired (the desert filming scene is superbly done), such as the Russell Coates Museum in Bournemouth and the dancing and set pieces dazzling and amazing. However, somehow the film doesn't gel as a whole and working out why is near impossible.Some say that the casting of the Russian ballet icon, Rudolf Nureyev as Valentino to be a major fault, but I disagree. Sure, he's stilted and with the wrong accent, but he absolutely looks the part and with that immensely athletic body of his, well....and the dancing is as you'd expect. As the dashing sheik in the desert, just mentioned, he looks uncannily like the real thing.Maybe that the film covers a lot of ground and at a full 2 hours, there's a lot of visual information. Sometimes it feels that there isn't the narrative clarity to support all that and we don't always know what is going on. Or, at least I didn't.The late, great Ken has produced a fine film but one that ultimately doesn't quite work.

The movie is utter trash! The actors and actresses seem to put more trash on poor Rudy. The movie was not really true to life. I've researched and read many a biography and Valentino was NOT the way the director portrayed him to be, other than a great dancer and an excellent actor. I loved Nureyev; nothing personal against any of the actors and actresses; it's just that the story is so over inflated with a bunch of false accusations.Natasha Rambova never even appeared at his memorial. Rudy was not homosexual, and was not a gigolo. He was a dancer and danced with women prior to getting into movies, yes, that is true, but he wasn't the "clown" the way the movie puts him out to be in the movie.It stinks.