Ken Russell did have some interesting ideas that came across as entertaining but there were times where his style got ahead of him and the film in question, and Lisztomania epitomises a bit of both. Lisztomania is definitely a polarising film, people will find it wonderfully weird while others will find it tasteless. With me, both seem to be here which is the main reason why the film is not an easy one to rate. If you are looking for a biographical drama, look elsewhere, the first half does have a story to it(more than likely to be fictionalised though) but the second half is like you've having a long really surreal dream and the characters are merely parodies. There are some striking visuals that are colourful and surreal while the music is pulsating and catchy and there is evidence of wit and imaginative touches like the homage to Charlie Chaplin and Hammer films, the fantasy interlude, Liszt's arrival at the castle and the Frankenstein figure(though that may also come under vulgar too because it's Wagner and the Nazis). Fiona Lewis and Veronica Quilligan are good as well. Some of it can feel music-video-like though- much of the second half has very little plot and feels like an excuse to string different vignettes together with a lot of tone shifts- and while the special effects are mostly okay the spaceship is rather fake. Lisztomania does change tone a lot and some of the shifts come without warning and feel very chaotic and there are some touches that are vulgar like the piano torture machine, the giant penis, sex scenes at high speed, Nazi iconography. Not entirely which category the vaginal fantastic voyage comes under, visually it was imaginative but there was a real weirdness as well, the same could be said of the most unique version of the Pope you will ever see. Most of the acting is really not very good, Paul Nicholas is pretty awful, Ringo Starr has a naturalness but doesn't have much to do and Roger Daltry is rather dull. Russell has shown with his Elgar and Delius biographies that he can be restrained and Mahler also(though also with some outrageous images), but Lisztomania is the prime example that I've seen of his filmography where restraint and subtlety go completely out the window, and at times it can feel heavy-handed. Overall, very difficult to rate but is unlike many other films seen before, personally not entirely sure whether I liked or disliked it, most likely to be neither. 5/10 Bethany Cox
44 Reviews
Weirdness in extremis
philiposlatinakis9 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Lisztomania was written and directed by Ken Russel, so it's his baby for all the world to see. There is, surprise surprise, a lot of nudity. There are a lot of phallic symbols, even in heaven the pillars are giant penises. Richard Wagner is the villain of the piece, complete with vampire teeth to suck the creativity out of Liszt's neck while he plays it out on a piano. Sound weird yet? Maybe it was revenge for Liszt playing Wagner's new piece cut up with renditions of chop-sticks to please his teenage girl fans all screaming like it was The Beatles. In a very risky scene Wagner's reanimated corpse goes after Jews with an electric guitar-machine gun. The whole film is like this. It's worth seeing once, just to experience the weirdness. But it's not really that good. Occasionally boring. The music is middle of the road, both the classical and the electric. Daltry does sing in the film, and that's a bit middle of the road too. Oh, did I mention, Daltry and family, now deceased, fly in a spaceship from heaven made of a giant organ (not that kind of organ, though is a memorable scene with one of those as well) to earth to blow up Wagner in the midst of his Nazi holocaust. So everybody dies, but there's still a happy ending.
surreal biopic
SnoopyStyle14 August 2021
Franz Liszt (Roger Daltrey) is a hedonistic composer in old Europe. In real life, the Hungarian musician lived from 1811 to 1886. Richard Wagner is a music associate. Ringo Starr plays The Pope.
This is surrealistic biopic. It can be seen as a mess, self-indulgent, and undecipherable. It can also be seen as intriguing and challenging. I choose to see it as the later. It's definitively not safe. I prefer a mess more than an uninteresting bland biopic. As an actor, Daltrey is not that great but his rock star personality is undeniable. Ken Russell is throwing a lot into this. It's a lot and it runs a bit long. I wish it wraps up a little sooner. Wagner needs to have more scenes as the antagonist. I would also like a bigger better actor playing him. He doesn't have to be a real musician. All in all, this is at least interesting.
This is surrealistic biopic. It can be seen as a mess, self-indulgent, and undecipherable. It can also be seen as intriguing and challenging. I choose to see it as the later. It's definitively not safe. I prefer a mess more than an uninteresting bland biopic. As an actor, Daltrey is not that great but his rock star personality is undeniable. Ken Russell is throwing a lot into this. It's a lot and it runs a bit long. I wish it wraps up a little sooner. Wagner needs to have more scenes as the antagonist. I would also like a bigger better actor playing him. He doesn't have to be a real musician. All in all, this is at least interesting.
Love it or hate it, a film like nothing we've ever seen before
ThreeSadTigers3 June 2008
A wild, surreal, profane, provocative, bawdy, debauched, baroque, rock n' roll pop musical fantasy with anachronistic abstractions, Chaplin references and a depiction of the Golem as a lumbering Nazi Frankenstein wreaking havoc amidst a soundtrack of Wagnerian dread. Suffice to say, Lisztomania (1975) is as far from conventional cinema as you could possible get, illustrating Russell's further shift into more self-indulgent territory and away from his more sensitive earlier work with films such Elgar (1962), The Debussy Film (1965), Delius; Song of Summer (1968) and the controversial Women in Love (1969). The seeds of Lisztomania can be seen in many of these films, in particular, in Russell's fairly unique way of seeing the past by way of the present; investigating historical figures, writers, artists and composers as if modern-day pop icons. Here, Russell takes that notion and applies it to an incredibly distinctive visual perspective that attempts to underpin the spiralling confusion of the artist's life and work in such a way as to be just as stimulating and sensory for the audience as it is for the character himself.
The style that Russell employs on Lisztomania is characteristic of the mid-to-late period of his career, featuring cluttered cinemascope compositions, a juxtaposition of various film speeds, colours and textures, a general mix of established actors, pop-stars and amateurs, a complete disrespect for the artist and their work, for the period in which the film is set and for the general accepted conventions of traditional, biographical film-making. Personally, I welcome the sense of anarchy; with Russell getting away from the clichés that ultimately lead to films like Ray (2004) and Walk the Line (2005) and presenting a film that is - for better or worse - completely unique. Once again, the approach that Russell adopts for Lisztomania can be seen in many of his preceding films, going as far back as his ultimate masterpiece The Devils (1971); a gloriously over-the-top, pop-art inspired political horror story with a fitting subversion of various religious iconography. This led on to his film about the artist and sculptor Henri Gaudier, which featured the same depiction of a historical figure as an almost Bob Dylan like revolutionary amidst scenes of perverse invention and screaming, pop-art expression.
Subsequent music-based features like the underrated Mahler (1974) and the financially successful version of The Who's celebrated "rock opera" Tommy (1975) continued the evolution of Russell from sensitive young provocateur to grand purveyor of lurid, over-the-top kitsch. Tommy is really the definite precursor to Lisztomania, not least because of the return of Roger Daltrey in the lead role, but in the almost kaleidoscopic fantasia of scenes within scenes creating miniature vignettes that propel the story in such a way as to suggest a compilation of music videos. The scenes of Liszt giving his first musical performance are reminiscent of the "Pinball Wizard" segment of the aforementioned film, whilst also showing the attempt by Russell to turn the composer into a 19th century Marc Bolan type figure, with inventive stage shows, manic energy, wild charisma and a packed stadium filled with screaming teenage girls waving scarves and blowing whistles. There's also some subtle comment on the music industry and the relationship between the artist and the press; reminding us that Lisztomania is, above all else, an absurdist satire.
Nonetheless, attempts to pigeonhole the film to a single genre will only lead to failure. If you approach Russell's work with a definite idea of what to expect you'll most probably be bitterly disappointed; with the film confounding all expectations and going against every pre-conceived notion of character, narrative, theme and subject to present a film that is part drug-induced hallucination, part schoolboy w*nk-fantasy. There are elements of science fiction, sex comedy, fantasy and war, and all tied together by Rick Wakeman's bold and subversive treatment of the music. The elements are blended together with a complete disregard for subtly, with outlandish Nazi iconography and apocalyptic despair juxtaposed against the recognisable conventions of the Universal horror movies of the 30's and 40's, alongside a continual reliance on mechanical phalluses, vaginal symbolism, high-speed sex scenes and Daltrey breaking the forth-wall like Timothy Lee in the "Confessions of..." series. If you can appreciate the idea of Fellini directing from a script by Benny Hill, then Lisztomania has a lot to offer. However, it is imperative that you approach Lisztomania on a visual level, as the aspects of script and performance are the factors that ultimately let the whole film down.
Playing a death, dumb and blind kid in Tommy was probably less of a stretch for Daltrey - who was already more than familiar with the subject matter of that particular film - however, as Liszt he's really unable to convey the dynamics of the character or indeed the ability to, well... act! It's clear that Russell's use of pop-stars in the lead roles was an ironic choice - leading into the actual presentation of the text - but the film desperately needed a more experienced and talented actor in the lead to really pull these separate elements together. With Daltrey the film becomes incredibly flawed, which is a shame, as it is obviously a bold, unique and energetic work; maybe even like nothing we've ever seen before! If you can overcome the poor performances, the reliance on visuals over text, and the flippant treatment of the actual historical elements presented by both the characters and the overall theme, then Lisztomania should offer a once in a lifetime, visual experience. If not, it will no doubt remain an unmitigated failure on all counts.
The style that Russell employs on Lisztomania is characteristic of the mid-to-late period of his career, featuring cluttered cinemascope compositions, a juxtaposition of various film speeds, colours and textures, a general mix of established actors, pop-stars and amateurs, a complete disrespect for the artist and their work, for the period in which the film is set and for the general accepted conventions of traditional, biographical film-making. Personally, I welcome the sense of anarchy; with Russell getting away from the clichés that ultimately lead to films like Ray (2004) and Walk the Line (2005) and presenting a film that is - for better or worse - completely unique. Once again, the approach that Russell adopts for Lisztomania can be seen in many of his preceding films, going as far back as his ultimate masterpiece The Devils (1971); a gloriously over-the-top, pop-art inspired political horror story with a fitting subversion of various religious iconography. This led on to his film about the artist and sculptor Henri Gaudier, which featured the same depiction of a historical figure as an almost Bob Dylan like revolutionary amidst scenes of perverse invention and screaming, pop-art expression.
Subsequent music-based features like the underrated Mahler (1974) and the financially successful version of The Who's celebrated "rock opera" Tommy (1975) continued the evolution of Russell from sensitive young provocateur to grand purveyor of lurid, over-the-top kitsch. Tommy is really the definite precursor to Lisztomania, not least because of the return of Roger Daltrey in the lead role, but in the almost kaleidoscopic fantasia of scenes within scenes creating miniature vignettes that propel the story in such a way as to suggest a compilation of music videos. The scenes of Liszt giving his first musical performance are reminiscent of the "Pinball Wizard" segment of the aforementioned film, whilst also showing the attempt by Russell to turn the composer into a 19th century Marc Bolan type figure, with inventive stage shows, manic energy, wild charisma and a packed stadium filled with screaming teenage girls waving scarves and blowing whistles. There's also some subtle comment on the music industry and the relationship between the artist and the press; reminding us that Lisztomania is, above all else, an absurdist satire.
Nonetheless, attempts to pigeonhole the film to a single genre will only lead to failure. If you approach Russell's work with a definite idea of what to expect you'll most probably be bitterly disappointed; with the film confounding all expectations and going against every pre-conceived notion of character, narrative, theme and subject to present a film that is part drug-induced hallucination, part schoolboy w*nk-fantasy. There are elements of science fiction, sex comedy, fantasy and war, and all tied together by Rick Wakeman's bold and subversive treatment of the music. The elements are blended together with a complete disregard for subtly, with outlandish Nazi iconography and apocalyptic despair juxtaposed against the recognisable conventions of the Universal horror movies of the 30's and 40's, alongside a continual reliance on mechanical phalluses, vaginal symbolism, high-speed sex scenes and Daltrey breaking the forth-wall like Timothy Lee in the "Confessions of..." series. If you can appreciate the idea of Fellini directing from a script by Benny Hill, then Lisztomania has a lot to offer. However, it is imperative that you approach Lisztomania on a visual level, as the aspects of script and performance are the factors that ultimately let the whole film down.
Playing a death, dumb and blind kid in Tommy was probably less of a stretch for Daltrey - who was already more than familiar with the subject matter of that particular film - however, as Liszt he's really unable to convey the dynamics of the character or indeed the ability to, well... act! It's clear that Russell's use of pop-stars in the lead roles was an ironic choice - leading into the actual presentation of the text - but the film desperately needed a more experienced and talented actor in the lead to really pull these separate elements together. With Daltrey the film becomes incredibly flawed, which is a shame, as it is obviously a bold, unique and energetic work; maybe even like nothing we've ever seen before! If you can overcome the poor performances, the reliance on visuals over text, and the flippant treatment of the actual historical elements presented by both the characters and the overall theme, then Lisztomania should offer a once in a lifetime, visual experience. If not, it will no doubt remain an unmitigated failure on all counts.
Grand Guignol Oprey
ArtVandelayImporterExporter4 February 2022
If you thought Tommy was a trip, wait til you get a load of Lisztomania. Think about hitting the 'shrooms beforehand. Trust me.
Other reviewers have described various scenes so I won't bother. It's marginally softcore p-rn, marginally softcore horror, and completely over the top. I wouldn't be sitting down the whole family to watch this one.
I enjoyed Roger Daltrey's gusto in the lead role, Ringo as the Orthodox Pope and Pete Townshend (and Elvis) represented in Orthodox iconography. There also appeared to be a lot of money spent on sets and costumes.
On one hand it would be easy to be offended by a lot of things in this movie: the desecration of the musical legacies of Liszt and Wagner, the abundant use of phallic symbols, the terrible soundtrack, asking us to believe Daltrey is a piano player, etc.
On the other hand, if you just surrender yourself to the absurdity of it, it's a bit of wacky fun for 90 minutes. Don't take it too seriously and it won't hurt you.
Other reviewers have described various scenes so I won't bother. It's marginally softcore p-rn, marginally softcore horror, and completely over the top. I wouldn't be sitting down the whole family to watch this one.
I enjoyed Roger Daltrey's gusto in the lead role, Ringo as the Orthodox Pope and Pete Townshend (and Elvis) represented in Orthodox iconography. There also appeared to be a lot of money spent on sets and costumes.
On one hand it would be easy to be offended by a lot of things in this movie: the desecration of the musical legacies of Liszt and Wagner, the abundant use of phallic symbols, the terrible soundtrack, asking us to believe Daltrey is a piano player, etc.
On the other hand, if you just surrender yourself to the absurdity of it, it's a bit of wacky fun for 90 minutes. Don't take it too seriously and it won't hurt you.
"Music--like sex--should be approached in the religious spirit...as one of the holiest things in life."
moonspinner5515 July 2017
19th century castration fantasy--delineating the extravagance of Hungarian composer Franz Liszt's sex-saturated young life until his eventual death by the symbolic stabbing of a voodoo needle (a myriad of maladies in actual life)--done-up in the spirit of a naughty British schoolboy bored by his classical lessons and entertaining himself by looking up his music teacher's skirts. Writer-director Ken Russell's cartoon-strip nightmare begins promisingly, with a hilarious slapstick joust between Liszt and his lover's husband, the Count d'Agoult (it's a naked swashbuckler, like something from an inventive blue movie). But soon it becomes apparent that Russell's vision is going to be all a pastiche, from silent movies to "Frankenstein" to German Expressionism to bows of unassuming self-reverence. The surreality of Russell's concept doesn't even make sense in the mad forum he has created--there's a narrative thread, yet nothing hangs together--while the creative production design upstages most of the actors. *1/2 from ****
Crazy
BandSAboutMovies22 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, this movie is crazy. I have no idea how Ken Russell talked people into giving him money for this.
Actually, I do. David Puttnam's Goodtimes wanted to make six movies about composers with Russel, with the first being 1974's Mahler. He also planned to make films of Vaughan Williams, Berlioz and Gershwin, which was to star Al Pacino.
There was just a 57-page script and Puttman and Russell weren't always on the same page. Seeing Liszt as the first rock star - the term Lisztomania refers to the sexual mania that female fans felt when in his presence - led to Russell making a movie where he eventually felt that "The symbolism...is a bit too relentless and the fantasy sequences tend to submerge the reality of the characters."
Well, yeah.
Based somewhat on the book Nélida, a story in which Marie d'Agoult - played by Fiona Lewis in the movie - wrote a barely hidden confession about her affair with Liszt, the movie is barely a narrative and more a series of misadventures, starting with d'Agoult's husband catching her in bed with the composer and the duel that ensues. After leaving the two trapped inside a piano on the train tracks, the movie quickly moves to the start of his rivalry with Wagner (Paul Nicholas), who hates the showmanship that Liszt uses to win over crowds.
Liszt is now married to Marie and constantly battling with her over his infidelities, unable to write music. He hopes to meet Satan so that he can sell his soul to be inspired again, a fact that his daughter Cosima prays for.
This makes him to Russia, where Princess Carolyn and her court seduce him into growing a ten-foot-long erection, which is taken to a guillotine, where he must give up his carnal needs if he is to create again.
How does one explain what follows? That Wagner is a vampire that uses Superman for propaganda and attempts to suck the musical soul from Liszt? That the Pope is Ringo Starr, who demands that our hero - who has failed at being an abbott of the church because he sleeps around - must stop Wagner and his daughter Cosima and their Reichian zombie death cult? That Rick Wakeman plays Thor? That a zombified Wagner - armed with a symbolic electric guitar machine gun - kills all of the Jewish people while Cosima uses a voodoo doll to kill Liszt, who goes to Heaven and reunites with all of his lovers - as well as his daughter, who has a change of heart in the afterlife - and flies back to Earth where he destroys Wagner and flies into space in his spaceship?
I have no idea what I just watched, but I loved it.
Actually, I do. David Puttnam's Goodtimes wanted to make six movies about composers with Russel, with the first being 1974's Mahler. He also planned to make films of Vaughan Williams, Berlioz and Gershwin, which was to star Al Pacino.
There was just a 57-page script and Puttman and Russell weren't always on the same page. Seeing Liszt as the first rock star - the term Lisztomania refers to the sexual mania that female fans felt when in his presence - led to Russell making a movie where he eventually felt that "The symbolism...is a bit too relentless and the fantasy sequences tend to submerge the reality of the characters."
Well, yeah.
Based somewhat on the book Nélida, a story in which Marie d'Agoult - played by Fiona Lewis in the movie - wrote a barely hidden confession about her affair with Liszt, the movie is barely a narrative and more a series of misadventures, starting with d'Agoult's husband catching her in bed with the composer and the duel that ensues. After leaving the two trapped inside a piano on the train tracks, the movie quickly moves to the start of his rivalry with Wagner (Paul Nicholas), who hates the showmanship that Liszt uses to win over crowds.
Liszt is now married to Marie and constantly battling with her over his infidelities, unable to write music. He hopes to meet Satan so that he can sell his soul to be inspired again, a fact that his daughter Cosima prays for.
This makes him to Russia, where Princess Carolyn and her court seduce him into growing a ten-foot-long erection, which is taken to a guillotine, where he must give up his carnal needs if he is to create again.
How does one explain what follows? That Wagner is a vampire that uses Superman for propaganda and attempts to suck the musical soul from Liszt? That the Pope is Ringo Starr, who demands that our hero - who has failed at being an abbott of the church because he sleeps around - must stop Wagner and his daughter Cosima and their Reichian zombie death cult? That Rick Wakeman plays Thor? That a zombified Wagner - armed with a symbolic electric guitar machine gun - kills all of the Jewish people while Cosima uses a voodoo doll to kill Liszt, who goes to Heaven and reunites with all of his lovers - as well as his daughter, who has a change of heart in the afterlife - and flies back to Earth where he destroys Wagner and flies into space in his spaceship?
I have no idea what I just watched, but I loved it.
Extraordinary assault on the senses a total failure, it must be said, but frequently fascinating in its badness.
barnabyrudge9 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you're tuning into Lisztomania hoping to find a biographical account of this remarkable composer, you're bound to be left bewildered and probably somewhat disappointed. For this is Ken Russell at his most self-indulgent, and anyone who knows Ken Russell will know that means a film of extraordinary vulgarity, obscenity, sexual innuendo, phallic imagery, anti-Nazism and more. Instead of telling the story in true-to-the-fact style, Russell has written and directed a film that relies upon allegory, metaphor and fantasy to point its message. For example, in real life Liszt was very popular with the public in Russell's version Liszt puts on pop-star style concerts, complete with screaming female fans. The real Liszt was a confident womaniser to symbolise this, Russell has him riding a twelve foot rubber penis over a bevy of scantily clad, open-legged women toward a giant guillotine that is used to sever his over active member! Liszt also had a strained relationship with fellow composer Richard Wagner (who married Liszt's eldest daughter) in Russell's twisted vision Wagner is portrayed as a vampire possessed by the Devil, who dies only to be brought back to life as a Hitler-Frankenstein hybrid who shoots Jews with a machine gun disguised as a guitar (!)
Franz Liszt (Roger Daltrey) gives a bravura performance at a concert for his army of adoring female fans. Part of the concert features music written by a young upcoming musician named Richard Wagner (Paul Nicholas). After the concert, Liszt is confronted by his mistress Marie (Fiona Lewis), who is irritated by her lover's continual unfaithfulness with other women. Before leaving his mistress for yet another concert this time in Russia Liszt is asked by his daughter Cosima (Veronica Quilligan) to write a romantic piece for her mother in order to repair their damaged relationship. Liszt foolishly states that he would sell his soul for the opportunity to do so and later gets his wish, when he meets up once more with Wagner, who by now has become the Devil and who vampirises Liszt. During his absence his mistress and two youngest children are killed in fighting in their native Hungary, so Liszt seeks love with a Russian princess, but their marriage plans are scuppered when the church refuses to grant her a divorce. Liszt is visited by the Pope (Ringo Starr), who tells him that the only way he can find meaning and value in his life is by tracking down his old acquaintance Wagner and casting out the Devil in him.
Don't say you weren't warned! A brief skim through this plot synopsis shows that Lisztomania is far from your average historical bio-pic. Daltrey is unable to carry the picture as the eponymous subject, but he is at least not as embarrassing as Starr, the Liverpudlian-accented Pope, nor Nicholas, the scenery-chewing, wide-eyed Wagner (these two performances are stunning in their awfulness). Better work is done by Lewis as Liszt's suffering mistress she is terrific in a weirdly fascinating scene showing the rise and fall of her relationship with Liszt, done in the style of a Chaplin silent movie. Also, young Quilligan is surprisingly effective and creepy as his voodoo practising daughter. Russell shows no restraint whatsoever, and indulges in some of the most vulgar and tasteless sequences of his vulgar and tasteless career, but his visual assault does at least manage to convey some powerful cinematic images. These startling images alone are not enough to make Lisztomania a good film, but it can certainly be viewed on the level of a uniquely outrageous failure.
Franz Liszt (Roger Daltrey) gives a bravura performance at a concert for his army of adoring female fans. Part of the concert features music written by a young upcoming musician named Richard Wagner (Paul Nicholas). After the concert, Liszt is confronted by his mistress Marie (Fiona Lewis), who is irritated by her lover's continual unfaithfulness with other women. Before leaving his mistress for yet another concert this time in Russia Liszt is asked by his daughter Cosima (Veronica Quilligan) to write a romantic piece for her mother in order to repair their damaged relationship. Liszt foolishly states that he would sell his soul for the opportunity to do so and later gets his wish, when he meets up once more with Wagner, who by now has become the Devil and who vampirises Liszt. During his absence his mistress and two youngest children are killed in fighting in their native Hungary, so Liszt seeks love with a Russian princess, but their marriage plans are scuppered when the church refuses to grant her a divorce. Liszt is visited by the Pope (Ringo Starr), who tells him that the only way he can find meaning and value in his life is by tracking down his old acquaintance Wagner and casting out the Devil in him.
Don't say you weren't warned! A brief skim through this plot synopsis shows that Lisztomania is far from your average historical bio-pic. Daltrey is unable to carry the picture as the eponymous subject, but he is at least not as embarrassing as Starr, the Liverpudlian-accented Pope, nor Nicholas, the scenery-chewing, wide-eyed Wagner (these two performances are stunning in their awfulness). Better work is done by Lewis as Liszt's suffering mistress she is terrific in a weirdly fascinating scene showing the rise and fall of her relationship with Liszt, done in the style of a Chaplin silent movie. Also, young Quilligan is surprisingly effective and creepy as his voodoo practising daughter. Russell shows no restraint whatsoever, and indulges in some of the most vulgar and tasteless sequences of his vulgar and tasteless career, but his visual assault does at least manage to convey some powerful cinematic images. These startling images alone are not enough to make Lisztomania a good film, but it can certainly be viewed on the level of a uniquely outrageous failure.
The Birth of Pop Culture
myboigie24 July 2006
To many, this film is the stunning-proof that director Ken Russell never had it, and that idiocy and egotism were mistaken for genius. You could say mistaking idiocy and egotism for genius has been the appeal of rock music! Others might say that Russell is simply childish or immature, and that his films are the "masturbatory-fantasies" of an overgrown-adolescent. This belief is unfounded. Is this film over-indulgent? Yes it is, dear readers, very-much-so, because it is art, not entertainment. That-said, if you chuck any expectations, this is a funny film and allegory about the rise of pop-culture in the 19th Century. It draws parallels between Liszt's fame with the other generally-hollow spectacle known as "rock." This is great film-making, and it should be noted that it has similarities between itself and "Rocky Horror," and even "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," as they all examine and explore the relationships between sexuality and pop-culture in similar-areas. It really is true that women threw their underwear at Franz Liszt during his performances, and that he had many-many lovers--groupies.
Lisztomania is an odd bridge-between "classic" rock and the emergent punk-movement of the time. The film can also be seen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive or rebellious at-all, but ultimately arch-conservative, and repressive. Amen. It's just a hilarious, wild-romp that will make your guests extremely nervous, which films should do. Movies should challenge people to think and reflect--at-least occasionally. Ironically (or maybe-not!), Mr. Russell had contracted Malcolm MacLaren and Vivienne Westwood to design the S&M-costumes for his film, "Mahler." It should also-be-noted that "Liszt-o-Mania" was released exactly the same year that MacLaren's shop "SEX" opened on King's Row, the rest is as they say, is history. It couldn't be more camp, it has Little Nell in it.
Basically-put, this is about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop-culture, and WHAT we generally-want from our "pop-idols" (sex, of-course). One could easily-say this film criticizes the absurd spectacle that rock had become by 1975, and we get this quite-often in the film. But this theme goes much-deeper, into the relationship-between artist and patron (once, just the aristocracy, now the mob is added). The sexuality is about mass-psychology, too, so Wilhelm Reich gets-his-due, and there is a plethora of Freudian-imagery. It is certainly a very-personal film for Russell, and probably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enrages so-many critics, but it should be noted that some of the absurdity and excess came from the producer of the film, not Mr. Russell. Ken Rusell enrages all the right-people, and that's what some film-making should be.
God love this lapsed-Catholic, and God love his ways. A flawed part of his canon, but very watchable and educational. As Russell began his career doing documentaries and impressionistic-films on composers for the BBC, it makes-sense that this is considered one of his most heretical-works. He complains about the opening country-song in his autobiography 'Altered States', and there were other aspects of the production he didn't want in the film. It's interesting to note that the 1980s was the period of his purest-work, due mainly to a three-picture-deal with Vestron. The 1970s were actually a very mixed-bag for him, as Lisztomania attests. He isn't entirely-pleased with it, but had some fun with the material, and there it is. I think it's a hoot, which means it isn't on DVD.
Lisztomania is an odd bridge-between "classic" rock and the emergent punk-movement of the time. The film can also be seen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive or rebellious at-all, but ultimately arch-conservative, and repressive. Amen. It's just a hilarious, wild-romp that will make your guests extremely nervous, which films should do. Movies should challenge people to think and reflect--at-least occasionally. Ironically (or maybe-not!), Mr. Russell had contracted Malcolm MacLaren and Vivienne Westwood to design the S&M-costumes for his film, "Mahler." It should also-be-noted that "Liszt-o-Mania" was released exactly the same year that MacLaren's shop "SEX" opened on King's Row, the rest is as they say, is history. It couldn't be more camp, it has Little Nell in it.
Basically-put, this is about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop-culture, and WHAT we generally-want from our "pop-idols" (sex, of-course). One could easily-say this film criticizes the absurd spectacle that rock had become by 1975, and we get this quite-often in the film. But this theme goes much-deeper, into the relationship-between artist and patron (once, just the aristocracy, now the mob is added). The sexuality is about mass-psychology, too, so Wilhelm Reich gets-his-due, and there is a plethora of Freudian-imagery. It is certainly a very-personal film for Russell, and probably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enrages so-many critics, but it should be noted that some of the absurdity and excess came from the producer of the film, not Mr. Russell. Ken Rusell enrages all the right-people, and that's what some film-making should be.
God love this lapsed-Catholic, and God love his ways. A flawed part of his canon, but very watchable and educational. As Russell began his career doing documentaries and impressionistic-films on composers for the BBC, it makes-sense that this is considered one of his most heretical-works. He complains about the opening country-song in his autobiography 'Altered States', and there were other aspects of the production he didn't want in the film. It's interesting to note that the 1980s was the period of his purest-work, due mainly to a three-picture-deal with Vestron. The 1970s were actually a very mixed-bag for him, as Lisztomania attests. He isn't entirely-pleased with it, but had some fun with the material, and there it is. I think it's a hoot, which means it isn't on DVD.
Wow!
mehappynow9 July 2022
Remember seeing this when I was just 16 years old! Wow! I can't believe they let us young girls into the theater! But Roger Daltrey is dazzling, and we swooned, watching him swing half naked on a curtain! Now at 63, I still was swooning! The film if fun, indulgent and kinda trashy! It was enjoyable to see the cameos of Ringo and Rick Wakeman. The ending reminds one of the ending in Grease, terrible, where they take off in some rocket contraption! The part with Wagner being a Hitleresque, monster shooting the town, reminds me of tRump( sorry, couldn't help it) . The craziest part was the giant penis scene. Like I said, I can't believe the theater let our little group of girls (aged 13-15) in to see this film. I still enjoyed watching it, even though it was all over the place, at times.
The closest Ken Russell ever came to apologising
DC197731 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Just read between the lines of his audio commentary to this calamity of a film.
To be honest there aren't that many lines in the first place as Russell seems lost delivering an audio commentary on his own and without Mark Kermode to prompt him and keep him on track. There are long gaps in the commentary that are occasionally broken by dull observations from the director.
This is not a DVD review but Russell's commentary does reveal a great deal about the huge flaws in this film and the director who seemed so obsessed with shocking his audience probably comes as close as he ever did to apologising for taking things too far even by his own extreme standards.
Some of his comments can be easily re-interpreted:
Russell: 'Raising money on classical subjects is not the easiest profession so I'm taking a holiday from that.'
Actual meaning: 'No one will allow me to make another feature film on the life of a composer after the monumental disaster of Lisztomania.'
Russell: 'To really appreciate the film you'd have to know quite a bit about the reality behind Liszt.'
Actual meaning: 'If you knew nothing about Liszt before seeing the film then you'll be none the wiser afterwards.'
Russell: 'Maybe it wasn't as successful as I'd have hoped it would be.'
Actual meaning: 'It was a catastrophe that ruined my career.'
Russell: 'In drawing the facts together I've probably annoyed the Wagner family more than I might have.'
Actual meaning: 'I deeply offended and insulted the Wagner family for showing the following:
1) Wagner as a vampire who sucked blood from Liszt's neck
2) Wagner as a mad Frankenstein-like scientist who used his music to create a monster in his laboratory that would turn Germany into a great country
3) Hitler as another monster that was created out of Wagner's body.
Russell: 'I raised the odd eyebrow as I saw it.'
Actual meaning: 'This film is totally over the top and I'm embarrassed by it.'
Russell even stops his commentary nearly 6 minutes before the end of the film as though he couldn't bear it any longer and wanted to get out of the studio as quickly as possible.
I don't blame him.
I saw Lisztomania out of curiosity as it had been denounced as the most extreme of Russell's films so I shouldn't have been too surprised by what I saw but there really is nothing to recommend this film apart from Paul Nicholas who is actually quite good as Wagner.
The film critic Alexander Walker likened Russell's The Devils (which incidentally is a much better film and nowhere near as over the top when you consider the subject matter) to the masturbatory fantasies of a Roman Catholic boyhood. Lisztomania seems like the masturbatory fantasies of the director himself.
There's really no pleasure to be had in watching someone as talented as Russell undoubtedly was taking his career and flushing it down the toilet.
Give it a miss.
To be honest there aren't that many lines in the first place as Russell seems lost delivering an audio commentary on his own and without Mark Kermode to prompt him and keep him on track. There are long gaps in the commentary that are occasionally broken by dull observations from the director.
This is not a DVD review but Russell's commentary does reveal a great deal about the huge flaws in this film and the director who seemed so obsessed with shocking his audience probably comes as close as he ever did to apologising for taking things too far even by his own extreme standards.
Some of his comments can be easily re-interpreted:
Russell: 'Raising money on classical subjects is not the easiest profession so I'm taking a holiday from that.'
Actual meaning: 'No one will allow me to make another feature film on the life of a composer after the monumental disaster of Lisztomania.'
Russell: 'To really appreciate the film you'd have to know quite a bit about the reality behind Liszt.'
Actual meaning: 'If you knew nothing about Liszt before seeing the film then you'll be none the wiser afterwards.'
Russell: 'Maybe it wasn't as successful as I'd have hoped it would be.'
Actual meaning: 'It was a catastrophe that ruined my career.'
Russell: 'In drawing the facts together I've probably annoyed the Wagner family more than I might have.'
Actual meaning: 'I deeply offended and insulted the Wagner family for showing the following:
1) Wagner as a vampire who sucked blood from Liszt's neck
2) Wagner as a mad Frankenstein-like scientist who used his music to create a monster in his laboratory that would turn Germany into a great country
3) Hitler as another monster that was created out of Wagner's body.
Russell: 'I raised the odd eyebrow as I saw it.'
Actual meaning: 'This film is totally over the top and I'm embarrassed by it.'
Russell even stops his commentary nearly 6 minutes before the end of the film as though he couldn't bear it any longer and wanted to get out of the studio as quickly as possible.
I don't blame him.
I saw Lisztomania out of curiosity as it had been denounced as the most extreme of Russell's films so I shouldn't have been too surprised by what I saw but there really is nothing to recommend this film apart from Paul Nicholas who is actually quite good as Wagner.
The film critic Alexander Walker likened Russell's The Devils (which incidentally is a much better film and nowhere near as over the top when you consider the subject matter) to the masturbatory fantasies of a Roman Catholic boyhood. Lisztomania seems like the masturbatory fantasies of the director himself.
There's really no pleasure to be had in watching someone as talented as Russell undoubtedly was taking his career and flushing it down the toilet.
Give it a miss.
Brilliantly weird!
Shan-1422 January 1999
Where else are you going to find a movie about famous composers, Frankenstein, Thor, Hitler, Superman, a lich, cigars, vampires, philosophy, perversion, papacy, war, love, Charlie Chaplin, and heaven? And where else will you see a penis kick line? This movie removes the need for mind-altering drugs. Seeing it is a trip unto itself.
Ridiculous
ferdinand193215 December 2018
At one level this is critic proof: it's just a romp, a student review, pitching composers as rock stars for a teenage audience. Just another Russell excess. No need to be serious.
Then again it fritters its opportunities and wastes the audience's time. It indulges two rock singers with their vocal turns when it could have used the more powerful music of Wagner and Liszt.
The superficial comparison with 1970s' rocks stars is trivial when Wagner did flee revolution and did push the boundaries of music in a substantial way. The intention of his Ring cycle was more profound than any rock band and yet he is presented in an anachronistic manner as a raving cabaret joke. Neither composer has any serious musical force to them at all: they just gallivant through a series of tedious gambits.
The script is rubbish: it's simply telling what is happening and why in a setup with another silly staging. The acting is incompetent and a vanity project which exploits the gullibility of its market to see their pop stars.
Russell sabotaged his career with such nonsense and then he would return and make something that was actually worth the time.
On the other hand Liszotmania could be lost or ignored forever and no one would have missed a thing.
Then again it fritters its opportunities and wastes the audience's time. It indulges two rock singers with their vocal turns when it could have used the more powerful music of Wagner and Liszt.
The superficial comparison with 1970s' rocks stars is trivial when Wagner did flee revolution and did push the boundaries of music in a substantial way. The intention of his Ring cycle was more profound than any rock band and yet he is presented in an anachronistic manner as a raving cabaret joke. Neither composer has any serious musical force to them at all: they just gallivant through a series of tedious gambits.
The script is rubbish: it's simply telling what is happening and why in a setup with another silly staging. The acting is incompetent and a vanity project which exploits the gullibility of its market to see their pop stars.
Russell sabotaged his career with such nonsense and then he would return and make something that was actually worth the time.
On the other hand Liszotmania could be lost or ignored forever and no one would have missed a thing.
How can you not love a movie that features a Frankenstein/Wagner/Hitler?
EL BUNCHO5 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Ken Russell has seldom contributed anything that would pass for normal cinematic fare, and God bless him for that! Here he reimagines the life of pianist Franz Liszt as a 19th centuury pop idol, and you'll swear that somebody laced your popcorn butter with windowpane acid before the running time is through! A little slow in parts, this is worth seeing for the myriad of insane images that assualt the viewer, the Rick Wakeman soundtrack, and the accurate but highly symbolic re-interpretation of Liszt's life. I know that spoilers are allegedly verboten, but how can you not love a movie that features a Frankenstein/Wagner/Hitler? It only gets weirder, kids:a vaginal "fantastic voyage" sequence, a unique version of Wagner's DAS RHEINGOLD, and of course the infamous ten-foot wee wee. Be brave, and give it a chance!
Grotesque effort at musical character assassination of Liszt and Wagner
clanciai20 March 2015
The film suffers from atrocious vulgarization in very bad style and taste throughout, which is a pity, because the idea is not bad at all. Liszt and Wagner are portrayed in gross caricature, which they were already while they were alive and kicking, and just like the 19th century caricatures even these modern ones do not miss their target and actually pinpoint some obvious truths about these the greatest divas among composers in monstrous vanity and atrocious hubris. Liszt was the more sympathetic and actually fell a prey and victim to the ruthlessness of Wagner ending up as a trophy in his graveyard, while the depicting of Wagner as a vampire and prelude to Hitler, his Frankenstein monster, is not altogether maladroit. In certain aspects it actually hits the nail. The unnecessary hooliganism of the film is the corruption of the music, which really is very little Liszt and Wagner but the more Rick Wakeman in horrible disfigurement in pop and rock versions. This is not a music film or any kind of biography or documentation of great composers but rather a twisted parasitic phantasmagoria tearing classical music apart and more or less destroying it. Ringo Starr as a pope with Liverpool accent doesn't make things any better. It isn't even funny but only stupid and disgusting. although a few laughs must out. Still, because of the idea, the imagination, the great camera work and the brilliant fireworks entertainment, I have to give it 5, which is the lowest I ever rated a film here, and I am very doubtful whether I will see any other of Ken Russell's films on music, no matter how much I appreciated his "Valentino".
Flamboyantly Contemptuous
boblipton10 June 2021
Roger Daltrey is supposed to be Franz Liszt and we are to believe that Liszt had some vague religious principles which required him to bed only nuns in his later years, that Wagner was a sailor-suited vampire who died and was reborn as Frankenstein's Monster/Adolf Hitler, that the world Liszt graced was a rock opera, and that the intended audience for this movie is the self-involved youth of the 1970s who were -- or perhaps are -- incapable of conceiving anything other than their own self-indulgent, pornographic fantasies.
I have read two books on Liszt and one on Wagner which extensively covered their relationship. I now know less about Liszt than I did before I saw this movie.
There are lots of busty women showing off their naked torsos in this movie.
I have read two books on Liszt and one on Wagner which extensively covered their relationship. I now know less about Liszt than I did before I saw this movie.
There are lots of busty women showing off their naked torsos in this movie.
Lisztomania
marie-23629 October 2006
Pure escapism! This film is fantastic. It contains farce, humour, nudity and crudity along with lots of laughs and many cringes. It's ludicrous, hilarious and colourful with great music and costumes. I like the music and also the paradox of some of the scenes. My daughter and I love it, and happy to watch it time and time again, but everyone we've loaned the video to can't get past the first 20 minutes, and think we are weird, so maybe we are off-the-wall like the film. I haven't seen the film Tommy and would like to do so now I've seen this. Don't watch Lisztomania if you are easily offended. Sit back, relax, take it all with a pinch of salt and you'll be grinning all night.
Senseless fun
JasparLamarCrabb18 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Probably the worst of Ken Russell's great composer biopics, but still wildly enjoyable. Throwing caution (and every other bit of sanity) to the wind, Russell concocts a real trip with this one. It's a most contemporary period film. Roger Daltry is Franz Liszt as pop star but he's not really acting...he's Roger Daltry. He's also pretty dull but Russell had the the good sense to fill the supporting cast with the likes of Paul Nicholas (late of TOMMY), sexy Fiona Lewis and the always welcome Ringo Starr (as the Pope). Russell doesn't so much direct a movie as he creates a pre-MTV video. It's all senseless, over-the-top fun. A big deficit, aside from the vapid Daltry is the film's unnecessary length...surely the REAL story of Liszt would require some length, but with a running time over 90 minutes, this particular LISZTOMANIA is about 30 minutes too long. Look fast for an Oliver Reed cameo.
Ken Russell's Most Unusual Film
matty0326 May 2000
It is hard to believe that Ken Russell was able to get this one "green-lighted" for release by a major American distributer as it is quite simply one of the strangest films to ever grace a screen! Russell, ever the visionary, takes the not so off-target view that Franz Liszt the pop star of his day and then offers viewers a comic book version of the composer's life and relationship with several infamous women and, most importantly, Richard Wagner. This film must be seen to be believed! And is a definite must-see for all Russell fans. It will also be appreciated by Roger Daltrey fans as this one captures Daltrey in his prime! Interesting musical work by Rick Wakeman and great set designs. It would be so cool to see this on DVD with director commentary! ...Maybe some day.
oh dear
danthedanimal29 May 2012
I really don't even know where to begin to convey how dreadful this movie turned out to be. Words pale next to what you are subjected to. For years I kept hearing what a genius Russell was, Women in Love, The Devils, and Tommy... and when it came down to it... I watched all of these movies with that uncomfortable feeling that I was not enjoying myself and really thought I should be. Especially with Tommy. Thirty minutes into the movie I felt like I was going to jump out of my skin because it was obvious we were being exposed to MTV -like vignettes featuring prominent artists in bizarrely staged scenes.
Over time I never lost that feeling on Ken Russell movies. It was always the feeling that someone knew how to do it right... but chose to do it in a sensational manner instead. He comes across to me as a director who chose to ignore story, character development and emotional connection in favor of trying to freak the viewer out visually. By doing this.. he took subjects that could have been important and reduced them to semi-pornographic peepshows that don't even have the capacity to excite us. He missed the point...everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.
Over time I never lost that feeling on Ken Russell movies. It was always the feeling that someone knew how to do it right... but chose to do it in a sensational manner instead. He comes across to me as a director who chose to ignore story, character development and emotional connection in favor of trying to freak the viewer out visually. By doing this.. he took subjects that could have been important and reduced them to semi-pornographic peepshows that don't even have the capacity to excite us. He missed the point...everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.
Gives the word grotesque a whole new meaning.
redmund2 May 2001
I'm a great fan of Ken Russell's films. What I like most about them is the director's ability (and willingness) to totally immerse his productions into whatever mania happens to be the driving force behind its subject. The results are often excellent, occasionally poor. But never have I seen a film that was, at once, so incredibly visionary and God-awful as Lisztomania.
In most Russell films, fantasy takes on an important role in the dramatic narrative. In Lisztomania, the narrative is virtually jettisoned in favor of fantasy, and not to altogether admirable effect.
Still, any motion picture that can give us Richard Wagner portrayed as a Transylvanian vampire who gains musical inspiration by sucking the blood of Franz Liszt deserves points for imaginative hubris.
Ultimately, Lisztomania is less a film than a comic boot pastiche. Its humor is, by turns, dazzling and lead-footed. Compared to THE MUSIC LOVERS (another Russell bio-pic, this time about Tchaikovsky), Lisztomania is, for all it gleeful, lip-smacking gusto, a rather tired affair, largely because it's metaphors are so pedantic and literal-minded.
I should point out, however, that Wagner's third-act transformation (or should I say resurrection) into a machine gun-toting, Frankenstein-Hitler rock star (yes, you read correctly) is a genuinely
In most Russell films, fantasy takes on an important role in the dramatic narrative. In Lisztomania, the narrative is virtually jettisoned in favor of fantasy, and not to altogether admirable effect.
Still, any motion picture that can give us Richard Wagner portrayed as a Transylvanian vampire who gains musical inspiration by sucking the blood of Franz Liszt deserves points for imaginative hubris.
Ultimately, Lisztomania is less a film than a comic boot pastiche. Its humor is, by turns, dazzling and lead-footed. Compared to THE MUSIC LOVERS (another Russell bio-pic, this time about Tchaikovsky), Lisztomania is, for all it gleeful, lip-smacking gusto, a rather tired affair, largely because it's metaphors are so pedantic and literal-minded.
I should point out, however, that Wagner's third-act transformation (or should I say resurrection) into a machine gun-toting, Frankenstein-Hitler rock star (yes, you read correctly) is a genuinely
Now I can see why Ken Russell had Daltry say and do NOTHING in "Tommy"!
planktonrules8 June 2014
Richard Wagner: You are Robert Schumann?
Strauss: No no no. That's Schumann. I am Strauss.
Richard Wagner: Not Johann Strauss?
Strauss: No! Levi Strauss!
Such is the clever writing you'll hear in "Lisztomania"!
I think I am an expert on bad films, having seen and reviewed more than nearly anyone on the planet. I am not necessarily proud of this--it's just a sad fact. However, how I managed to live 50 years and NEVER see "Lisztomania" is beyond me, as it truly is one of the most horrible films ever made. Heck, even for a Ken Russell film, it's over the top and incredibly self-indulgent!!
The story, despite the title, has very little to do with the actual composer Franz Liszt. This is NOT a bio-pic--it's more like a re- imagining of Liszt when you are on acid AND you combine the film with "Faust"! And, since it appears to be drug-inspired, the film has a lot that simply baffles the viewer--including the most bizarre sex scenes in history (including one with Liszt prancing about with a 10 foot long phallus), an ending where Richard Wagner/Frankenstein leads a liquidation of the Jews (this is in HORRIBLE taste--and left me shocked and a bit angry), a pointless scene where Liszt is dressed up like Charlie Chaplin (who wasn't even born at this point in history) and another scene where the Pope (Ringo Starr) watches as Liszt beds a woman! None of it makes any sense whatsoever, it's terribly offensive and, oddly, Roger Daltry even sings badly! I think the problem is that Daltry is WAY outside his range--singing songs that are nothing like his WHO songs and acting--he should have definitely NOT acted! I think his decision to say and do NOTHING in his previous Russell film, "Tommy", was a smart decision in retrospect.
So would I recommend this film to anyone? Yes. Bad movie fans will enjoy laughing at how incredibly stupid Ken Russell could be as a writer and director--and here he did both. Also, there are a small number of folks out there who actually LOVE Russell's work and seem to think he was a genius. I just think he either had an undiagnosed head injury or was really, really, really fond of LSD when he was making this film--and because of that, normal folks really will want nothing to do with it.
Strauss: No no no. That's Schumann. I am Strauss.
Richard Wagner: Not Johann Strauss?
Strauss: No! Levi Strauss!
Such is the clever writing you'll hear in "Lisztomania"!
I think I am an expert on bad films, having seen and reviewed more than nearly anyone on the planet. I am not necessarily proud of this--it's just a sad fact. However, how I managed to live 50 years and NEVER see "Lisztomania" is beyond me, as it truly is one of the most horrible films ever made. Heck, even for a Ken Russell film, it's over the top and incredibly self-indulgent!!
The story, despite the title, has very little to do with the actual composer Franz Liszt. This is NOT a bio-pic--it's more like a re- imagining of Liszt when you are on acid AND you combine the film with "Faust"! And, since it appears to be drug-inspired, the film has a lot that simply baffles the viewer--including the most bizarre sex scenes in history (including one with Liszt prancing about with a 10 foot long phallus), an ending where Richard Wagner/Frankenstein leads a liquidation of the Jews (this is in HORRIBLE taste--and left me shocked and a bit angry), a pointless scene where Liszt is dressed up like Charlie Chaplin (who wasn't even born at this point in history) and another scene where the Pope (Ringo Starr) watches as Liszt beds a woman! None of it makes any sense whatsoever, it's terribly offensive and, oddly, Roger Daltry even sings badly! I think the problem is that Daltry is WAY outside his range--singing songs that are nothing like his WHO songs and acting--he should have definitely NOT acted! I think his decision to say and do NOTHING in his previous Russell film, "Tommy", was a smart decision in retrospect.
So would I recommend this film to anyone? Yes. Bad movie fans will enjoy laughing at how incredibly stupid Ken Russell could be as a writer and director--and here he did both. Also, there are a small number of folks out there who actually LOVE Russell's work and seem to think he was a genius. I just think he either had an undiagnosed head injury or was really, really, really fond of LSD when he was making this film--and because of that, normal folks really will want nothing to do with it.
Dreadful
chinch_g26 July 2014
Do not waste a minute of your time on this. It is a truly awful film by any standard. It tries so hard to be funny, different, clever and over-the-top, but it just fails and fails and fails.... Please change your drugs, Mr. Russell. It does not even deserve the time it took to write this short review. Enough!
And now IMDb tell me that a review must contain at least 10 lines. That's a bit like the film itself, then - nothing there, really, just a lot of noise and spectacle stretched out for no good reason at all. And, no doubt, a lot of people got paid a lot of money for it - a shame.
And now IMDb tell me that a review must contain at least 10 lines. That's a bit like the film itself, then - nothing there, really, just a lot of noise and spectacle stretched out for no good reason at all. And, no doubt, a lot of people got paid a lot of money for it - a shame.
A FILM THAT IS SO OFF THE WALL
KatMiss23 May 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Ken Russell's "Lisztomania" is such an off the wall movie that it makes "Tommy" look like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood by comparison. Russell assaults all the senses in this film that you leave it exhilarated and mesmerized. This is a three ring cinematic circus and it makes no bones about it.
Roger Daltrey stars as Liszt, or a bastardization of the composer. Russell himself has described his film as "fiction based on fact", so if you're seeing this for facts, go far far away.
If you're looking for a one of a kind experience, this is the film for you. Among the more outlandish sights we see in this film are a pope (Ringo Starr) wearing cowboy boots and a pirate patch, a papiermache penis ravaging the countryside and Wagner being resurrected as a Frankenhitler monster. If you think I'm providing spoilers, baby, this is nothing compared to the rest of the film, which I will leave you to discover.
You've probably figured out that "Lisztomania" is not for everyone (how could it be?). What it is is a highly original and stunning excursion into insanity. It's Ken Russell's best film (his credits include the brilliant but unsatisfying "Tommy", the underrated "The Devils", "The Music Lovers" and "The Boy Friend" in which he out-Busbys Berkley) and a true movie experience. The Academy, naturally, skipped this film for nominations, but how could they deny this a Best Director nod? It's all about direction, anyway.
**** out of 4 stars
Roger Daltrey stars as Liszt, or a bastardization of the composer. Russell himself has described his film as "fiction based on fact", so if you're seeing this for facts, go far far away.
If you're looking for a one of a kind experience, this is the film for you. Among the more outlandish sights we see in this film are a pope (Ringo Starr) wearing cowboy boots and a pirate patch, a papiermache penis ravaging the countryside and Wagner being resurrected as a Frankenhitler monster. If you think I'm providing spoilers, baby, this is nothing compared to the rest of the film, which I will leave you to discover.
You've probably figured out that "Lisztomania" is not for everyone (how could it be?). What it is is a highly original and stunning excursion into insanity. It's Ken Russell's best film (his credits include the brilliant but unsatisfying "Tommy", the underrated "The Devils", "The Music Lovers" and "The Boy Friend" in which he out-Busbys Berkley) and a true movie experience. The Academy, naturally, skipped this film for nominations, but how could they deny this a Best Director nod? It's all about direction, anyway.
**** out of 4 stars
lisztomania
mossgrymk13 June 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
