The Last Tycoon

This movie is worth watching for Theresa Russell alone.Ok the rest of the cast are all very good but a heart rending role from Theresa Russell steals the film,you can see her mind working and her face is a picture in every sense.At the start of her career to be in a scene with De niro and Nicholson and walk away with it,is something worth watching.A very moving and affecting work by an actress in a worthwhile film.

Kazan and Pinter's THE LAST TYCOON is disjointed, uneven, and strangely memorable -- rather like an oddly unsettling, hazily recalled dream.

Robert De Niro, in a quietly amazing performance, disappears into the title character of Monroe Stahr, a workaholic Hollywood producer who is, in Keats's phrase, "half in love with easeful death." (This understated movie is from the same year as De Niro's flashy bravura turn in Martin Scorsese's TAXI DRIVER.)

Most of the supporting cast is excellent, including Robert Mitchum and Ray Milland as a couple of Shakespearean-knavish villains, Jack Nicholson, Donald Pleasence, Theresa Russell, and Dana Andrews.

Ingrid Boulting is beautiful but somewhat less satisfactory as Stahr's love interest, Kathleen Moore. In fairness, however, her role is deliberately written as something of an enigma: Kathleen Moore is a blank movie screen onto which Stahr, a near-solipsist, projects fantasies and memories of his deceased wife.

The various elements of THE LAST TYCOON never quite cohere into a whole, but several scenes have stuck in my memory ever since I first saw it years ago. Among them:

• Stahr's mock-lecture to the misfit screenwriter Boxley (Donald Pleasence), beginning: "You've been fighting duels all day..."

• Kathleen Moore telling Stahr, over the insistent crash of the surf at his unfinished ocean-front mansion, "I want ... a quiet life"

• Stahr's informal evening meeting with a labor-union organizer (Jack Nicholson), during which the privately despondent movie producer grows increasingly drunk and belligerent; and ...

• The closing ten minutes or so of the film, which take on an almost surreal quality: Disembodied lines of dialogue from earlier scenes recur; Stahr repeats his earlier speech to Boxley, only now as a soliloquy addressed directly to the camera; and then -- murmuring "I don't want to lose you" -- he seems to hallucinate a vision of Kathleen as she moves on to a new life without him.

Only Jeanne Moreau and Tony Curtis struck me as jarringly miscast in their parts. They -- and their comic-pathetic scenes as insecure movie idols -- seemed to belong to another movie entirely.

THE LAST TYCOON is an uneven work but most assuredly has its merits.

After reading the book (and Fitzgerald's notes about how he saw the story progressing) I expected high quality from Kazan's film treatment. Much has been made of his decision to have an almost comatose Monroe Stahr, unable to express emotion on anything but movies, and in this I think he partly succeeded. But the film as a whole irritates me. It's one I've gone back to several times and I can't work out why it has that effect. It just does. In relation to the book, some scenes are pretty much verbatim, some are added to, some are ditched altogether, there just seems no reasoning behind it. The plusses - it has an interesting ending and an equally interesting supporting cast of old timers, most of whom are always worth watching. It has a certain amount of style and character of its own. It's just not that easy to enjoy, IMO.

Whether or not "The Last Tycoon" is a great movie or not, it's a must-see for folks like me who love classic Hollywood. Think about it...the film features the talents of folks like Robert Mitchum, Robert De Niro, Ray Milland, Jeanne Moreau, John Carradine, Tony Curtis, Dana Andrews and Jack Nicholson ALL in the same film! And, this doesn't include all the famous supporting actors such as Jeff Corey, Seymour Cassel, Theresa Russell, Peter Strauss and more!! Wow...what an amazing cast director Elia Kazan had on hand for this picture.

The story was inspired by an unfinished story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It's a story that seems to have been inspired by various real Hollywood folks...though it's very highly fictionalized. The main character, Monroe Stahr (De Niro), is the most closely like a real Hollywood icon, Irving Thalberg....and he is the 'tycoon' from the title. And, throughout the film, Stahr burns the candle at both ends....working non-stop like Thalberg and a man who seemingly has the Midas touch. But, in many, many other ways he and Thalberg are very much different...so much so that it's obviously not meant as a biography of the man. It's more like a jumping off point....with a character reminiscent of Thalberg at the beginning but much unlike him as the story progresses.

So is it any good? Yes...but also disappointing. With such a great cast and director, I really expected more. At times, the film felt episodic and the ending certainly felt incomplete. But I would also add that some of the performances were amazingly muted...to the point where I think the film could have used an infusion of energy and life. Too many times, De Niro and, later, his love interest, simply seemed half asleep and this did detract from the story. Overall, very much a mixed bag...worth seeing but quite uneven.

Films about the film industry tend to be self-mocking at the best of times. Singin' in the Rain poked fun at the coming of sound and outlined the difficulties it brought to the industry amongst a love story and a few other things. Additionaly,the more contemporary The Player brought to our attention the trials and tribulations of a Hollywood film producer as he struggles to balance everything at once, complete with disgruntled rejected writers. So it's sort of a shame as well as a surprise that The Last Tycoon does not hit as many spots as I thought it might with it ending up as a slow burning but ultimately unrewarding experience.

The film adopts an approach that makes it come across as more of a love story than anything else, but there is a sub-narrative involved that revolves around De Niro's character of Monroe Stahr gradually getting more and more confused with his life and things around him. The primary problem here is the film is not involving enough to warrant it an interesting or touching love story and the dedication to the focus of a man slowly getting more and more overwhelmed is undercooked – both are there and done reasonably well but both feel anti-climatic. Along with this and like I said in the opening paragraph, the film does not poke fun at and nor does it reference enough the industry in which it's set so it doesn't feel particularly clever, something Singin' in the Rain and The Player were because they did it very well and to good comic effect.

There is a definite study going on here with some substance in the sense it is about Stahr and his struggles with his current life and his love for newly acquired girlfriend Kathleen Moore (Boulting) but nothing much else. Is it a romance? Probably, but is it a good romance? Not really. Ingrid Boulting is shot in an extremely objective manner with lots of brightly lit shots and compositions that reveal enough of her body at particularly nicely timed incidences in the film. This is twinned with several close ups of De Niro's facial expressions in which the lust and desire is very much apparent. It would be easy to argue that these objective and obvious set ups revolving around a gaze of some sort are deliberate given the film is about film-making and that very early on there is a scene involving a man and woman shooting a romantic scene of some sort. But the concentration on a genuine romance between two characters in the story we're watching is clearly trying to come across as serious and thus; being self-aware of its own compositions is an idea the film fails to get across.

But before this romantic distraction gets involved, the film begins in a light-hearted but intriguing style. An individual answers a question on how difficult it must be to shoot an earthquake scene and they laugh, replying that shaking the camera usually works and insulting the idea as a cheap effect. Sure enough about ten minutes later, there is an earthquake within the universe of The Last Tycoon and we realise the film is poking fun at itself. Then there is the other concentrated dig early on that, unfortunately, isn't played on an awful lot and that involves Tony Curtis' character Rodriguez and Tony Curtis as a whole. The character name of Rodriguez is short and sharp – it is exotic in the sense it sounds 'Latino' and we all know that 'Latinos' in Hollywood cinema are usually scorching hot in their appearance (at least the women are). Rodriguez is an actor who appears in lots of films about love and making love; he appears topless in the scenes within the scenes that Tony Curtis is filming. The point here being that Curtis himself is (or was) a bit of a pin-up and his public figure is being spoofed through him playing the part of a romantic lead in a film within a film.

When all is said and done, The Last Tycoon is a study of one man and his issues. It is not as engrossing as De Niro's own Taxi Driver from the same year and nor is it as interesting or disturbing as more contemporary examples like American Psycho and One Hour Photo. The film substitutes daily rigmarole and movie set interaction for the introduction of Boulting as the dull love interest and shoots her body accordingly. Twinned with this is a visit from Brimmer, played by Jack Nicholson, which is ill timed and feels out of place given the route the film had gone down at that point. While the film isn't particularly bad, it feels underdone and somewhat one dimensional. Its study of love and stress is alright but it does not demonise the film industry in ways it could've and nor does it feel particularly urgent. This could revolve around anyone, in any industry, at any time and that said, The Last Tycoon is pretty ordinary.