The Last Tycoon

This movie is interesting only for film nerds, I think. On paper, it looks great: you have one of the most influential directors of his time with Elia Kazan. It stars a young Robert De Niro who had a string of successful and critical acclaimed movies (Mean Streets, Godfather II, Taxi Driver, all made between 1973 and 1976) But not just De Niro was a big name; Robert Mitchum, Dana Andrews, Donald Pleasence, Tony Curtis, Anjelica Huston. And of course, Jack Nicholson won the Oscar a year before; in 1976 with "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" What could go wrong?

Almost everything, as it turns out.

The "story" sounds intriguing about a young movie producer Monroe Stahr (De Niro), working successfully in Hollywood in the 1930s. You do get a glimpse of how much power the studio bosses had in that time, just before significant changes happened with unions and writer guilds.

The film could go in so many directions: showing the shadow side of Tinseltown, maybe even a satire. Instead, what we've got is a dry, empty, uninteresting film that feels like an eternity.

Especially the romantic scenes involving Monroe Stahr and Katleen Moore are among the dullest performances I have seen for a long time. Especially actress Ingrid Boulting who plays Kathleen Moore had me almost in a coma. Boulting, a model turned actress, has nothing to add except a pretty face. It's not entirely her fault; it's also a very weak screenplay with dialogue that made me cringe. No idea what Kazan was thinking.

Only one highlight this film has to offer: Jack Nicholson's character Brimmer was quite good, but he came too late into the film. Still, nice to see De Niro and Nicholson in a few scenes together.

Finally, what I can say is that this movie is a trap. It looks good with all the talent who is involved in this film, but there is nothing inside, only for hardcore fans of Kazan or a particular actor.

It should be shown in film school as an example that great actors never automatically make a great 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.

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.

What a mystery THE LAST TYCOON has been. This is a large-scale film with perhaps the greatest cast of male actors in history and nary a mention is made of it. Most critics bash it, the common viewer may dismiss it, but you cannot deny its place in history. It is not often you will find such a pool of talent AND a movie with both Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson on screen together. They even FIGHT! By the way, THE LAST TYCOON also happens to be an excellent, if flawed, work of art.

Director Elia Kazan (GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT, ON THE WATERFRONT) and company have taken F. Scott Fitzgerald's unfinished novel about the politics and personal conflicts of 1930's Hollywood and put forth an off-beat, unusual picture. Kazan is one of only three directors to successfully direct motion pictures between the 1940's on through the 1970's (the other 2 being Hitchcock and Huston). A staggeringly legendary cast play their parts effectively instead of just calling in their performances, which easily could have happened. Perhaps there was some competition between the old school actors and their methods (Mitchum, Milland, Andrews, Curtis, Pleasence to name a few) and the "method" actors like De Niro or Nicholson who symbolically take the torch in this film. This is especially true of De Niro's extraordinary lead as "Monroe Stahr" (based on Irving Thalberg). Kazan helped to create the "method" acting concept, so who better to direct such a crossroad of talent.

"Monroe Stahr" is a no nonsense "Studio Chief" who I'm sure Fitzgerald encountered while a hack writer in Hollywood during his final years. De Niro as "Stahr" orders cuts here and fires directors there and caters to what he thinks audiences want. He is actually a noble character, something Fitzgerald may not have meant to express. He must deal with Robert Mitchum and Ray Milland, who represent the corporate, artless side of the picture business and later the writer's wing (represented by Mr. Nicholson). As expected, there are many conflicts of interest but the movie's magic lies in the amazing contrast Kazan and company make between the dream world of an old black and white movie and what happened when the director yelled "CUT".

I love classic black and white films and one of the aspects that made them so great was the world you were thrust into. Fake backdrops, miniatures, and grand sets surrounded the actors in most of them, but the dream-like quality of a black and white film kept you involved. With this film, some curiously familiar "fictional" film clips are used for screening purposes where the studio executives would clap or claw at what was projected (They were filmed specifically for this film). Kazan and co. create scenes from supposed films (one was CASABLANCA turned inside out) to add some realism to it all. We get to see an actor from the movies-within-the-movie "on" and "off-screen". Tony Curtis has some good early scenes as a perfect screen presence, but an awfully inept star "off-screen" when he meets with De Niro to confess his sexual confusion in real life. You'll know what I mean if you see the flick for yourself.

LAST TYCOON is a love story more than anything. Many people may dismiss the love angle as a distraction. I found it slightly hypnotic and mysterious. The love interest, played by a beautiful actress named Ingrid Boulting, is great at exuding an elusive quality, something the De Niro character can't put his finger on. It all leads up to a somewhat vague climax and ending, but perhaps the filmmakers were unable to come up with the final stamp Fitzgerald failed to accomplish himself.

This is a film for discerning and patient film-goers only. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. That is why I see movies. Why the film has been so looked over is bizarre. Even if you consider it a complete flop, it deserves recognition, if only for the great cast. If you like classic films and know a thing or two about film history, you may know why THE LAST TYCOON is so captivating.

RATING: 8 1/2 of 10