SYNOPSICS
The Last Tycoon (1976) is a English movie. Elia Kazan has directed this movie. Robert De Niro,Tony Curtis,Robert Mitchum,Jeanne Moreau are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1976. The Last Tycoon (1976) is considered one of the best Drama,Romance movie in India and around the world.
Young film producer, Monroe Stahr, is a rising star in 1930's Hollywood due to his ability to get anything he envisions done even if it means breaking a few rules. The latest film he's working on stars two popular actors, Rodriguez and Didi, and everyone is sure it'll be a smashing hit when it's done. The times are changing however, since the first guilds and unions are being formed in Hollywood, but Stahr is still sticking to his old ways of doing things in spite of that. His main opponent becomes a union organizer, Brimmer, but Stahr finds ways to deal with him as well. However, in his hubris, Stahr crosses one red line too many when he falls for a young troubled engaged woman called Kathleen Moore and neglects Cecilia Brady, the young daughter of studio executive and Stahr's boss, Pat Brady. Pat becomes furious over this as well as Stahr's other misbehavings and makes it his mission to take Stahr down. Due to all the pressure, Stahr's health starts failing as well. The film is ...
Same Actors
The Last Tycoon (1976) Reviews
One of the Most Overlooked Films in History For Good and For Bad...
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
A tour-de-force performance by De Niro
Robert De Niro arguably gave the most critically acclaimed performances during the 1970's in movies like "Mean Streets", "Bang the Drum Slowly", "The Godfather, Part II", "Taxi Driver, "The Deer Hunter", etc.,. Little has been said, however, about his turn as Monroe Stahr in "The Last Tycoon" - quite possibly De Niro's most underrated and most uncharacteristic performance on screen. "The Last Tycoon", itself, was a mixed bag among the critics. Some liked it. Some didn't. In my view, "The Last Tycoon" was a movie that deserves a place in film history for exploring Hollywood in the inside. This movie, however, provides only a small glimpse into this which was why the critics were divided. Shortly put, "The Last Tycoon" deals with a top producer's (De Niro) everyday life and the conflict that arises when he sees a lost loved one - albeit in a different way. The movie boasts of several big names of the past as well as the present. Robert Mitchum, Jeanne Moreau, Anjelica Huston (in a cameo), Tony Curtis, John Carradine, etc., were few of the key players. Jack Nicholson makes a late appearance in the film providing for some brilliant, electric scenes with De Niro. In fact their scenes together (undoubtedly the highlight of the movie) make the one scene that De Niro and Al Pacino shared in Michael Mann's "Heat" seem pedestrian. De Niro and Nicholson, two of the greatest actors American film has even seen, will most likely never work together again considering their stature today which makes their scenes together in "The Last Tycoon" that much more priceless. Ingrid Boutling, a British model, is cast opposite De Niro and gives a wooden performance. She is the only weak link of the picture. A young Theresa Russell also gives an able supporting performance. Ultimately, however, "The Last Tycoon" lies solely on De Niro's shoulders and he makes full use of the opportunity and then some. De Niro's interpretation of a movie mogul (reportedly based on Irving G. Thalberg) is absolutely genuine and original. Looking trim and handsome, De Niro gives a towering, commanding performance as Monroe Stahr and it is his work here that holds the picture together. Though the critics were split down the middle in their opinion regarding this film, there was one thing they agreed upon. Robert De Niro gives an authentic, striking performance in the central role. In my opinion, a performance which deserved an Oscar nomination.
Disjointed, uneven, and strangely memorable
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: 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.
Although there are flashes of goodness, The Last Tycoon falls short of being anything rich.
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.
A Potpourri of Vestiges Review: Elia Kazan's highly underrated masterwork of cinematic art
The Last Tycoon, Elia Kazan's swan song based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's final, unfinished novel of the same name, is an important work of cinematic art. The Last Tycoon can be approached in different ways depending purely on the viewer's taste and his level of understanding. First, at its most basic level, it is a film about films and people who make them: writers, directors, actors, producers and studio bosses, not in the increasing order of their creative importance but in terms of their actual influence as prevalent during the Golden Age of Hollywood. Second way to approach it is to look upon it as a tale of unrequited love. Third, as a film about the fall of a man from omnipotence to oblivion. Fourth, The Last Tycoon is about the inflated human ego and the Lear-like grand operatic collapse it so often triggers. Fifth and the most complex way to approach it would be as a surrealistic expression of an artist working at the height of his powers and desperate to make the most of the final few opportunities left with him. The Last Tycoon features quite a few memorable performances including cameos from Tony Curtis, Jeanne Moreau and Jack Nicholson. The film revolves around a Hollywood movie producer, named Monroe Stahr, slowly working himself to death. Robert De Niro is absolutely breathtaking to watch as Stahr—a role fashioned upon Irving Thalberg, the production chief at MGM during the late '20s and '30s. The scenes that he shares with Jack Nicholson—the only ones that the two legendary actors ever shared on the celluloid—are pure gold. De Niro shares great chemistry with the two female leads who complement him really well. While Ingrid Boulting is delectable to watch in her enigmatic portrayal of Kathleen Moore, Theresa Russell creates a strong impact in the limited screen time she gets. The Last Tycoon, as underrated as it is, deserves much more attention than what it has received over the last four decades. The movie succeeds in breaking the glittery image of the Tinsel Town, which is often portrayed as some kind of a Shangri-La for the young and upcoming artists, by presenting a caricature that's far more realistic. The movie may lack the refinement of a work of commercial art but its unfinished crudeness definitely makes it more lifelike. It's a movie that hasn't lost its relevance with time and perhaps that's what makes it a timeless gem of cinema. The restless viewers can afford to stay put, but those with patience must check it out, for they would be thoroughly rewarded. For more, please visit my film blogsite: http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/