Performance

Highly original and inventive stylistically - and undeniably odd. Perhaps its (over)agressive, constant pounding on everything conformist - whether it's filmic conventions or society's traditional performative sex roles - seems a bit dated today, but Cammell and Roeg's visual and auditive bombardement is fascinating and difficult to take your eyes (and ears) off.

A sincere and as always alienated effort from Roeg. The film takes a wild turn from professional megalomaniac bullying to 60ies go with the flow drug induced life style. It was hard to survive the first half hour but it was visually interesting most of the time.

It's many things at once -- an art film, a rock 'n' roll film, a gangster flick, a progressive piece of counter-culture material, a meditation on identity, a test of patience, a wacky narrative exercise, and also something of a portrayal of man's fantasy -- and it manages to be all this quite successfully. The narrative style, the haphazard editing, and loud visual compositions give this film a drug-induced hazy atmosphere without feeling tenuous given the story's comments on acting and self.

document of the way identity directly results from sexual repression, and in retrospect the difficulty of rebuilding the identity of the west after the hippie era brought it all tumbling down in order to shoot its collective load (or its uber-metaphorical bullet, in our protagonist's case). it holds performance - by extension, cinema - up as a cornerstone of this rebuilding process, for good or ill.

Too much a product of its time, it gets weighed down by hippie romanticism, tedious fiddling with gender roles, and pompous literary references. There was some stuff I liked, especially the bold editing, but even a lot of the best bits were borrowed from Persona and Blow-Up. Roeg never really gets me or pushes my buttons, even though I think he makes some very interesting choices. I've been trying to decide if either half of the movie would have worked better on its own, but I don't think so.

Hard to say. I enjoyed the first half hour a lot, but once Jagger shows up the films becomes too chaotic to really makes heads or tails of what's happening. It's an awkward mess filled with some amazing photography that keeps you going with it. Some great moments, but a lot of bullshit to accompany it. The old sound mix also made it hard to follow the dialogue at times, but I won't hold it against the film itself, but it probably hurt my enjoyment some.

A touch of crime drama, a touch of Roger Corman (The Trip especially), a touch rock musical, and some of Nicolas Roeg's groundbreaking cinematography and editing techniques, but in essence it's hard to say what this is. It meanders and lacks focus most of the time. Strangely, it's still pretty decent.

A fascinating oddity in which gangsters and naked women play second fiddle to Mick Jagger's distractingly sumptuous pillow lips.

An obnoxious and dumbed down ripoff of Persona, after an initial gangster plot that Guy Ritchie obviously studied. Harrow alumni Fox is unbelievable as a cockney thug, Jagger is all too believable mumbling about psychedelics and kundalini or something.

Wierd and flawed, but it's still very enjoyable thanks to the intense performances and the film's visual style.

A film about avant-garde, revolutionary act, being an artist and creating an event which is poetic; in opposition to the Apollonian ideal of stoic reason and the instrumental gesture of accumulation. The gang of 'businessmen' is that Apollonian ideal not reluctant to sacrifice trivialties for future gains; Mick Jagger is pure expenditure, non-exchangable experience. Chas is a character oscillating in between. "To change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly" (Bergson).

A tedious, piss-poor take on Persona.

Hard to believe somebody said, "Hey, let's take a gangster film, then mash it up with some free-love, drug-induced trippy commentary on sex and gender. Fun for the whole family!" The film school part of me says it's pretty daring on so many levels. The "films are to be enjoyed" part of me is filled with repulsion.

Much more imaginative and free-spirited than many of the 21st-century cinema. Unconventional cinematography and editing show us who Guy Ritchie was taking an example of.

Not sure why I like it so much, but I do. Something about the meeting of two opposing lifestyles which find some common ground through their rejection of bourgeois society. And also the way the narrative is pretty random yet the photography and editing somehow makes perfect sense.

Aggressively stylish, with some incredible shots and edits. But feels very dated and hollow much of the time; I can't say that I feel the need to see this again.

Starts off bring one thing, a rather "of the time" gangster drama, and then quite quickly becomes something different. I like the notion of a "performer" that is examined within the film, and how that is resolved at the end, but there was probably a lot of other stuff that went over my head. It does meander a bit at times, but remains interesting, beautifully shot and with a very odd use of sound. Oddness is a key theme throughout, frankly, in a (generally) good way.

Stylish chaos

Worth watching just to see Mick Jagger steal scenes like mad. Was momentarily thrown off by the genre switch halfway through the movie, but it worked in the end!

Kind of strange, haphazardly edited (In a good way) and visually exciting.

# 195

It's all over the place and as free spirited as the sexuality depicted, and I love it. Turn off your mind and simply float along with the colorful imagery and the crazy editing.

The editing is very unique. the style is sometimes interesting and sometimes annoying.

188

This picture has had a cult following for years, but I've never been very excited by it

85.000

77.000

There is something good in the end. The film dosen't maybe achive what it's looking for, whatever that is, but it keeps going from an average start to better direction.

Good flick and HEAVILY sampled by Big Audio Dynamite for their song "E=MC2"

rather stupid attempt to transpose persona into some british setting. a violent gangster escapes into the house of a retired rockstar, a bohemian free love type of dude, and slowly transforms into that type of dude for no particular reason at all. lots of fancy editing only obscures whatever point there may have been. oh, and let's compare the conceived role of women in this film to that of ingmar bergman's. highlight is the 'performance' of the song 'memo from turner'.

Roeg com ares borgeanos, delicioso.

18 Ocak 2009, ist. modern, 157:00, Robert Mitchum ve Cool'un Dogusu programi & wtf?? weird. ( zaman gecmek bilmedi! acikcasi mick jagger'in buyuk bir hayrani oldugumu soyleyemem. ama karizmatikmis herif, o ayri. )

Interesting.

38. Ä°stanbul Film Festivali - Rexx.

Could have made much more sense but at least the camerawork is interesting.

Cammell's and Roeg's (RIP) best. The editing, to say the least, is enlightening. Best first 2 minutes in any movie ever, there's like 70 cuts

81.000

Nicolas Roeg's transition from cinematographer to director was in cooperation with Donald Cammell ... Cammell essentially worked with the actors while Roeg handled the technical aspects. It has all the hallmarks of Roeg's visual style. Warner Brothers were expecting a big hit and were so upset with the film they delayed it's release for 2 years.

186

Very interesting, unique, offbeat and weird movie, but not necessarily a good one. A ton of ideas swirling around about sexuality and gender and identity, but I'm not sure it actually says anything cohesive about them at the end of the day. I think it's one of those movies where you'll be happy you saw it even if you don't particularly like it, because it's undoubtedly an interesting effort with interesting choices, even if it ends in a bit of an interesting mess.

Engaging editing and creatively staged imagery cannot make up for the silly gender-bending and cliched depressive artists/performers that populate this film.

Last third redeems this film. It was hard for me to accept James Fox as a cockney gangster. Mick Jagger gives a fine performance.

#191

A movie you could liken to folding two sheets of paper in half vertically and combining with the other, then reading across the resulting page.