Lisztomania

1975 "The erotic, exotic electrifying rock fantasy... It out-Tommy's TOMMY."
6.1| 1h43m| R| en
Details

In the 19th century, Romantic composer/pianist Franz Liszt tries to end his hedonistic ways but keeps getting sucked back in by his seductive fellow composer Richard Wagner.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling
SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction
Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
clanciai 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".
chinch gryniewicz 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.
danthedanimal 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.
kidlitfan The real-life Franz Liszt had an incredibly bizarre life, with plenty of erotic encounters. He also wrote gorgeous music. This should have been a great movie.Unfortunately, Ken Russell goes even more nuts than usual with his Ken Russellisms. Gratuitous breasts? Check. Sparkly crosses? Check. Sexy nuns? Check. Phallic symbols? Check. Adolescent girl behaving shockingly? Check. The only thing missing is the water that usually gushes symbolically through his pictures.Roger Daltrey comes off as a complete idiot in interviews, yet gives incredible performances in everything from Pete Townshend to William Shakespeare. He tries to save Lisztomania with his acting (he can go from farce to high drama easily)and his good looks (though he's gorgeous with his signature curls straightened, why exactly DOES his hair get straighter as the film progresses?)Many of the supporting actors help a bit, too, including a tiny but memorable, pre-Rocky Horror scene from Little Nell.I've seen Tommy many times, but I don't think I'll ever watch Lisztomania more than once. However, I'm not sorry I saw it. I would love to own the soundtrack--Liszt and Wagner sound terrific redone as 70's guitar-rock. At a mere 103 minutes, there is too much padding. I recommend that people watch as I did, with a hand on the fast-forward of your remote.Lisztomania is too mired in its own coolness and allegory. Many scenes start out promisingly, and many of the visuals are shocking or impressive at first, but then the scenes go onnnn and onnnn...