Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

ags123 Though he tried valiantly, director Ken Russell couldn't maintain the depth he brought to his biggest success "Women In Love." From that point on, excess took over at the expense of logic and coherence. Films like "Mahler," "Tommy," "Lisztomania," became increasingly messy. By the time "Valentino" came along, while still offering up a visual feast, Russell had become sloppy. The script is bad - none of the narrative is the least bit convincing. Rudolf Nureyev is not at fault here. He gamely subjects himself to all manner of humiliation and comes off pretty well. The same can't be said for the rest of the cast. Leslie Caron tries hard. It's Michelle Phillips' lack of acting ability that brings down the whole production. "Valentino" is worth a look by fans of Russell's visual style, but that's about all it's got to recommend it.

Armand Nureyev as Valentino. Leslie Caron in a nice role. and spirit of period. basic ingredients of a film. not astonishing. but almost seductive. new exercise of Ken Russell to present his world in usual colors and fragile shadows. a homage-film who desire give not exactly fragments of a life but skin of a myth. and the work is reasonable. this is the point to begin to discover the movie. sure, Nureyev was not the best option. but it is far to be a error his performance. only perfect example for good intentions and art to use his rare gift to cover the not inspired acting. a Russell film. this is the definition for this exotic, strange and nice movie.

Tim Kidner Ken Russell could certainly do a period picture. Detail, feel, mood, elegance and style, you name it. In his depiction of 1920's Italian heart throb Hollywood star, Rudolph Valentino, all these key aspects are in place.Lacking some of the more outrageous flourishes of sexual and violent depravities that marred/enabled (depending on your point of view) many other of Russell's flicks, this is still certificate 18 with some moderately explicit nudity.The locations are inspired (the desert filming scene is superbly done), such as the Russell Coates Museum in Bournemouth and the dancing and set pieces dazzling and amazing. However, somehow the film doesn't gel as a whole and working out why is near impossible.Some say that the casting of the Russian ballet icon, Rudolf Nureyev as Valentino to be a major fault, but I disagree. Sure, he's stilted and with the wrong accent, but he absolutely looks the part and with that immensely athletic body of his, well....and the dancing is as you'd expect. As the dashing sheik in the desert, just mentioned, he looks uncannily like the real thing.Maybe that the film covers a lot of ground and at a full 2 hours, there's a lot of visual information. Sometimes it feels that there isn't the narrative clarity to support all that and we don't always know what is going on. Or, at least I didn't.The late, great Ken has produced a fine film but one that ultimately doesn't quite work.

dot-20 I don't see how I could possibly spoil this movie, as I'm pretty sure most people know Valentino is dead. The manner of his death spoiled the movie for me, fact-based viewer that I am. This movie is a five-car pileup -- you can't look away. Nureyev is no actor, but it hardly matters. This must be the noisiest movie ever made about the silent era. Even Seymour Cassel, known for his work with John Cassavetes, soon joins in the general shouting and gesticulating. The two-whatevers rating is for the costume one of the women wears to the funeral, which makes her look like a Klimt painting. It made me laugh.Please, Ken, leave Garbo alone.