MartinHafer "The Last movie" appears to be rough footage strung together--possibly from several different incomplete films. The first portion just starts on the set of a Sam Fuller film and is very rough. Then, abruptly, this ends and one of the film crew (Dennis Hopper) stays behind in Peru and the rest of the film are his VERY random adventures. Some of the lovely things that occur to him or around him include: the locals making a 'movie' using fake equipment and real violence, some rich Americans showing up and acting like obnoxious capitalist swine (as they pay local women to have sex with each other as they watch), Hopper's prostitute girlfriend demanding a refrigerator (and many other things) even though they have no electricity, Hopper beating up this prostitute for no apparent reason, Hopper's friend (Don Gordon) talking on and on and on about his gold mine and several other irrelevant plot elements--none of which make up a coherent whole.The only reason I saw this film is that I have a crazy quest to see all of the films from the Harry Medved book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" and this is one of the last five I have yet to see. In some cases, the films in the book were laughably bad--such as "Robot Monster" or "Santa Claus Versus the, Martians". And others, such as this film, are just plain bad--and not in a fun or enjoyable way. And yet, like some of these truly terrible films, some people find great significance and meaning in the film. I read through the reviews for "The Last Movie" and it sounded like a Fellini or Truffaut film--full of brilliance and insight. All I saw was a lot of very rough and poorly filmed footage strung together rather incoherently because the people making the film were reported very stoned throughout the production--which is very, very easy to believe. Instead of a film, this is more like bits and pieces of many films thrown together rather randomly--and in the process, some actors embarrassed themselves--such as Gordon and Julia Adams (of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" fame).The film is an incoherent mess--randomly edited, with long and pointless musical interludes that were intended as deep and meaningful, completely amateur acting throughout and no discernible script. A few of the many plot elements COULD have been the basis for a good movie--such as the idea of Hollywood or American consumerism destroying a native culture. Too bad 2/3 of the budget was apparently spent on drugs instead of writers, directors and actors.This may not be the very worst film I have ever seen, but it's sure in the running. I would say it was the film that wasted its budget more than any other and I would also say it was the most incoherent film I have seen--and with over 10000 reviews to my credit, that's saying a lot.It's a shame, as Hopper's previous directorial project was "Easy Rider"--a film with amazing depth and insight. So, it's obvious that he could have done better and did do better when he was using less drugs.

MisterWhiplash A little credit is due (I guess): Dennis Hopper made it huge with Easy Rider, took his momentary carte blanche and made, for all intents and purposes, a movie he wanted to make. No holds barred is putting it lightly. It's like Hopper stumbled over the bars while on acid and just let the natives come around and stomp on it till the term 'hold' was soaked in alcohol and set on fire. It's cinematic anarchy that reigns with a sword of originality and hubris, and it's always coming right from Hopper's soul. The Last Movie, this said, is not a very 'good' movie. I'm not even sure it's "anything" of value. But it's surely one of those must-see "personal" movies all the same. For any film buff it's simply stunning - and I don't mean that fully as a compliment.In a way I feel sorry for this production. Hopper did have a script, somewhere, and even had a writer with him as well, Stewart Stern, and the opening 25 minutes of the film is fractured but feels contained in its "meta-movie"-ness. It seems actually clear enough to follow: a film crew is in Peru filming a movie, a western, directed by none other than Samuel Fuller, and there's lots of intensity on the set and, at other times, weird vibrations in the off-hours. Hopper is a stuntman who works on the production, but once it ends he sticks around, and sees the Peruvians re-enacting the film that has just been made, only with "equipment" made of sticks and stones and other things. So far, so good, more or less, and, again, Samuel Fuller directing a movie in a movie! It can't get much cooler than this can it? As it turns out, there is even more story and scenes that make sense, such as the romance (or lack thereof) between Hopper's Kansas cowboy and a Peruvian woman, Maria. These scenes, along with the rough seduction of Kansas to another woman who happens to wear a mink coat, rang true past the weird intentions of the film-making and into the personal for sure. Hopper in real life shouldn't matter in the course of the movie itself, but it is so self-reflexive on the end of making the meta-movie that it spills over into his real life with women (when you see it you'll understand). That, plus an allegorical storyline involving a foolish and failed attempt to go gold mining, seem to at least add emotional grounding for chunks of the picture.And then, other times... it's just drivel, repetitive movements and rhythms and sudden things like "Scene Missing" cards. The problem that Hopper didn't see while editing, not while hopped up (no pun intended) on enough drugs to run a mega-pharmacy on the moon, is that the meta-movie qualities and his flourishes and mad jump cuts and time reversals and non-linear-ness don't always serve in favor of the actual story. There are certain moments and scenes that stand out wonderfully, and are even filmed and edited with scary precision and capturing the beauty of Peru (oh, and the opening gunfight as part of the movie-in-movie is amazing). Other times, it's just tricks and things, devices and obstacles that just add dead weight to the running time. It's non denying it's art, but is it always interesting? No. Sometimes, it just sticks out way too much as being "important" art, forced when at other times it could be natural and fitting for the already strange premise.It's basically this: a very talented filmmaker (and for all of his ups and downs in his career, more downs than ups, not least of which the stigma that followed Hopper after he made this movie and didn't direct another for nine years) and an unlikely and electrifying actor, got loaded with all of the praise that someone like him didn't need, already cooking with loads of free-loader friends sticking too many hands in the creative pot, and, in the end, got in the way of himself. A lot of The Last Movie burns with raw energy and crude dramatic thrills. And the rest of the time, it just looks like it needed an editor, ONE editor that was sober to go along with the one other sober cadet on the production, the late-great Laszlo Kovacs as DoP. Alejandro Jodorowsky might be a kind of genius, but an editor for someone else's project he definitely isn't.So should you see it? If it's available (it's hard to find) and you're willing (maybe do a coin toss) and you aren't expecting a John Ford movie (please don't), give it a shot. It's not an easy movie to defend, and I probably can't on a reasonable level. But as a personal statement of an artist on the edge, you could do worse (i.e. Southland Tales, the only thing that comes closest in ambition and faulty technique).

Mike Siegel 'Watched the film tonight again. After 20 years. EASY RIDER being among my three all-time favorites, I knew there would come the time, when I appreciate THE LAST MOVIE for what it really is - AN AWESOME EXPERIENCE, one of the most interesting films of the 70's and an important work of film art. Seems that time was tonight... :) I loved it, at the same time it hurt. The film finally should be widely available, a dedicated SE DVD as for Fonda's HIRED HAND (that too is much much better than people thought years or decades ago... great film).Hopper first went out to become the greatest actor in the world. He maybe could have been, but his character made it impossible for him to act after great early successes. He became a photographer. Could have been one of the greatest photo artists ever. He basically stopped because he became a film maker. He could have been right next to the most famous & successful directors in America. The faith of THE LAST MOVIE stopped him from that. YET, in all of these (and more) professions he became a top-player, an Icon, a forerunner and a master. An inspired creative human being, an enrichment to my life.

shepardjessica Not the underground classic Hopper was praying for (if he prayed in 1970), but still under-rated by Critics and The Public..mainly because the plot itself foxed them into taking sides or JUST hating Dennis Hopper. This film is a barely 7 out of 10 because of the seemingly innocuousness of the project. Samuel Fuller wasn't in this film for laughs or money. Jim Mitchum, Russ Tamblyn, Julie Adams, Peter Fonda, and a host of interested mummies did their best.This was one of Dennis' best directorial efforts (which were all pretty flamboyant and edgy). HE knows it failed, but it succeeds on too many cultural (icon) levels that are pretty surprising. I can't believe this flick got made on location with no dying. If you can get a copy of this strangely, turbulent piece of "Americana" just judge for yourself. Best performance = Don Gordon. Don't let this one slip by you.