dougdoepke No need to recap the plot. The first part in the studio featuring old time film actors and developing story had me thinking really good movie. Then the story hit a dead stop with a romance about as interesting as watching proverbial grass grow. And after watching De Niro deadpan his way through two whole hours, I roused myself with a big dose of Hopalong Cassidy. Now some folks may think that names like Kazan, Pinter, and De Niro can do no wrong. But, in my little book, they made a real snoozer out of melodramatic material that 1952's unapologetic The Bad And The Beautiful did up right. I'm just sorry the great director Kazan went out on a parade of meaningless close-ups and a sterile central performance-- a long, long way from his better work. Fortunately, Russell and Nicholson add some spark to the flattened result. I only hope proved performers like Milland and Andrews were well paid for their wasted cameo appearances. I realize that the production was constrained by its real life subject, Irving Thalberg. In fact, the head of MGM Production may indeed have been a pensive undemonstrative man. But stressing that on screen doesn't help. Why not a shot or two of his having fun or showing some anger. Something to engage with. Of course, I may have missed some hidden subtleties and symbolism, his unfinished house, for example . Trouble is it's hard to seek out subtleties without that engagement. There's a lesson here, I think. Something about not confusing big names with big results. Fortunately, De Niro's career went on to show what he could really do.

grantss Mildly interesting, but doesn't really make a point in the end and lacks fizz, just kind of meanders along. Despite the all-star cast and Oscar-winning director just seems fairly conventional and uninspired. Even Robert De Niro seems fairly wooden at times. Best acting performance probably comes from the then-unknown Theresa Russell.Is of great historical significance though. Was the last movie Elia Kazan directed. Also the only movie to star Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson.Is also interesting as a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood, but doesn't really go far enough in its expose.

kastellos This film is best forgotten.I doubt if there is anyone who is a greater fan of Kazan than I, and it pains me to write this, but this film is simply horrible. I don't blame just Kazan; the story and characters are illogical and very boring. The sub-plot of Curtis, Andrews and Moreau adds nothing, in fact, is a negative. The point of DeNiro's role is never made. The important theme evident in Kazan's films (Pinky, Gentleman's Agreement, Waterfront, Panic in the Streets, etc.) is completely missing in this film. The greatest fault lies with Fitzgerald, one of most overrated American authors and with Pinter, also overrated. These two, loved by critics, have given this film a halo. If the screenplay was written by John Smith based on a book by Fred Jones, the movie would be rated 2 stars out of ten, if the raters were generous.DeNiro and Russel are good (Although Russel's character is very annoying.) and Nicholson is Nicholson. The rest of the cast is mediocre. Boulting is not good at all, and in fact, she never went anywhere in her career after this film.Kazan didn't do a bad job, considering with what he was given to work.

howardeisman Fitzgerald died while working on "The Love of the Last Tycoon". It was finished by Edmund Wilson, who took a disjointed series of chapters and paragraphs and a lot of notes and make a coherent novel out of it: "The Last Tycoon." Thus, the script of this film does not have a canonical story to adapt. With this leeway, a lot more could have been done. This film is betrayed by an incoherent script and uneven direction. The movie can be as slow as molasses pouring out in the Alaskan winter or so fast that major events whirl past the viewer. I saw it when it was first released and I left the theater feeling as if I had been cheated.The performances are not the problem. Some performances are great. Theresa Russell is uncanny as a bright college student. DeNiro and Nicholson shine, and Angelica Huston is intriguing in a small role. The problem is that many scenes play out-or peter out-to nothing. No point is made, the story is not advanced. For example, there is a famous Hollywood story of an underling who suffered a heart attack in an executive screening room, and rather than call for help, he remained silent so as to not disturb his bosses. He died. In this movie, he is discovered dead. No point is made. Later, like Teresa Russell, we wait with high expectations to hear the exchange between DeNiro and Nicholson vis-a-vis a writers strike. The gist of their conflict is never even touched on and the scene ends in a silly way.The basic plot is that the tycoon is brought down by his love for a NO NO YES MAYBE NO MAYBE GOODBYE woman. She is meant to be a mysterious cauldron of seething conflicting emotions. Instead, this character comes across as rather a fool who believes anything a man tells her, as long as the man is not DeNiro. Thus, he is not a tragic hero, destroyed by love, but rather a bewildered jerk. There is great stuff here. DeNiro instructing a British writer on the techniques of movie making. Teresa Russell in all her scenes and a satiric take on romantic movies with Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau. However, ultimately, there is great potential which goes unfulfilled.