6.1....
this great film is very underrated..This film doesn't deserve to be considered as the weakest of kazan's movies !!
this is a great adaptation from the fitzgerald's unfinished novel..very close to fitzgerald's melancholy..
The cast is superb, De Niro gives one of his greatest performances.
The score is remarkable too.
I'm obssessed with this movie..
So why is it so underrated ???
[deleted]
The film is good! I absolutely love Robert De Niro. I am trying to catch up with his films, starring roles.
I have come to appreciate him much more of late. His acting ability, himself...
The film is slow. I think I had a hard time viewing it because it was so slow.
I do enjoy the love scenes with Monroe's lost love.... they really are to lonely people, who never quite come together.
I really have a very difficult time with F. Scott Fitzgerald. I have never liked him. Was he a melancholy person?
What is quite the story line in "Tycoon"? Why is Monroe so lonely, so sad?
Blessings,
Cosette
April 22, 2007
I intended to say Monroe and his lost love are Two lonely people.
Not to lonely people! <S>
Blessings,
Cosette
Probably not only because of the pace but there is a great amount of subtlety that is lost on most people. Also it lacks a happy ending which would possibly imply that the film is more appreciated in Europe than in the states.
It is some of De Niro's best work and it's great fun watching his and Nicholson's scenes escalate.
Understandably easy for some of us to obsess over.
i was suprised at how forgotten this film is especially because of the all star cast but i guess the film might be boring to a lot of audiences. i think it's one of kazan's better films.
sharei was so taken by de niro's monroe...so stately and staid and brooding and beautiful. also appreciated the "subtlety" and dissonance of the story, the contrast of characters throughout.
shareAs someone who has both recently read the book and seen the adaption, I would say rather that it's the -lack- of ending that is off-putting to the audience, American or otherwise.
I was actually surprised how true Kazan was to the novel and yet it seems it was to a fault because the book was so obviously a long way from being finished.
In truth it would have been virtually impossible to film Fitzgerald's incomplete vision without carrying over the disjointedness of the jigsaw-esque story we know today to be "The Last Tycoon".
Even so I thought the casting was phenomenal, and Kazan did a fantastic job...with what he had.
Not every movie has to have a happy ending, but you can't blame people for lack of interest when the ending isn't at least somewhat satisfactory.
"Ah, sweet storyteller. What will it take to slay the dragon..." -Steven James
To my opinion, first of all it is a movie about making movies, and you can feel the passion of directing movies all along. This is exactly what Monroe explains to Boxley, shooting comes first and story comes second and to my opinion the photo is just great for example the scene after the earthquake is just brilliant.
Second I was really impressed by the strength of the romance between Monroe and Kathleen, this is no love story because the two of them obviously cannot match, since Monroe is not in love with Kathleen but is addict of the shadow he can see in her, while on her side she is too afraid to love anymore. Only can they warm each other but stay lonely. I think this is actually a very realistic romance.
Nicholson as Brimmer is brilliant, actually too brilliant to be filmed like that in a hurry, it is a pity the way he is kicked out of the last scene.
That's the negative point: while some scenes are shaped like diamonds, I feel that on a whole the movie is cut in a hurry.
+1, i don't get the score at all. Brainless movies like kick ass got about 8 and this movie classic dont even got 7, lol
share^^ soo true
shareI like the movie, but I understand why it failed. It felt very incomplete. There was no real plot driving it. The romance angle was weak. Of course De Niro was brilliant, and I think it was a great last effort by Kazan. But it needed a lot more to be successful. Watching Bobby and Jack together on-screen was nice though.
http://most-underrated-movies.blogspot.com/
At least is better than the movie by The Great Gatsby, which was epic fail
shareIt's not underrated.
It deserves a poor rating.
Incredibly dull. Too slow. Wooden acting, especially from the young women (the actors portraying Brady's daughter and Kathleen Moore). Unsympathetic characters. Unbelievable dialogue.
But beautifully filmed.
I initially thought it was going quite well, and I wondered why it hadn't been more highly praised. Then came the scene were Rodriguez goes to Stahr's office to complain about his 'problem'. That scene was all wrong - from the writing to the directing (probbably even the editing was off, I don't recall specifically). And it was all downhill from there.
If I'd seen this film in the theater, I'd have fallen asleep - or walked out.
The score is remarkable too.
It was better than I'd heard or expected and was therefore a pleasant surprise. De Niro was great in the title role with a terrific support cast and some well placed cameos. Was surprised how different it was in tone to The Great Gatsby.
Yes, I agree with you that the score didn't live in my memory either, though quite a few of the scenes dealing with the film process did. (E.G. De Niro's scene with Donald Pleasance in the office with the nickel...wonderful!)🐭
[deleted]