Rosebud (1975) User Reviews

Good grasp of politics

[lawoffices · 6/10 · 31 January 2005]

OK so the plot moved a bit slowly, and the dialog was stiff - but one thing stands out. This thing reeks of history. It is a terrorist film decades before its time. It features Palestinian commando's (headed by Arafat, who is mentioned by name)it mentions the Black September group by name. In one scene a top Palestinian (couldn't tell if it was supposed to be Arafat or not) explains the meaning of Jihad or holy war.

Kinda makes one wonder if anyone in our State Department ever saw this movie? I give it a better than average rating simply because its got the historical context correct - - and was decades ahead of its time.

interesting oddity, but neither frothy nor family entertainment,

[nycexpatagain · 6/10 · 3 August 2007]

Spot Cliff Gorman (Cathy Casserole of The Boys in the Band), John V. Lindsey (of the Mayor's office of New York City -- wow, he was handsome!) and Kim Cattrell (Liverpool-born, but who put the sex in Sex and the City) Hint: none of these emblematic New Yorkers are sporting New York accents. Isabel Huppert and Otto Preminger and Peter Lawford are amusingly findable, too. Okay, now you've had the fun that's to be had from this sadly prophetic, but soft-core version of terrorism. Plenty of tiresome speeches about Palestine and "the Jews," and Israel, all of which are far, far past all expiration dates. Oh yes, one other pleasure for those of a certain age is a bit of retro-tourism for the way Europe looked thirty-forty years ago. Enjoy.

No, It's Not A Sled

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 28 March 2007]

The most famous clue in cinema history is the title of this film by Otto Preminger about the kidnapping of five young girls who are the daughters of prominent individuals in their countries by the Black September terrorists. Rosebud instead of being the childhood toy sled of Charles Foster Kane is the name of a yacht where the girls are kidnapped from.

The Seventies were the first decade of Islamic terror and certainly it was a hot button topic. How then could Otto Preminger make such a boring film as this is beyond me. Certainly for the man who took such loving care in making Exodus, the survival of Israel was an issue near and dear to his heart.

The players look like they were sleep walking through their roles. The head of Black September in this film is of all people Richard Attenborough who plays an English scholar who converted to Islam and there's nothing like the zeal of a convert. He's actually based on a real life character Abdullah Philby who was the father of Communist spy Harold Kim Philby. Abdullah was a Mid-east scholar who did in fact convert to Islam. He never participated in anything like Black September however.

Through a little detective work by Peter O'Toole, a British mercenary working for the American CIA, the girls are set free and Attenborough captured. How it's done is for you to see if you want to watch Rosebud. It should only be as easy to capture Osama as it was to take Attenborough in this film. Quite ridiculous and I know you'll agree if you bother to watch.

Nice location cinematography in Europe and America is all this film really has to recommend it. That and an attempt by former Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York to get an acting career going. He plays a United States Senator five years before he actually tried to become one.

Rosebud works.

[Psalm52 · 14 September 2006]

After reading so many reviewers opinions written against this film, I am very glad I saw it tonight. It is the 70's "Syriana" and/or "Munich." It is NOT James Bond, thank god! O'Toole was fine by my taste, just as I'd like a Newsweek-writer-cum-CIA-agent to be portrayed. I especially enjoy his verbal banter w/ the one the father's of the kidnap victims, and his verbal battle w/ the German dyke, photo shop owner. While some reviewers complain that the pacing is s-l-o-w, it requires just this type of feel for what is a docu-film disguising itself as a studio release. The few scenes w/ Attenborough are all that is needed to establish the evil in terrorism. It's no coincidence this film was made in the 70's ... our little geo-political landscape hasn't changed.

Preminger's Folly

[efitness · 2/10 · 1 October 2005]

I had heard of this film for years, its reputation of being one of Otto Preminger's worst preceding it in every film reference book I'd encountered. Well, it certainly doesn't disappoint. "Rosebud" looks like a novice director's first effort, not the work of the man who gave us "Carmen Jones" and "The Man With the Golden Arm."

"Rosebud" unfolds awkwardly detailing the kidnapping of 5 millionaire's daughters by a Palestinian terrorist group and the attempts by the parents (among them former New York mayor John Lindsay in his film debut/swansong) to retrieve them without starting a holy war.

As ransom demands are made and we are forced to endure endless footage devoted to kidnap victims being trotted to and fro with bags on their heads, wizened secret agent Peter O'Toole is called in to save the day (Preminger seems to be engaging in a little joke by having the very chalky actor with the legendary booze problem drink milk in one of many pointless scenes).

Much talking and little acting (or action) ensues as we reach a finale that must have appeared idiotic and reactionary in 1975 but seems practically prescient in post-9/11 America.

"Rosebud" is almost alarming in its awfulness. The cluttered international cast is full of professional actors who come off as amateurs, and obvious amateurs coming off like…amateurs (If I'm not mistaken that's Preminger's son, Erik, by Gypsy Rose Lee in the role as a computer wiz. It is Erikwho is responsible for the leaden screenplay). The many clashing accents and laughable performances give the impression that many learned their lines phonetically.

Though the plot is not too bad (just hard to follow motives and motivations) and suffers from a needlessly slow and artless execution, it's the acting that really torpedoes "Rosebud." O'Toole looks like he's about to keel over any minute; as the villain, an Englishman converted to Muslim, Richard Attenborough unthreateningly lisps his way through his role; and as the kidnap victims, Preminger couldn't have assembled a more annoying and untalented group of girls. Were we intentionally supposed to wish for their execution?

Their scenes in their subterranean prison are laugh riots of high school level acting and bad blocking. Rather astounding to see a very young Isabelle Huppert embarrass herself as one of the pluckier debs…though she deserves an Oscar for the stomach churning scene in which she has to seduce and kiss the cadaverous bare chest of O'Toole. "Sex and the City"'s Kim Catrall makes her film debut here and makes clear why it took her over two decades to become a star.

For anyone out there who wishes to actually see this film- if just for the bragging rights to bearing witness to Otto Preminger's decline- here are a few things to look for to add to the fun:

1) The 70's clothes and "Brady Bunch" curly hairdo of the political activist character. 2) In the cat-fight between the kidnap victims; slaps are delivered and heard but never received. 3) The guys in the tennis togs (short shorts) air dropped onto the "Rosebud" 4) John Lindsay…nuff said. 5) The militant boy scouts with the knee-socks and bare chests. 6) Kim Catrall's a capella rendering of Nilsson's "I guess the Lord must be in New York City. 7) O'Toole's battle with the terrorist with the killer corkscrew.

let us forget this happened and never speak of it again

[djm8 · 1/10 · 23 June 2003]

Notice that the film has no screenwriting credit. That's because there was apparently no script. There were, however, about an hour and a half's worth of terrorists-making- sure-they're-not-followed scenes, which were suicidally tedious but in a way were a soothing respite from unbearable, aimless dialogue delivered by wooden actors who seemed as confused as the audience. Peter O'Toole of course is not wooden, but he does look severely ill--perhaps as a result of the gastric troubles that nearly killed him in the mid-seventies, or perhaps because there's not enough liquor in the world to douse the humiliating awareness that Man Friday will not be your worst film this year.

Put it this way: this excruciating, jaw-droppingly awful film makes Murphy's War look like Citizen Kane. How I'm just grateful, though amazed, that Mystery Science Theater never got hold of it. Did they?

Let us draw a discreet veil over this abortion of a film and never speak of it again. In fact, let's ignore everything between The Ruling Class and Stunt Man.

Five Frightened Girls!

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 2 March 2010]

Topical (for 1975) adaptation of a book by Paul Bonnecarrere and Joan Hemingway concerning five nubile young women from wealthy families kidnapped off their yacht Rosebud by an underground Palestine Liberation organization nicknamed Black September; the kidnappers, centered in Corsica, want retribution for the slaughter of their women and children caused by a Jewish millionaire involved in the illegal smuggling of arms. Peter O'Toole is barely present as a British correspondent (in a dopey hat) adept at mediating sanctions between terrorists and their targets, while the kidnap victims (in and out of their clothes) do the usual griping about their primitive holding conditions and the awful food. This type of globe-trotting espionage drama needed a gripping Bond-ian touch (or perhaps that of Pakula or Pollack). Director Otto Preminger is certainly capable of being in that class--and he hasn't lost his acerbic sense of humor--but he fails to sort out these complicated matters satisfactorily (the film has no sweep, and little sense of geographical placement). It's far from terrible however, and some of Preminger's asides are clever; his actors seem at half-mast, the narrative weakens as the picture progresses, but there's a fine music score by Laurent Petitgirard and interesting locales. The rest of the film's style lacks finesse. ** from ****

Don't listen to the Haters, this is an enjoyable film

[djitoy · 6/10 · 20 March 2020]

I'm mainly writing this to counteract all the Pretentious Haters who apparently expect every movie they see to be a masterpiece. If you think this is a terrible movie than obviously you have never actually seen one, they get much much worse. That being said this is an enjoyable movie and is definitely not evidence of Otto Preminger "Falling Off". Yes if you are hoping to see a movie on par with Munich or Day of the Jackal you may be disappointed but that's not what this movie was going for so just sit back, relax and enjoy a classic 70's film. Anytime you have too many preconceptions of what a film should be, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I will admit that I am a bit biased towards 70's movies in general, it is in my opinion the greatest era of film stocked with hidden gems.

Yes, its as bad as you have heard

[kyle-garabadian-1 · 3/10 · 23 March 2006]

Here is even more evidence of the decline of director Otto Preminger in the 1970's. His penultimate film is egregiously horrific. This suspense thriller lacks both suspense and thrills. The films hackneyed script by Preminger's no talent progeny just barely surpasses the ham-fisted direction that Otto delivers.Perhaps he let his son direct most of this movie too. It certainly looks like the work of a complete amateur. Unlike many of his other failures, which are at least interesting to watch, this film has no redeeming value at all. The first problem is the way the film plods along. At times we just wonder if this story is ever going to get moving. Secondly, all of the somnolent actors look like they are lost and confused. Finally none of the characters we are suppose to be sympathetic towards deserve are sympathy. They seem either banal or puerile. Is it any wonder Mitchum turned down this stinker!

A big old bomb not going on any of my my "worst of" lists.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 20 July 2022]

Certainly not a classic by any means, this Otto Preminger film was released during a period of tons of cold war motion pictures and was instantly divided by critics. Perhaps because over 90% of the reviews I've read of this movie were horrible, it ended up being much better to me, and at any rate, I was intrigued by the story even if it happened to feature a ton of elements I found absurd.

It focuses on the kidnapping of five daughters of very wealthy and powerful men from a group of PLO rebels (with a very non-Palestine leader behind it all), and the investigation by journalist Peter O'Toole that leads to some hair raising and dangerous situations. The first girl released brings instructions to get the others released, and it's made clear that any attempt to alleviate the required methods will result in instant executions.

Pretty solid and direct, yet I can see why this was critically derided at the time. It is frequently without much action, and there are some moments, particularly a quick catfight among the four remaining girls, that are really silly. There also isn't a convincing motivation for the abductions, and that makes for a frequently one dimensional drama. Richard Attenborough, Peter Lawford, Cliff Gorman, Raf Vallone and Claude Dauphin are featured, and a very young Kim Cattrall is one of the kidnapping victims.

Preminger certainly had worse films than this after "In Harms Way", so all I can think of to describe this as is overall rather unremarkable. It should be noted that this was the first Preminger film without Burgess Meredith in years. I guess him mooning the audience in "Such Good Friends" spelled "the end" of their association.

A Misunderstood Masterpiece

[chaarithad-999-275614 · 8/10 · 28 April 2013]

I think this movie gets lot of hate because it was marketed wrong. This is not an "action movie" as they my suggest, but rather a drama with dark comedic elements. First-off I was surprised to see a film by the great Otto Preminger panned like hell by critics and those on IMDb.Anyway,I think this is because people went in expecting a flashy action movie, with Peter O'Tool round-house kicking terrorist.

Moreover, this movie may seem like a pretty lighthearted movie at first(which is the genius of it), but you would find serious socio- political subtexts communicated through dialog and direct/ hidden symbolism (which employ the visual aspect of film).

If there is another movie I could compare this movie to,that would be "The French Connection". However, in my opinion, Preminger's movie if far better.

Disaster

[JasparLamarCrabb · 1/10 · 30 April 2011]

A disaster. Forget the inflammatory political suppositions, the film is a disgrace on just about every level. A group of wealthy girls is kidnapped by the PLA(?) and CIA operative Peter O'Toole is brought in to locate them in director Otto Preminger's woefully misguided "thriller." The director, usually one of the most sure footed technicians, really loses his touch with this film. There are times when the camera pans so quickly, one is left wondering if Preminger is unable to recall who or what the focus of action should be. Scripted by Preminger's son, the movie is neither suspenseful nor exciting. It's muddled, at times awkward and almost completely miscast. O'Toole, a replacement for Robert Mitchum, literally mugs at the camera in a few scenes and the rest of the actors appear either fleetingly (Peter Lawford is in one scene) or look ridiculous (Richard Attenborough as a Brit who's running a terrorist outfit from a cave in Lebanon). And just WHAT is former NYC mayor John V. Lindsay doing in this? Fortunately for Preminger, he had one more film in him (THE HUMAN FACTOR) which turned out to be one if his best.

This film is no disaster movie...

[flipshoes · 11 June 2007]

...but it's a total disaster - unbelievably bad, horrible, it's one of those thrillers where you keep thinking: The plot HAS to thicken now, there MUST be some action coming up etc. - But then you realize: more than one hour has passed, and nothing seems to fit. The timing is painfully slow, there are several rather silly and absurdly boring scenes instead of hardly any good action or suspense, and - alas - it's all in vain because then you realize there is no time left for the movie to get its act together.

"Rosebud" is a complete mess, albeit with an impressive cast. But what should one really think of skin-and-bones Peter O'Toole in the lead as a secret agent (whose charms are as limited as could be, given his wooden appearance), what should one think of Richard Attenborough in an absolutely grotesque rôle? The anamorphic cinematography and Laurent Petitgirard's score are quite fine, but that's about it.

This movie leaves the impression of some talent-free director trying to imitate a decent spy thriller without any acceptable script at his hands (I didn't happen to read the novel, but it must have been better, considering its popularity in the 70s). But the bitter truth is that renowned director Otto Preminger, one of the really great Hollywood filmmakers, the maker of "Laura", "Anatomy of a Murder", "Exodus", was responsible for this bummer. How on earth could this happen??

A catastrophe

[AttyTude0 · 1/10 · 22 April 2021]

I love oldie films and when I saw the cast, the director of Rosebud, I thought 'alright!' Outloud I said, Oh. My. God. Preminger did this? He of Anatomy of a Murder, Exodus, Stalag 17? Let me guess. He was drunk. Drugged then. Senile? All of the above? Oh, well.

I won't repeat the epic flaws of this film. Other reviews covered that. But of all the cringe-worthy, unintentionally comic moments (and there are SO many!), the worst was definitely the one in which the pseudo revolutionary "confronts" his paramour's rich grandfather (who paid for the food he was enjoying) with the old, tired, tiresome college-campus-commie line about he (grandpa) being an evil rich, oppressor of the poor. I laughed out loud. I was surprised Marx Junior didn't end his anemic tirade with "And you're a poo-poo head, too. So there!" But at least the bit was followed by the only redeemable moment in the film: evil rich grandpa's indifferent dismissal of our barricade hero's outburst with what amounted to, "That's nice, dear. Now run along." It was perfect.

Watch this mess if you have to. Some people even liked it (guys, you REALLY need to get out more). But don't say you were not warned.

A good, light film for the family

[sburns_54321 · 9/10 · 2 October 2005]

I first saw this film in 1975 when it was first released. I was on a first date. 30 years later I am still with that date.

Rosebud holds many memories for us as it was the first of many films we saw together.

This is a lighthearted film, it's not written for the highly intellectual but it does have some very good actors. If you want a family film without too much violence or bad language this is the one for you.

The director is of cause world renowned. One of his earlier films, but definitely not to be knocked until you've seen it. ENJOY

Boring and meandering!

[ocddavid · 22 June 2003]

The film was so convoluted I found myself sitting trancelike in disbelief. I kept watching it to see if it would get any better....But it didn't. It looked like Peter O'toole (whom I love) sleepwalked through this one. Boring and meandering!