User reviews

Ken Russell did have some interesting ideas that came across as entertaining but there were times where his style got ahead of him and the film in question, and Lisztomania epitomises a bit of both. Lisztomania is definitely a polarising film, people will find it wonderfully weird while others will find it tasteless. With me, both seem to be here which is the main reason why the film is not an easy one to rate. If you are looking for a biographical drama, look elsewhere, the first half does have a story to it(more than likely to be fictionalised though) but the second half is like you've having a long really surreal dream and the characters are merely parodies. There are some striking visuals that are colourful and surreal while the music is pulsating and catchy and there is evidence of wit and imaginative touches like the homage to Charlie Chaplin and Hammer films, the fantasy interlude, Liszt's arrival at the castle and the Frankenstein figure(though that may also come under vulgar too because it's Wagner and the Nazis). Fiona Lewis and Veronica Quilligan are good as well. Some of it can feel music-video-like though- much of the second half has very little plot and feels like an excuse to string different vignettes together with a lot of tone shifts- and while the special effects are mostly okay the spaceship is rather fake. Lisztomania does change tone a lot and some of the shifts come without warning and feel very chaotic and there are some touches that are vulgar like the piano torture machine, the giant penis, sex scenes at high speed, Nazi iconography. Not entirely which category the vaginal fantastic voyage comes under, visually it was imaginative but there was a real weirdness as well, the same could be said of the most unique version of the Pope you will ever see. Most of the acting is really not very good, Paul Nicholas is pretty awful, Ringo Starr has a naturalness but doesn't have much to do and Roger Daltry is rather dull. Russell has shown with his Elgar and Delius biographies that he can be restrained and Mahler also(though also with some outrageous images), but Lisztomania is the prime example that I've seen of his filmography where restraint and subtlety go completely out the window, and at times it can feel heavy-handed. Overall, very difficult to rate but is unlike many other films seen before, personally not entirely sure whether I liked or disliked it, most likely to be neither. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Franz Liszt (Roger Daltrey) is a hedonistic composer in old Europe. In real life, the Hungarian musician lived from 1811 to 1886. Richard Wagner is a music associate. Ringo Starr plays The Pope.

This is surrealistic biopic. It can be seen as a mess, self-indulgent, and undecipherable. It can also be seen as intriguing and challenging. I choose to see it as the later. It's definitively not safe. I prefer a mess more than an uninteresting bland biopic. As an actor, Daltrey is not that great but his rock star personality is undeniable. Ken Russell is throwing a lot into this. It's a lot and it runs a bit long. I wish it wraps up a little sooner. Wagner needs to have more scenes as the antagonist. I would also like a bigger better actor playing him. He doesn't have to be a real musician. All in all, this is at least interesting.

A wild, surreal, profane, provocative, bawdy, debauched, baroque, rock n' roll pop musical fantasy with anachronistic abstractions, Chaplin references and a depiction of the Golem as a lumbering Nazi Frankenstein wreaking havoc amidst a soundtrack of Wagnerian dread. Suffice to say, Lisztomania (1975) is as far from conventional cinema as you could possible get, illustrating Russell's further shift into more self-indulgent territory and away from his more sensitive earlier work with films such Elgar (1962), The Debussy Film (1965), Delius; Song of Summer (1968) and the controversial Women in Love (1969). The seeds of Lisztomania can be seen in many of these films, in particular, in Russell's fairly unique way of seeing the past by way of the present; investigating historical figures, writers, artists and composers as if modern-day pop icons. Here, Russell takes that notion and applies it to an incredibly distinctive visual perspective that attempts to underpin the spiralling confusion of the artist's life and work in such a way as to be just as stimulating and sensory for the audience as it is for the character himself.

The style that Russell employs on Lisztomania is characteristic of the mid-to-late period of his career, featuring cluttered cinemascope compositions, a juxtaposition of various film speeds, colours and textures, a general mix of established actors, pop-stars and amateurs, a complete disrespect for the artist and their work, for the period in which the film is set and for the general accepted conventions of traditional, biographical film-making. Personally, I welcome the sense of anarchy; with Russell getting away from the clichés that ultimately lead to films like Ray (2004) and Walk the Line (2005) and presenting a film that is - for better or worse - completely unique. Once again, the approach that Russell adopts for Lisztomania can be seen in many of his preceding films, going as far back as his ultimate masterpiece The Devils (1971); a gloriously over-the-top, pop-art inspired political horror story with a fitting subversion of various religious iconography. This led on to his film about the artist and sculptor Henri Gaudier, which featured the same depiction of a historical figure as an almost Bob Dylan like revolutionary amidst scenes of perverse invention and screaming, pop-art expression.

Subsequent music-based features like the underrated Mahler (1974) and the financially successful version of The Who's celebrated "rock opera" Tommy (1975) continued the evolution of Russell from sensitive young provocateur to grand purveyor of lurid, over-the-top kitsch. Tommy is really the definite precursor to Lisztomania, not least because of the return of Roger Daltrey in the lead role, but in the almost kaleidoscopic fantasia of scenes within scenes creating miniature vignettes that propel the story in such a way as to suggest a compilation of music videos. The scenes of Liszt giving his first musical performance are reminiscent of the "Pinball Wizard" segment of the aforementioned film, whilst also showing the attempt by Russell to turn the composer into a 19th century Marc Bolan type figure, with inventive stage shows, manic energy, wild charisma and a packed stadium filled with screaming teenage girls waving scarves and blowing whistles. There's also some subtle comment on the music industry and the relationship between the artist and the press; reminding us that Lisztomania is, above all else, an absurdist satire.

Nonetheless, attempts to pigeonhole the film to a single genre will only lead to failure. If you approach Russell's work with a definite idea of what to expect you'll most probably be bitterly disappointed; with the film confounding all expectations and going against every pre-conceived notion of character, narrative, theme and subject to present a film that is part drug-induced hallucination, part schoolboy w*nk-fantasy. There are elements of science fiction, sex comedy, fantasy and war, and all tied together by Rick Wakeman's bold and subversive treatment of the music. The elements are blended together with a complete disregard for subtly, with outlandish Nazi iconography and apocalyptic despair juxtaposed against the recognisable conventions of the Universal horror movies of the 30's and 40's, alongside a continual reliance on mechanical phalluses, vaginal symbolism, high-speed sex scenes and Daltrey breaking the forth-wall like Timothy Lee in the "Confessions of..." series. If you can appreciate the idea of Fellini directing from a script by Benny Hill, then Lisztomania has a lot to offer. However, it is imperative that you approach Lisztomania on a visual level, as the aspects of script and performance are the factors that ultimately let the whole film down.

Playing a death, dumb and blind kid in Tommy was probably less of a stretch for Daltrey - who was already more than familiar with the subject matter of that particular film - however, as Liszt he's really unable to convey the dynamics of the character or indeed the ability to, well... act! It's clear that Russell's use of pop-stars in the lead roles was an ironic choice - leading into the actual presentation of the text - but the film desperately needed a more experienced and talented actor in the lead to really pull these separate elements together. With Daltrey the film becomes incredibly flawed, which is a shame, as it is obviously a bold, unique and energetic work; maybe even like nothing we've ever seen before! If you can overcome the poor performances, the reliance on visuals over text, and the flippant treatment of the actual historical elements presented by both the characters and the overall theme, then Lisztomania should offer a once in a lifetime, visual experience. If not, it will no doubt remain an unmitigated failure on all counts.

19th century castration fantasy--delineating the extravagance of Hungarian composer Franz Liszt's sex-saturated young life until his eventual death by the symbolic stabbing of a voodoo needle (a myriad of maladies in actual life)--done-up in the spirit of a naughty British schoolboy bored by his classical lessons and entertaining himself by looking up his music teacher's skirts. Writer-director Ken Russell's cartoon-strip nightmare begins promisingly, with a hilarious slapstick joust between Liszt and his lover's husband, the Count d'Agoult (it's a naked swashbuckler, like something from an inventive blue movie). But soon it becomes apparent that Russell's vision is going to be all a pastiche, from silent movies to "Frankenstein" to German Expressionism to bows of unassuming self-reverence. The surreality of Russell's concept doesn't even make sense in the mad forum he has created--there's a narrative thread, yet nothing hangs together--while the creative production design upstages most of the actors. *1/2 from ****

If you thought Tommy was a trip, wait til you get a load of Lisztomania. Think about hitting the 'shrooms beforehand. Trust me.

Other reviewers have described various scenes so I won't bother. It's marginally softcore p-rn, marginally softcore horror, and completely over the top. I wouldn't be sitting down the whole family to watch this one.

I enjoyed Roger Daltrey's gusto in the lead role, Ringo as the Orthodox Pope and Pete Townshend (and Elvis) represented in Orthodox iconography. There also appeared to be a lot of money spent on sets and costumes.

On one hand it would be easy to be offended by a lot of things in this movie: the desecration of the musical legacies of Liszt and Wagner, the abundant use of phallic symbols, the terrible soundtrack, asking us to believe Daltrey is a piano player, etc.

On the other hand, if you just surrender yourself to the absurdity of it, it's a bit of wacky fun for 90 minutes. Don't take it too seriously and it won't hurt you.

Where else are you going to find a movie about famous composers, Frankenstein, Thor, Hitler, Superman, a lich, cigars, vampires, philosophy, perversion, papacy, war, love, Charlie Chaplin, and heaven? And where else will you see a penis kick line? This movie removes the need for mind-altering drugs. Seeing it is a trip unto itself.

Remember seeing this when I was just 16 years old! Wow! I can't believe they let us young girls into the theater! But Roger Daltrey is dazzling, and we swooned, watching him swing half naked on a curtain! Now at 63, I still was swooning! The film if fun, indulgent and kinda trashy! It was enjoyable to see the cameos of Ringo and Rick Wakeman. The ending reminds one of the ending in Grease, terrible, where they take off in some rocket contraption! The part with Wagner being a Hitleresque, monster shooting the town, reminds me of tRump( sorry, couldn't help it) . The craziest part was the giant penis scene. Like I said, I can't believe the theater let our little group of girls (aged 13-15) in to see this film. I still enjoyed watching it, even though it was all over the place, at times.

To many, this film is the stunning-proof that director Ken Russell never had it, and that idiocy and egotism were mistaken for genius. You could say mistaking idiocy and egotism for genius has been the appeal of rock music! Others might say that Russell is simply childish or immature, and that his films are the "masturbatory-fantasies" of an overgrown-adolescent. This belief is unfounded. Is this film over-indulgent? Yes it is, dear readers, very-much-so, because it is art, not entertainment. That-said, if you chuck any expectations, this is a funny film and allegory about the rise of pop-culture in the 19th Century. It draws parallels between Liszt's fame with the other generally-hollow spectacle known as "rock." This is great film-making, and it should be noted that it has similarities between itself and "Rocky Horror," and even "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," as they all examine and explore the relationships between sexuality and pop-culture in similar-areas. It really is true that women threw their underwear at Franz Liszt during his performances, and that he had many-many lovers--groupies.

Lisztomania is an odd bridge-between "classic" rock and the emergent punk-movement of the time. The film can also be seen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive or rebellious at-all, but ultimately arch-conservative, and repressive. Amen. It's just a hilarious, wild-romp that will make your guests extremely nervous, which films should do. Movies should challenge people to think and reflect--at-least occasionally. Ironically (or maybe-not!), Mr. Russell had contracted Malcolm MacLaren and Vivienne Westwood to design the S&M-costumes for his film, "Mahler." It should also-be-noted that "Liszt-o-Mania" was released exactly the same year that MacLaren's shop "SEX" opened on King's Row, the rest is as they say, is history. It couldn't be more camp, it has Little Nell in it.

Basically-put, this is about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop-culture, and WHAT we generally-want from our "pop-idols" (sex, of-course). One could easily-say this film criticizes the absurd spectacle that rock had become by 1975, and we get this quite-often in the film. But this theme goes much-deeper, into the relationship-between artist and patron (once, just the aristocracy, now the mob is added). The sexuality is about mass-psychology, too, so Wilhelm Reich gets-his-due, and there is a plethora of Freudian-imagery. It is certainly a very-personal film for Russell, and probably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enrages so-many critics, but it should be noted that some of the absurdity and excess came from the producer of the film, not Mr. Russell. Ken Rusell enrages all the right-people, and that's what some film-making should be.

God love this lapsed-Catholic, and God love his ways. A flawed part of his canon, but very watchable and educational. As Russell began his career doing documentaries and impressionistic-films on composers for the BBC, it makes-sense that this is considered one of his most heretical-works. He complains about the opening country-song in his autobiography 'Altered States', and there were other aspects of the production he didn't want in the film. It's interesting to note that the 1980s was the period of his purest-work, due mainly to a three-picture-deal with Vestron. The 1970s were actually a very mixed-bag for him, as Lisztomania attests. He isn't entirely-pleased with it, but had some fun with the material, and there it is. I think it's a hoot, which means it isn't on DVD.

The film suffers from atrocious vulgarization in very bad style and taste throughout, which is a pity, because the idea is not bad at all. Liszt and Wagner are portrayed in gross caricature, which they were already while they were alive and kicking, and just like the 19th century caricatures even these modern ones do not miss their target and actually pinpoint some obvious truths about these the greatest divas among composers in monstrous vanity and atrocious hubris. Liszt was the more sympathetic and actually fell a prey and victim to the ruthlessness of Wagner ending up as a trophy in his graveyard, while the depicting of Wagner as a vampire and prelude to Hitler, his Frankenstein monster, is not altogether maladroit. In certain aspects it actually hits the nail. The unnecessary hooliganism of the film is the corruption of the music, which really is very little Liszt and Wagner but the more Rick Wakeman in horrible disfigurement in pop and rock versions. This is not a music film or any kind of biography or documentation of great composers but rather a twisted parasitic phantasmagoria tearing classical music apart and more or less destroying it. Ringo Starr as a pope with Liverpool accent doesn't make things any better. It isn't even funny but only stupid and disgusting. although a few laughs must out. Still, because of the idea, the imagination, the great camera work and the brilliant fireworks entertainment, I have to give it 5, which is the lowest I ever rated a film here, and I am very doubtful whether I will see any other of Ken Russell's films on music, no matter how much I appreciated his "Valentino".

Roger Daltrey is supposed to be Franz Liszt and we are to believe that Liszt had some vague religious principles which required him to bed only nuns in his later years, that Wagner was a sailor-suited vampire who died and was reborn as Frankenstein's Monster/Adolf Hitler, that the world Liszt graced was a rock opera, and that the intended audience for this movie is the self-involved youth of the 1970s who were -- or perhaps are -- incapable of conceiving anything other than their own self-indulgent, pornographic fantasies.

I have read two books on Liszt and one on Wagner which extensively covered their relationship. I now know less about Liszt than I did before I saw this movie.

There are lots of busty women showing off their naked torsos in this movie.

Pure escapism! This film is fantastic. It contains farce, humour, nudity and crudity along with lots of laughs and many cringes. It's ludicrous, hilarious and colourful with great music and costumes. I like the music and also the paradox of some of the scenes. My daughter and I love it, and happy to watch it time and time again, but everyone we've loaned the video to can't get past the first 20 minutes, and think we are weird, so maybe we are off-the-wall like the film. I haven't seen the film Tommy and would like to do so now I've seen this. Don't watch Lisztomania if you are easily offended. Sit back, relax, take it all with a pinch of salt and you'll be grinning all night.

At one level this is critic proof: it's just a romp, a student review, pitching composers as rock stars for a teenage audience. Just another Russell excess. No need to be serious.

Then again it fritters its opportunities and wastes the audience's time. It indulges two rock singers with their vocal turns when it could have used the more powerful music of Wagner and Liszt.

The superficial comparison with 1970s' rocks stars is trivial when Wagner did flee revolution and did push the boundaries of music in a substantial way. The intention of his Ring cycle was more profound than any rock band and yet he is presented in an anachronistic manner as a raving cabaret joke. Neither composer has any serious musical force to them at all: they just gallivant through a series of tedious gambits.

The script is rubbish: it's simply telling what is happening and why in a setup with another silly staging. The acting is incompetent and a vanity project which exploits the gullibility of its market to see their pop stars.

Russell sabotaged his career with such nonsense and then he would return and make something that was actually worth the time.

On the other hand Liszotmania could be lost or ignored forever and no one would have missed a thing.

It is hard to believe that Ken Russell was able to get this one "green-lighted" for release by a major American distributer as it is quite simply one of the strangest films to ever grace a screen! Russell, ever the visionary, takes the not so off-target view that Franz Liszt the pop star of his day and then offers viewers a comic book version of the composer's life and relationship with several infamous women and, most importantly, Richard Wagner. This film must be seen to be believed! And is a definite must-see for all Russell fans. It will also be appreciated by Roger Daltrey fans as this one captures Daltrey in his prime! Interesting musical work by Rick Wakeman and great set designs. It would be so cool to see this on DVD with director commentary! ...Maybe some day.

I really don't even know where to begin to convey how dreadful this movie turned out to be. Words pale next to what you are subjected to. For years I kept hearing what a genius Russell was, Women in Love, The Devils, and Tommy... and when it came down to it... I watched all of these movies with that uncomfortable feeling that I was not enjoying myself and really thought I should be. Especially with Tommy. Thirty minutes into the movie I felt like I was going to jump out of my skin because it was obvious we were being exposed to MTV -like vignettes featuring prominent artists in bizarrely staged scenes.

Over time I never lost that feeling on Ken Russell movies. It was always the feeling that someone knew how to do it right... but chose to do it in a sensational manner instead. He comes across to me as a director who chose to ignore story, character development and emotional connection in favor of trying to freak the viewer out visually. By doing this.. he took subjects that could have been important and reduced them to semi-pornographic peepshows that don't even have the capacity to excite us. He missed the point...everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.

I'm a great fan of Ken Russell's films. What I like most about them is the director's ability (and willingness) to totally immerse his productions into whatever mania happens to be the driving force behind its subject. The results are often excellent, occasionally poor. But never have I seen a film that was, at once, so incredibly visionary and God-awful as Lisztomania.

In most Russell films, fantasy takes on an important role in the dramatic narrative. In Lisztomania, the narrative is virtually jettisoned in favor of fantasy, and not to altogether admirable effect.

Still, any motion picture that can give us Richard Wagner portrayed as a Transylvanian vampire who gains musical inspiration by sucking the blood of Franz Liszt deserves points for imaginative hubris.

Ultimately, Lisztomania is less a film than a comic boot pastiche. Its humor is, by turns, dazzling and lead-footed. Compared to THE MUSIC LOVERS (another Russell bio-pic, this time about Tchaikovsky), Lisztomania is, for all it gleeful, lip-smacking gusto, a rather tired affair, largely because it's metaphors are so pedantic and literal-minded.

I should point out, however, that Wagner's third-act transformation (or should I say resurrection) into a machine gun-toting, Frankenstein-Hitler rock star (yes, you read correctly) is a genuinely

Richard Wagner: You are Robert Schumann?

Strauss: No no no. That's Schumann. I am Strauss.

Richard Wagner: Not Johann Strauss?

Strauss: No! Levi Strauss!

Such is the clever writing you'll hear in "Lisztomania"!

I think I am an expert on bad films, having seen and reviewed more than nearly anyone on the planet. I am not necessarily proud of this--it's just a sad fact. However, how I managed to live 50 years and NEVER see "Lisztomania" is beyond me, as it truly is one of the most horrible films ever made. Heck, even for a Ken Russell film, it's over the top and incredibly self-indulgent!!

The story, despite the title, has very little to do with the actual composer Franz Liszt. This is NOT a bio-pic--it's more like a re- imagining of Liszt when you are on acid AND you combine the film with "Faust"! And, since it appears to be drug-inspired, the film has a lot that simply baffles the viewer--including the most bizarre sex scenes in history (including one with Liszt prancing about with a 10 foot long phallus), an ending where Richard Wagner/Frankenstein leads a liquidation of the Jews (this is in HORRIBLE taste--and left me shocked and a bit angry), a pointless scene where Liszt is dressed up like Charlie Chaplin (who wasn't even born at this point in history) and another scene where the Pope (Ringo Starr) watches as Liszt beds a woman! None of it makes any sense whatsoever, it's terribly offensive and, oddly, Roger Daltry even sings badly! I think the problem is that Daltry is WAY outside his range--singing songs that are nothing like his WHO songs and acting--he should have definitely NOT acted! I think his decision to say and do NOTHING in his previous Russell film, "Tommy", was a smart decision in retrospect.

So would I recommend this film to anyone? Yes. Bad movie fans will enjoy laughing at how incredibly stupid Ken Russell could be as a writer and director--and here he did both. Also, there are a small number of folks out there who actually LOVE Russell's work and seem to think he was a genius. I just think he either had an undiagnosed head injury or was really, really, really fond of LSD when he was making this film--and because of that, normal folks really will want nothing to do with it.

Do not waste a minute of your time on this. It is a truly awful film by any standard. It tries so hard to be funny, different, clever and over-the-top, but it just fails and fails and fails.... Please change your drugs, Mr. Russell. It does not even deserve the time it took to write this short review. Enough!

And now IMDb tell me that a review must contain at least 10 lines. That's a bit like the film itself, then - nothing there, really, just a lot of noise and spectacle stretched out for no good reason at all. And, no doubt, a lot of people got paid a lot of money for it - a shame.

Are you a T and A junkie? A Daltry junkie? A hardcore Russell devotee? If the answer to any of these questions is a "no" then, by all means, avoid this film.