Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (34)
| Top Critics (5)
| Fresh (29)
| Rotten (5)
| DVD (4)
Pop stars continue to have bad luck in films.
The movie is a facile enough pastiche of underground pyrotechnics and Euro-art pretensions, but far more evocative now is the fast, offhand repartee between the principals.
Rapture and boredom both seem valid responses.
Roeg's debut as a director is a virtuoso juggling act which manipulates its visual and verbal imagery so cunningly that the borderline between reality and fantasy is gradually eliminated.
It isn't altogether successful, largely because it tries too hard and doesn't pace itself to let its effects sink in.
Critics hated it, and Warner Bros. barely saw fit to release it, but Performance has endured as a cult favorite. It's also arguably the greatest-ever big-screen showcase for Jagger...
... this collision of London gangster machismo and drug culture, where "Nothing is true; everything is permitted," is unmistakably a product of the sixties.
With a pleasurably peculiar cast of James Fox, Mick Jagger and Anita Pallenberg, Performance is one of the weirdest slices of Seventies London around, combining gangster violence and ritual humiliation with decaying rock-star glamour.
For all its hallucinatory excesses, however, Performance is a film of ideas, even if it's happier to let them swirl around than attempt to explain them.
This hallucinogenic deconstruction of identity writhes with sex, substances, ultraviolence and good ol' rock'n'roll.
Visually dazzling, finely acted investigation into such diverse matters as identity, sexuality, violence, power, and underground culture in late 1960s London.
It put Roeg's powerful cinematic style on the cultural map for the first time.
Roeg's first film is a strange trip with a deranged Mick Jagger.
Gangland enforcer James Fox gets involved with decadent fading rock star Mick Jagger in Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's cult film
Few films encapsulate drug-crazed Swinging 60s London like this one, though it was only seen three years after it was made and then heavily-edited because Warners were shocked at what they had financed. The film exceeded the boundaries of good taste that always epitomized British cinema.
This superbly shot, deeply disturbing, complex, often pretentious, often brilliant parable of confused identity was the first feature directed by leading cinematographer Roeg, sharing the credit with artist Cammell.
An eerily plausible Fox, cast against type, plays Chas, a sadistic gangster on the run who rents a room in the Notting Hill Gate home of Turner (Jagger), a reclusive, sexually ambiguous, washed-up rock star. Fox, his antithesis, is offered women and magic mushrooms before literally swapping personalities with the singer.
Fox abandoned the cinema for almost a decade after this film, such was its effect on him.
Verdict A dazzling, ideas-rich, extraordinarily inventive full-stop to the 60s
Mick Jagger plays a washed up rock star, which couldn't have been to hard for him to play. No, the performance involved is of the mobster who rents a room with them and pretends he's hip. This is an interesting movie, both if you're a Jagger fan, and if you want to see a movie about swinging 70s culture, and rock stars. I really liked this movie.
Cited as a classic by fans of cult movies, gangster movies, music movies and movie movies - I'd been jonesing to see this film for 25 years... and it did not disappoint.
James Fox was great. Mick does a great Brian Jones. I gotta watch this like five more times right now.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.