Performance (1970) Reviews

Performance (1970)
Member Rating:  
Even in an era of cinematic experimentation, Performance stands out as a visually daring major-studio film that deals with questions of sanity and identity rarely touched on in mainstream filmmaking. The elements of Performance certainly looked attractive to studio executives at Warner Bros. -- a gangster on the lam hides out in the home of a reclusive rock star -- especially since that musician was being played by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. But co-directors Nicolas Roeg (who also photographed) and Donald Cammell (who wrote the screenplay) had much more in mind than a walk on the wild side of swinging London. Chas (James Fox) is a sadistic thug who gains our sympathies only because men even crueler than he are out to kill him. After Chas arrives at the mansion occupied by Turner (Jagger) and his female companions Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) and Lucy (Michele Breton), what looks like a decadent idyll fueled by drugs and group sex turns into a series of mind games in which Turner challenges Chas' sexual preference and core identity. Even the film's one musical number, "Memo From Turner," is a William Burroughs-like monologue in which Turner fantasizes taking over Chas' role as a mobster, spewing insults to his colleagues. The film's cult status has been fueled by subsequent films of its co-directors (for Roeg, Walkabout, The Man Who Fell to Earth, and Don't Look Now; for Cammell, White of the Eye), which explored similar themes employing the same kind of jagged editing and striking visuals. ~ Tom Wiener, Rovi

 Read More


Starring:
James FoxMick Jagger, (more)
Director(s):
Donald CammellNicolas Roeg, (more)
Theatrical MPAA Rating:
R
Format(s):
DVD
View All Versions to rent and buy
 
 
 
 

Average Ratings

(7 member reviews)  


Member Reviews


Raymond O.

This film is the unique combining of Nicolas Roeg and Donald Cammell's talents. It's more of an indication of Roeg's future direction than Cammell's, but neither man can be neglected here. Not to mention that this film stars Mick Jagger, only one of the greatest rock stars of all time. It's a stylish trip, rich with symbolism and literary references. Anyone who loved Man Who Fell to Earth shouldn't miss this one.

Yes   |   No


Jordan L.

I have to agree with the two-star viewer. This film has a little bit of interesting material, particularly the scenes with Mick Jagger, but I honestly didn't see the point of it. Essentially, it's the juxtaposition of two psyches on opposite ends of the spectrum. But typical 60's film gimmicks and the unbelievable editing, added to the dull dialogue makes this just another reason why people associate the 60's with sex drugs and rock 'n roll.

Yes   |   No


Patrick K.

An hallucinatory drug worth taking. It's a film that has full of meaning in what it's saying to you and where it's taking you to. James Fox plays one of the few characters in history to place himself in the top list as one of the scariest gangsters of all time. You can learn a lot from him. When it comes to being enjoyably obscure, this film is the highest authority.

Yes   |   No


Ted S.

.

Yes   |   No


Robert R.

I grew up in the 60s and had followed a sense that nobody wanted to see Mick Jagger try and compete in movies. After sleeping through Elvis matinees, singing (in my head) at Beetles movies and getting turned on by a goofy Sonny and Cher movie, Mick Jagger's movie seemed to come late. Nobody I knew saw it. So, 40 years later, with purpose and curiosity, I just watched this movie. I was glad the talking heads in the Special Features' explained this junk. The few shreds of originally-intended, literary allusions had to be pointed out in the film's visual props (a book and a painting). No correlation could be drawn to the broken story. There were admissions of problems and last minute changes, etc. Producers openly copped to the fact this was pieced-together and then chopped-to-pieces again to satisfy distributors. These candid revelations helped to satisfy my opinion that this film is just a mess. Provocative visuals. A characature of similar films.

Yes   |   No


Donald A.

The Blockbuster writeup would lead you to believe that this is an underappreciated overlooked masterpiece in the rough as opposed to what it is: some mediocre junk that some aging mick fans would like to make into a cult film. Interesting on some level just as a look at Mick Jagger, given enough space here to be mick a little as opposed to the few other movies he has made. The script however is a steaming pile and the director doesnt have a hold of any of it, he probably woke up every morning asking if mick wanted any rewrites, or had anything good to smoke.

Yes   |   No


Yvette B.

Don't bother - I could only stand about 15 minutes of this piece of feces.

Yes   |   No


 
 
 

BY MAIL

Monthly Subscription
NEW! 7 - Day Rental
No subscription required. Usually ships in 24 hours.
 

IN-STORE

 

What's Your Take?

Add to FavoritesIn Favorites  |  Share:     Email to a friendShare on FacebookShare on Twitter
    YOUR REVIEW
    WRITE A REVIEW
     
    1000 
     
    Member Reviews
     
    Raymond O.

    This film is the unique combining of Nicolas Roeg and Donald Cammell's talents. It's more of an indication of Roeg's future direction than Cammell's, but neither man can be neglected here. Not to mention that this film stars Mick Jagger, only one of the greatest rock stars of all time. It's a stylish trip, rich with symbolism and literary references. Anyone who loved Man Who Fell to Earth shouldn't miss this one.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Jordan L.

    I have to agree with the two-star viewer. This film has a little bit of interesting material, particularly the scenes with Mick Jagger, but I honestly didn't see the point of it. Essentially, it's the juxtaposition of two psyches on opposite ends of the spectrum. But typical 60's film gimmicks and the unbelievable editing, added to the dull dialogue makes this just another reason why people associate the 60's with sex drugs and rock 'n roll.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Patrick K.

    An hallucinatory drug worth taking. It's a film that has full of meaning in what it's saying to you and where it's taking you to. James Fox plays one of the few characters in history to place himself in the top list as one of the scariest gangsters of all time. You can learn a lot from him. When it comes to being enjoyably obscure, this film is the highest authority.

    Yes   |   No

     
    Read All 7 Reviews