This is a seventies film that is unsure of what it is meant to be and what it becomes as a result is probably just soft pornography(with one very unpleasant exception), mixed in with a little bit of satire, some meandering reflections on childhood, and having a muted incidental dark edge to it.The combination of sex in relationship to death however oblique was probably made controversial more by the amount of nudity on show (by the woman of course). Yet the downbeat cinematography, the sparse locations, the lack of empathetic characters make this a bleak and uninvolving film. No amount of sex or nudity makes this film interesting, despite trying its best to do so.It really is a disappointment, not a terrible film, and not a film without odd moments of humour either. The ballroom scene near the end where the films title is directly referenced is actually funny, particularly the outraged judges who are appalled by the frivolous dancing of Brando and his young partner Maria Schneider.The film does try to create a darkness which doesn't quite work. Brando's unfaithful wife is shown to have killed herself and he embarks on a very cold detached affair with Maria Schneider's character. It is exploring a very dysfunctional relationship, but because you don't really care about the characters, the darkness in the film appears as an after thought.It is a challenging role for Brando but perhaps because he can be quite a complicated and aloof actor anyway, there is simply not enough warmth in this role from him to make you care about the character.Maria Schneider unfortunately does not get much more of a role then to be completely naked. There is a side story showing her making a true life documentary with her director boyfriend. It is meant as parody, but you still don't care about her character and it further distracts from the darkness of the main plot-line.There are genuinely controversial elements today a modern audience should find very uncomfortable. One of the sex scenes which might have been seen by some as acceptable in the seventies, would almost certainly be seen as non-consensual sex and therefore rape in today's courts.Therefore this film is a extremely disappointing on a number of levels. What might have been a very interesting and truly great film is seen to condone rape because it does not challenge the man over his actions, or explore the affects on her of that rape. A far less serious disappointment is that the acting does not engage you. It's a film that is a creaky, often pretentious piece, and probably (with one nasty exception) not much more than soft pornography.

It took me days to come to my senses after watching this movie. Wow !Marlon Brando was nominated for Oscar for this part. His competition were Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino and Robert Redford, and Oscar went to Jack Lemon. Definitely tough competition. I could not decide which one of them is more awesome.Fun fact - Bernardo Bertolucci was convicted to 4 month in prison in Italy for making this movie, while in America he was nominated for academy Award. :DWhy they do not allow short reviews...I hate adding lines randomly...

For a man, what could be more personally satisfying than overpowering his perfect object of desire solely by his sexual prowess? That's the scenario in Bertolucci's self-fulfilling, exotic and provocative LAST TANGO IN Paris, telling based on his own sexual fantasies, a privilege which has been a substantial stimulus to encourage generations of youngsters to become a filmmaker, but only those very few in the top tier can achieve that gratification with momentum and flourishes, even Bertolucci couldn't get away with lambaste and the film has been perpetually on the list of films that shock the world!Jeanne (Schneider), a 20-year-old parisienne, comes across a near-rape sexual intercourse with a middle-aged American expatriate Paul (Brando) in an empty apartment which is available for rent. Downright to her own volition, she comes back to the apartment (now rented by Paul) again and again, to partake in the act of love, and even unabashedly falls in love with him, that's the utmost elixir to boost a man's ego (Bertolucci does know how to patronizing heterosexual males). Paul forbids themselves from revealing each other's names, and claims that he doesn't want to know any concrete information about her, and vice versa. "Everything outside this apartment means nothing to us" So, who is Paul outside that apartment?We see a grief-ridden man, wanders around in bereavement after his wife committed suicide, which hits him like a severe jolt, therefore, he is in the limbo of mourning, questioning, self- doubting and resentment, he and her wife run a low-rent hotel in Paris, they had been married for 5 years, and in the end of the day, he has to face the music that he has never been able to understand her, he can even host a pleasant conversation on the face value with her wife's lover Marcel (a down-to-earth Girotti and still gets his appeal in his 50s), a lodger in their hotel. So, meaningless no-strings-attached sex becomes his go-to option to assuage his discombobulated state, once Jeanne is hooked. who is so naively impressionable and totally loses herself in the mysterious halo of "it's beautiful without knowing anything", the sex becomes an addiction, a ritual gratifies the needs of both. Out of the apartment, Jeanne has a filmmaker boyfriend Tom (a customarily neurotic Léaud), who is shooting a documentary about her, and will propose to her later in the film.Is actress Maria Schneider being exploited in her career-making/typecasting role? Who admittedly confessed her ill-treated experience of shooting this film. Let's take a step back from a feminist POV, and perceive the film in a plain angle of egalitarianism, the lascivious fetish of Schneider's sultry body presented in constant nakedness has never been balanced out by Brando's (supposedly) unsightly figure in all his frankness (maybe, Bertolucci simply cannot pay the sum to convince Brando to reveal some of his sagging skin), not to mention the unsolicited sodomy scene (which has forever ruined butter for me), Schneider was completely taken by surprise, on that front, Bertolucci is exploitative, sinister, sadistic and misogynist.However, simply disregarding all the behind-the-camera trivia (which is not an easy task and sometimes involuntarily infuses some preconceived sentiment into one's subjective judgement), and taking a forensic look into the film per se, in its claustrophobic, ill-lit interior shots, what Bertolucci achieves with the sinuously fluid movement of his camera is something masterfully seductive, voyeuristic, intimate and thought-provoking, two total strangers, unburdened from formality and luxuriate in their primal libido and form a rather wholesome rapport devoid of any negativity associated with reality - that's everyone's unsaid fantasy, but in sheer perception, Bertolucci also shows that such purity can be fragilely sullied by the world outside, literally outside that apartment, where, in the third act, when Paul moves out, and then flippantly courts Jeanne on the street, in the tango bar, how foolish he is when he becomes love-struck, the magical potion doesn't work in broad daylight, where Jeanne will ultimately realise Paul is no more than another nettlesome suitor, only much older, and at her age, he is far from a premium worth her time and effort while the world is her oyster, something menacing looms in the offing in the hard-pressed eagerness, there will be no happy ending out of it. It serves as a poignant elegy for these out-of- depth sad sacks like him, and a wake-up call for those young creatures like her.Brando sinks in his role exceedingly in conveying Paul's frame-of-mind, initially in his unapologetic-ally threatening and unfathomable mode, remarkably eases into his varied facets: cantankerous mood-swing, tender reminiscence and vulnerability, notably during his show- stopping monologue in front of his flowers-adorned deceased wife, only before long, he will make a fool of himself. Schneider instills a more unaffected, also cruder impression with a susceptible inclination for servitude either confronted by masculinity or whetted by novelty, a common mistake for starters.As its graphic depiction of (perverse) sex act loses its taboo in a more liberal present world, Bertolucci's controversial pièce de résistance might get a more impartial reappraisal by focusing on its accumulative evocation of inexplicable human feelings rather than on its politically incorrect modus operandi borne out of some bold but insensitive considerations, or perhaps, it is just my wishful thinking, plus notoriety always sells the tickets.

Regarded merely as pornography for many and is most noted for two infamous sex scenes (which in all honesty are tame by today's standards). Last Tango in Paris sets out for much more it's an interesting take on loneliness and depression and living in personal solitude. It's an extremely emotional film, therefore I think it's up to the viewer what you take out of it. I personally only checked it out because of its reputation but I found it to be pretty disappointing on the whole.A young Parisian women (Schneider) meets a middle aged American businessman (Brando) who demands their clandestine relationship to be based only on sex.It has been said that Brando gives a powerhouse performance and he certainly gives his all but certainly in the latter half of the film just ends up playing himself. His character is dislike-able (As most of the characters are) if not at times detestable with dialog so crass it's hard to take serious. Although there are a couple of moments in his performance that garner sympathy (most notable a really good scene where Paul lets all his frustration and anger out while saying goodbye to his estranged wife for the last time) which is true testament to his ability.The film seems to drag on in some places filled with uninteresting subplots Like Jeanne's (Schneider) outside life filled with her pretentious wannabe filmmaker lover which is rather dull and at times tedious.Last Tango didn't necessarily do it for me but I can't say it was without merit, an Art-house picture interesting because of its historical notoriety but its overlong and at times dull in places.