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.

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.

After seeing this film one late night (and yes this film is best viewed late nite a la Rocky Horror Picture Show) I really thought it was cheesy and campy and therefore a treasure to some audiences. Barbarella, starring Jane Fonda in 1968 and the fore-mentioned Rocky Horror Picture Show of 1975 starring Barry Bostwick and Tim Curry were campy cult classics and this one is an addition to that repertoire. Ken Russell has done some good films, despite their use of bizarre imagery and cartoonish silliness- Mahler, Liar of the White Worm, The Devils and Tommy the musical. Lisztomania is at once a parody of film, using Rocky Horror Picture Show elements, and a fantasy of historical fiction. Franz Liszt, Richard Wagner and Cosima were all real people but in this film they exist as parody and as fictional characters akin to comic book characters. The theme seems to be the battle between good versus evil played out by two rival composers- Liszt and Wagner. In real life, these legendary composers were friends and found inspiration as colleagues. But in this comic book type of movie, Liszt (Roger Daltrev) fights the evil machinations of the Nazi vampire Richard Wagner bent on world domination. He creates a Frankenstein that resembles Hitler. It's up to Franz Liszt and friends to save the day by attacking him with their pipe organ spaceship. Lots of fun to watch. Other things to look for include a giant penis idol, a piano torture machine, Ringo Starr as the Pope and throughout the film is a rock musical style similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show. So if you liked that one, you'll like Lisztomania. Don't take it seriously. Not to be viewed by children.

Ken Russell has become something of a tragic figure these days, forced to shoot his films on digital video with a cast made up of strippers and close friends... on a soundstage built in his own basement no less. However there was once a time when Russell was British cinema's driving, artistic force. Women in Love, The Music Lovers, The Devils and Savage Messiah were back-to-back classics, mixing overwhelming visual spectacle with historical accuracy and wonderfully detailed performances. He even managed to score a US box office hit with Tommy, his over-the-top realisation of The Who's rock-opera. Things were looking very bright indeed.However, now with the ability of hindsight it is easy to see Tommy as the beginning of the end for Russell's career. For the first time he'd gone past the barrier of stylisation, passed the checkpoint marked 'taste', and somehow been rewarded with the greatest commercial success of his career. Thus, Lisztomania was born. Re-teaming with The Who's lead singer Roger Daltrey, Russell has gathered together a bunch of rock-star mates and thrown the filmic rulebook straight out of the window. So, whereas most biographical pictures go for fact, dignity and quiet restraint, Russell has instead willingly indulged himself in a vision of out-and-out creative excess... clearly, there was no going back!What Lisztomania attempts to do is cross-reference the life of 19th century composer Franz Liszt with the birth of the pop-star phenomenon. So, as Liszt prepares to give a piano recital of one of his greatest works, one hundred screaming teenage girls wave flags and banners adoringly, whilst backstage, be-wigged music execs gather to rub shoulders with the press. Russell also throws in sci-fi philosophy, voodoo ritualism, musical criticism, Nazi ideology... and more naked flesh than you can shake a 50ft cock at. Oh, and did I mention that there are prog-rock musical numbers too. Rick Wakeman provides the score, allowing his imagination to run wild with the music of Liszt and his arch-nemeses Richard Wagner, which I'm sure seemed like a good idea at the time.Not that I want to give the impression that Lisztomania is a bad film you understand, on the contrary, no... It's atrocious. To call it 'bad' would be an understatement. Daltrey is the films major problem, giving a performance of complete ineptitude, swaggering about the place with his arse hanging out... displaying about as much charm as a piece of cardboard. This is less Amadeus, more Confessions of Pop Star, with Daltrey lusting after all manner of buxom young ladies like an over-sexed teenager. Russell's use of fast-motion photography in these scenes also fluffs the issue, owing more of a debt to Benny Hill than Federico Fellini. Other cast members are simply directed to be as annoying and over the top as they can be, with former Beatle Ringo Starr's cameo as the Pope being the film's more surprising highlight.Russell's career never really recovered from Lisztomania. Although Altered States proved to be a Hollywood success, there was none of the imagination and cinematic skill that marked out his early classics. At a time when Christopher Nolan is seen as being Britain's most creative filmmaker, the lack of a full-fledged enfant-terrible such as Russell is a great loss to a generation of film devotees. In a perfect world Women in Love, Savage Messiah and The Devils would all be available on letterboxed DVD, with digital sound and restored picture. As for Lisztomania's future reappraisal, well... there's no rush. 2/5