No need to recap the plot. The first part in the studio featuring old time film actors and developing story had me thinking really good movie. Then the story hit a dead stop with a romance about as interesting as watching proverbial grass grow. And after watching De Niro deadpan his way through two whole hours, I roused myself with a big dose of Hopalong Cassidy. Now some folks may think that names like Kazan, Pinter, and De Niro can do no wrong. But, in my little book, they made a real snoozer out of melodramatic material that 1952's unapologetic The Bad And The Beautiful did up right. I'm just sorry the great director Kazan went out on a parade of meaningless close-ups and a sterile central performance-- a long, long way from his better work. Fortunately, Russell and Nicholson add some spark to the flattened result. I only hope proved performers like Milland and Andrews were well paid for their wasted cameo appearances. I realize that the production was constrained by its real life subject, Irving Thalberg. In fact, the head of MGM Production may indeed have been a pensive undemonstrative man. But stressing that on screen doesn't help. Why not a shot or two of his having fun or showing some anger. Something to engage with. Of course, I may have missed some hidden subtleties and symbolism, his unfinished house, for example . Trouble is it's hard to seek out subtleties without that engagement. There's a lesson here, I think. Something about not confusing big names with big results. Fortunately, De Niro's career went on to show what he could really do.

Then here's your chance! I continued watching this movie to see if it continued to be as bad as the early scenes were. It was. Awkward dialog was rampant throughout the film. De Niro -- an actor I highly respect -- was wooden. The plot...once you figured out that it had one...meandered along. Elia Kazan was a great director, with the emphasis being on "was". He was beginning to lose his touch, and although he had some nice cinematic shots, the story stumbled along.If you're wondering if I didn't find anything good about the movie...well, it's a very lavish production. visually, the film looks great.Among the other actors, Tony Curtis was fine as a star with tremendous insecurities. Robert Mitchum and Ray Milland were fine as studio executives, though some of their dialog was questionable. Jeanne Moreau...a great actress...in other films. Jack Nicholson was interesting in a smaller role. Donald Pleasence was good as a misplaced screen writer. It was good to see Dana Andrews (as a floundering director), Peter Strauss, and John Carradine (as an old tour guide).This film had potential, but Elia Kazan flubbed it. It's never good when you watch a film to see just how bad it is.

This film is best forgotten.I doubt if there is anyone who is a greater fan of Kazan than I, and it pains me to write this, but this film is simply horrible. I don't blame just Kazan; the story and characters are illogical and very boring. The sub-plot of Curtis, Andrews and Moreau adds nothing, in fact, is a negative. The point of DeNiro's role is never made. The important theme evident in Kazan's films (Pinky, Gentleman's Agreement, Waterfront, Panic in the Streets, etc.) is completely missing in this film. The greatest fault lies with Fitzgerald, one of most overrated American authors and with Pinter, also overrated. These two, loved by critics, have given this film a halo. If the screenplay was written by John Smith based on a book by Fred Jones, the movie would be rated 2 stars out of ten, if the raters were generous.DeNiro and Russel are good (Although Russel's character is very annoying.) and Nicholson is Nicholson. The rest of the cast is mediocre. Boulting is not good at all, and in fact, she never went anywhere in her career after this film.Kazan didn't do a bad job, considering with what he was given to work.

How can a film starring Robert De Niro, Robert Mitchum, Tony Curtis, Jean Moreau, Donald Pleasance, Ray Milland, Dana Andrews, and Jack Nicholson. adapted by Harold Pinter from an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, and directed by Elia Kazan not be good? Well watch this and you will see a perfect example of how not to make a film.As hard as the actors work, they could never overcome such an achingly dull and banal script. Add to that Kazan's flat and uninspiring, pedestrian direction and a dreadful score from Maurice Jarre you have possibly one of the worst "quality" movies I have ever watched.I just had to ask the question "why", and I think you can perhaps argue that Kazan hadn't really done much since the early sixties, and the movie business had changed. The New Hollwood of Coppola, Scorcese, Polanski, Spielberg et al was making inroads; Movies like Chinatown, The Godfather, Taxi Driver and Jaws were taking movie making in a new direction. The story, script, direction and soundtrack of The Last Tychoon were old Hollywood.Definitely one to miss. Even though, as I read somewhere, this is a mess of a movie with a classic struggling to get out, it really isn't worth investing the time to find out where that classic has gone.