Tommy

This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and I have seen a lot! I bought this movie because it is listed in the book 1000 Best Movies on DVD by Peter Travers. Also, the movie is in the superbit collection, which is supposed to have superb sound and image quality. Well, the sound quality is not that good. And the movie does not deserve to be among those 1000. I rate this movie 0 over 10, or 0 stars. The only think I liked is the Elton John number; and it's not that good either. This may be a good movie to The Who fans. But even them complain because they change the plot of the original story for this movie. The acting is awful, the music sucks, the story is lame, and everything else is a waste of money and time (I lost 110 minutes of my precious time with this, when I could have been reading a good book, watching a good movie, or listening to a good CD). I would not even pay one cent for this movie. I even hate the band The Who. They always make it to those Best Albums, etc. but to me they are a bunch of losers. If you like classic Rock, and conceptual albums or "Rock operas" specifically, try Pink Floyd and watch The Wall. That is a masterpiece. This is a wannabe that deserves no attention.

I am not a fan of The Who nor am I antagonistic towards them. Yet I did not find anything remarkable in the music to this movie. The subtle as a sledgehammer slap at organized religion and the laughable sets made this movie hard to watch. Sadly, you can see where this movie could have made a valid social commentary on drugs, religion, and social norms; yet, this movie failed on all levels. I am sure that since I was not a child of the 70's that even if this movie was done well I would miss some of the relevance of it; but this movie is as close to unwatchable dribble as I have seen in a long, long time.

Love the Who. Love Ann Margaret. Unfortunately, this is a steaming pile of dog poop. I was really stoned when I saw it, so that wasn't the problem. It's just a lot of disturbing imagery. The only thing positive about it, perhaps, is that it portrays the desperate, frantic nature of drug addiction, directly and indirectly, through images. Then there's the Ann Margaret rolling around with the turds thing. Truly appropriate. What a turd-festival. Stay away like it has SARS.

I first saw this movie a few years back whilst going through my Uncle's collection of records, tapes and videos etc. To be fair I was fairly sceptical about the prospect of spending at Saturday night drinking and watching a musical film involving "The Who" (a band I had obviously heard of, but not actually really listened too) with my Uncle. However my Uncle has great taste in music and has introduced me to many great bands and albums over the years, especially 60's rock music. I think my initial reaction to the film was it had some great scenes, mixing fantastic music with iconic imagery, some very interesting cast members, and a very strange dark humour throughout most of it. The scenes which I were first really drawn to were 1951/what about the boy? (whether Oliver Reed can sing or not without severe editing, he fits his part perfectly and both he and Ann-Margaret shine during this scene), Acid Queen (an amazing performance by Tina Turner) and Amazing Journey. Due to enjoying these songs/scenes so much I revisited the film a few times and then really found the true depth of the movie. The songs are top notch, with the above mentioned and others such as Christmas, Pinball Wizard, I'm Free, Sally Simpson and Listening To You amongst the best. Every scene is almost mesmerising in it's own way (apart from Eyesight to the blind, although I love Eric Clapton, I just do not enjoy this part at all). I had been looking for this on DVD for sometime, and in the meantime had purchased the original CD (interesting how some songs are better on the CD whilst others translate better in the movie) as a substitute. I was of course extremely pleased at the recent 2 Disc Collectors Edition release and did not hesitate to make my purchase. OK, the story is not your run of the mill, easy to understand type and I think it is open to all kinds of interpretations, the main thing is the movie is a visual and musical feast almost like an extended ultra good pop video.

I saw this film when it was initially released and aside from a few issues, I quite liked it. Over thirty years later, I'm watching it as I write this and the only thing that comes to mind is this: what the hell was I thinking ??? Appallingly bad casting , a rotten soundtrack adaption that should've had Pete Townshend running for the hills rather than settle on this audio nightmare ...no wonder the poor slob is going deaf...I'm surprised I haven't just from the horror of listening to it. Now, having been a teenager of the '70s, I know synthesizers were the sleek new toy in every major recording studio's box of fun, but ferchrissake!! To take a rock album and turn it into a gooey, horribly over-processed bit of amateurish synth-crap is absolutely unforgivable.........eeeeekkk!! Now,in regards to the casting...I said it before and I'll say it again......eeeeeeeeekkkk!! Lesse, who shall I comment on first? Let's start with " A", for Ann Margaret..........wrong ,wrong, wrong, wrong! "Emoting" that's so over the top that it borders on the stupid, a complete and utterly inexcusable misuse of her voice...she can belt out a Vegas tune with the best of 'em, but I'm sorry, folks....she can't sing this type of material and it was foolish and humiliating to expect her to! Oliver Reed and Jack Nicholson.........all I can say in regards to these characters is these boys must've had some real fun on the set together, but it's too bad it did'nt translate into good acting. Don't even ask me about the singing...........pleeeease! But being the responsible critic that I comport myself to be, I will grudgingly admit that, despite all the previous vitriol, the film does have a few redeeming moments that might make it occasionally watchable. The scenes with Keith Moon as Uncle Ernie are no less than inspired and absolutely hilarious; the Acid Queen segment with Tina Turner as the title character is one of the best segments ever filmed for a rock movie and Elton John as the Pinball Wizard is simply put, absolute balls of fun with a live performance by the Who themselves. A grand example of the best and worst (mostly the worst) of 1970's cliché' music fantasy and overindulged ridiculousness, "Tommy" is a film that should be filed right alongside other rock and roll horrors like" Sgt. Pepper's" and "Xanadu" along with a note stating "Watch at Your Own Risk"!

First, you should know the album to really -er- appreciate this film. The album is a classic, even though it is a patchwork of songs that The Who decided to turn into a concept album by gluing various themes together with mostly lesser tunes. But it has some great pieces, like "Amazing Journey", "Overture" "Welcome" and "Sparks" (all of which you won't hear on Classic Rock radio stations). So first know the album, and then see the movie, if you dare. You will be amazed – but certainly entertained. Rather than apply the original music from the heartfelt album, the film reworks the tunes with tepid session musicianship and the neat-o synthesizer, so very innovative in 1975. Seeking to be high-minded about idolatry, religion, war, consumerism, pinball- y'know, all that big meaningful stuff- this flick heaps on laughably dopey symbolism by the barrelful. Seeing cameos from Eric Clapton and Elton John is interesting,simply to give you a window on the era. Tina Turner, however, as the twitchy Acid Queen dancing to... er, a mirror-hypodermic-iron-maiden is- well, one of the reasons this lunacy is simply a must-see. And no actress has ever gone more over-the-top than Ann Margaret, and God bless her and her bean slither for that. It is so dated, so in-that-moment, so weird, so over-the-top, and so fearlessly awful it's great. The best of the 'worst rock and roll film ever' category, and that includes "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band", which could be considered its spawn. This is a must-see glam-a-licious wierdfest.

This is a Ken Russell movie, make no mistake. It is relentlessly twisted, ugly, savage (for a sometimes humorous effect) and trippy. Russell may be the oldest flower child of all time. Surreal plot concerns a deaf-dumb-and-blind boy becoming the new Messiah to a pinball-crazed population, and the film has been accused of being too literal to The Who's rock opera source material. In this age of lavish music videos, it has also been tagged as archaic. Though nobody seems to care anymore how a film was perceived in its time, I would say the picture still succeeds in doing what was originally intended: shake an audience up with freaky visuals and propulsive music (nicely arranged). It also does something else: creates actual characters from the music, a plus due in part to the fine acting of Ann-Margret as Tommy's glamorous mother, Roger Daltrey as Tommy, Oliver Reed as Tommy's stepfather (Reed is hammy but quite game, while the role is designed as both a villain and a hero), and Tina Turner, an extremely scary presence as the Acid Queen. "Tommy" has some bummer scenes, and Russell's love for degradation occasionally made me wince, but it is a real cinematic experience. Whether it involves or alienates the viewer depends on their appreciation for the English director's constant penchant for the bizarre. **1/2 from ****

I remember the first time TOMMY was broadcast on British television on BBC 2 in the late Autumn of 1981 . For the first time ever Radio 1 did a simultaneous broadcast , the idea being you turn off the sound on your TV , turn up the sound on Radio 1 and you`ll be able to watch TOMMY in stereophonic sound , bare in mind this was before we had widescreen TVs that broadcast stereophonic sound , everything we got on TV in those days was in mono Instead of watching the movie on TV I listened to it on Radio 1 . I knew the movie was a musical but was under the impression it`d be something like Jeff Wayne`s WAR OF THE WORLD album where there`s a clear narrative with dialogue along with musical tracks , I mean Robert Powell , Oliver Reed and Jack Nicolson aren`t singers right ? I listened to the film and it was about ten minutes before anyone started singing and within 20 minutes I had no idea what this was about , it was people singing , no dialogue , no narrative , no nothing so I decided to turn off the radio and go to sleep . Strangely when I was at school the next day everyone was saying what a weird though thoroughly entertaining movie it was And finally seeing the movie last week I can understand in some strange way what a subversive movie this is . Ken Russell doesn`t hold back on the weird factor . Take the scene where Eric Clapton is performing in a church and everyone is worshipping a statue of Marylin Monroe and there`s people wearing masks of her waving bowls of incense around . Mind if I ask what that`s all about ? On second thoughts don`t . That actually sums up the strengths and weaknesses of TOMMY , the imagery is strange , sometimes utterly compelling and breath taking like the sequence in Amazing Journey where a pin ball randomly smacks bombers turning them into crosses of rememberance but more often than not the film makes just as much sense as it did when I listened to it on the radio more than 20 years before . There`s a vague point that musical heroes are somewhat Hitlerite in our modern pop culture but the very similar THE WALL by Pink Floyd makes this point far clearer and if truth be told THE WALL is by far a better movie and album Anyone else feel uneasy that much of TOMMY revolves around a young child from source material by Pete Townshend ?

I first came across Tommy when I saw the West End theatre production about 10 years ago, and I instantly fell in love with the music and the plot. However, at the time I was only 11 years old and couldn't really appreciate the many levels to Tommy. I did watch the film pretty soon after but was constantly comparing it to the show and to me it didn't even come close. Now I'm a little older (and hopefully wiser), I have watched the film a lot in the past couple of years and all I can say is WOW! The music is fantastic, Pete Townshend is a genius, and the way he uses it to tell the story is awesome. When you listen to the original Who album a lot is left open to the imagination as regards plot, and I think its important to realise that Ken Russell's film version is merely one interpretation of the story told by the music. Having not seen any of Russell's other work, it's impossible for me to say that this is typical of him. However, what I will say is that the imagery he uses in the film really does spark a lot of interest, for example the hypocrisy of organised religion and icon worship (particularly when Tommy causes Marlyin Monroe to crash to the floor after the rest of the church have been "brainwashed" by the priests). A lot of people criticise the film for its cast, particularly Oliver Reed and Jack Nicholsons' debatable singing abilities. However I feel that this only adds to the sleaziness of their characters, especially Reed's - I think if he was note perfect it would be out of character. I think Ann Margret is fantastic as Nora - it's obvious that as Tommy's mother she feels torn between the love for her son and the love for fame and money, and she portrays that really well. As for Roger Daltrey, what a voice and what a body!! I think it's important not to take the film too seriously though, like I said it's just one interpretation. I feel that "Tommy" as a whole - the music, words, story etc can only be fully appreciated if you listen to and watch as many versions as you can in order to make your own opinion of it.

Trailer—Tommy