Rosebud

OK so the plot moved a bit slowly, and the dialog was stiff - but one thing stands out. This thing reeks of history. It is a terrorist film decades before its time. It features Palestinian commando's (headed by Arafat, who is mentioned by name)it mentions the Black September group by name. In one scene a top Palestinian (couldn't tell if it was supposed to be Arafat or not) explains the meaning of Jihad or holy war.

Kinda makes one wonder if anyone in our State Department ever saw this movie? I give it a better than average rating simply because its got the historical context correct - - and was decades ahead of its time.

Topical (for 1975) adaptation of a book by Paul Bonnecarrere and Joan Hemingway concerning five nubile young women from wealthy families kidnapped off their yacht Rosebud by an underground Palestine Liberation organization nicknamed Black September; the kidnappers, centered in Corsica, want retribution for the slaughter of their women and children caused by a Jewish millionaire involved in the illegal smuggling of arms. Peter O'Toole is barely present as a British correspondent (in a dopey hat) adept at mediating sanctions between terrorists and their targets, while the kidnap victims (in and out of their clothes) do the usual griping about their primitive holding conditions and the awful food. This type of globe-trotting espionage drama needed a gripping Bond-ian touch (or perhaps that of Pakula or Pollack). Director Otto Preminger is certainly capable of being in that class--and he hasn't lost his acerbic sense of humor--but he fails to sort out these complicated matters satisfactorily (the film has no sweep, and little sense of geographical placement). It's far from terrible however, and some of Preminger's asides are clever; his actors seem at half-mast, the narrative weakens as the picture progresses, but there's a fine music score by Laurent Petitgirard and interesting locales. The rest of the film's style lacks finesse. ** from ****

...but it's a total disaster - unbelievably bad, horrible, it's one of those thrillers where you keep thinking: The plot HAS to thicken now, there MUST be some action coming up etc. - But then you realize: more than one hour has passed, and nothing seems to fit. The timing is painfully slow, there are several rather silly and absurdly boring scenes instead of hardly any good action or suspense, and - alas - it's all in vain because then you realize there is no time left for the movie to get its act together.

"Rosebud" is a complete mess, albeit with an impressive cast. But what should one really think of skin-and-bones Peter O'Toole in the lead as a secret agent (whose charms are as limited as could be, given his wooden appearance), what should one think of Richard Attenborough in an absolutely grotesque rôle? The anamorphic cinematography and Laurent Petitgirard's score are quite fine, but that's about it.

This movie leaves the impression of some talent-free director trying to imitate a decent spy thriller without any acceptable script at his hands (I didn't happen to read the novel, but it must have been better, considering its popularity in the 70s). But the bitter truth is that renowned director Otto Preminger, one of the really great Hollywood filmmakers, the maker of "Laura", "Anatomy of a Murder", "Exodus", was responsible for this bummer. How on earth could this happen??

On paper, Otto Preminger has assembled quite a decent cast for this, but sadly neither he nor them can make much headway against some really dreadful writing. Peter O'Toole ("Martin") is drafted in to try to rescue five girls kidnapped from the yacht of arms-dealer "Fargeau" (Claude Dauphin) by a PLO cell under the leadership of zealous Brit "Sloat" (Richard Attenborough). The story lurches along with lots of clunky set-piece action scenarios and some terrorists about as menacing as yesterday's milk; the star is well off his game and the film looks as if nobody involved had ever made one before. Even the supporting cast - Raf Vallone, Peter Lawford and an almost unrecognisable Kim Catrall add nothing to the sloppily directed nonsense. At over two hours, it struggles from start to finish to engage - and I'm afraid really is not worth the effort of sitting watching it.

I'm mainly writing this to counteract all the Pretentious Haters who apparently expect every movie they see to be a masterpiece. If you think this is a terrible movie than obviously you have never actually seen one, they get much much worse. That being said this is an enjoyable movie and is definitely not evidence of Otto Preminger "Falling Off". Yes if you are hoping to see a movie on par with Munich or Day of the Jackal you may be disappointed but that's not what this movie was going for so just sit back, relax and enjoy a classic 70's film. Anytime you have too many preconceptions of what a film should be, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I will admit that I am a bit biased towards 70's movies in general, it is in my opinion the greatest era of film stocked with hidden gems.