Setembro Negro

The film was so convoluted I found myself sitting trancelike in disbelief. I kept watching it to see if it would get any better....But it didn't. It looked like Peter O'toole (whom I love) sleepwalked through this one. Boring and meandering!

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.

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.

Here is even more evidence of the decline of director Otto Preminger in the 1970's. His penultimate film is egregiously horrific. This suspense thriller lacks both suspense and thrills. The films hackneyed script by Preminger's no talent progeny just barely surpasses the ham-fisted direction that Otto delivers.Perhaps he let his son direct most of this movie too. It certainly looks like the work of a complete amateur. Unlike many of his other failures, which are at least interesting to watch, this film has no redeeming value at all. The first problem is the way the film plods along. At times we just wonder if this story is ever going to get moving. Secondly, all of the somnolent actors look like they are lost and confused. Finally none of the characters we are suppose to be sympathetic towards deserve are sympathy. They seem either banal or puerile. Is it any wonder Mitchum turned down this stinker!

...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??