StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

christopher-underwood I remember upon the film's release in 1970 that it wasn't the film most people expected. It wasn't the film I had expected. The Rolling Stones were not The Beatles, so this was never going to be A Hard Day's Night but even so for this to begin as a very violent and hard edged London crime gang movie a la Krays and not even feature Jagger for the first third, upset a lot of people. Viewed today, over forty years on, especially on Blu-ray, it is a revelation.Back in the day, so much had changed between 1968, when the film was made and 1970 when it was eventually released that some of us failed to appreciate how true a picture of disillusion it really was. Those dark and mysterious corners now fully illuminated and the milieu of the time so perfectly captured. Jagger's performance is quite amazing, as is that of the recently departed Anita Pallenberg. Some of the quick cut, fast edits anticipate Roeg's Don't Look Now opening but much of the latter part of the film takes place in a murky bath or large bed. The decor and language seem perfect with all the nonsense making complete sense. Fabulous and invigorating. James Fox isn't bad either!

gaelmarconi12 This movie is just plain terrible.Boring, drags on. I kept waiting for one of the main characters to show and it felt like forever.The only interesting part was seeing a young James Fox who was quite handsome in his younger days. Even the love scene is weird and yet a bit perverse.Story line is confusing. Character lines seem incoherent.Just awful in every cinematic way.Don't bother renting this one.After 15 minutes you will want to shut it off.

Boba_Fett1138 This movie is a real mixed bag for me. I was totally into its first half and was absolutely loving it for its creativity but the about half way through the movie starts to become a totally different movie, the moment Mick Jagger makes his appearance.Thing that made me love its first half, was that it was being a very British crime flick, focusing on criminals, that got shot and told beautifully. Truly in an artistic manner, with some experimental camera-work and editing, that all worked out well and captivating for the movie.I was so disappointed that not the whole movie was being like this. The second half of the movie is far more psychedelic and doesn't really seem all too concerned about telling its story. So disappointing, since everything that got buildup in the first half of the movie was being very promising and I was anxious to see what would happen next. But it's almost as of halfway through the movie comes to a stop and after that the movie hardly progresses any more story-wise. It becomes more a movie about its characters, which was just all less interesting to watch, in my opinion.In a way you could say that Jagger ruined the movie for me but I don't blame just him. It more was the story and the different approach of its second half that it all less interesting to watch and caused his character to work out as mostly an annoying one.James Fox was definitely better. He is not a big name actor but chances are you have already seen him in something. He doesn't always play leading roles, as he does in this movie but he definitely is a more than capable actor, that also has plenty of charisma to him.I still rate the movie quite highly, simply because of the reason that it's being a very original and creative movie, that also still works out for most part as well.So in short, it has a great and artistic first half and a less impressive and more messy second one. But overall the movie remains a more than good and original watch, though it's most definitely not a movie for just everyone.7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Nooblethenood I suppose I come to this from a slightly difficult perspective, having seen some of Nicolas Roeg's more recent films before this. Compared with the rest of his output, as far as I can see, this is far superior, but it's not so easy to judge things impartially with exposure to so much inferior work.In any case, certainly this feels like the most successful of Roeg's films. Of course, I recognise his is co-director and co-producer, but his visual style is immediately obvious. This comes with its problems. For a cinematographer, he is surprisingly shy of framing shots very carefully. There is a very spontaneous, somewhat 'wobbly' quality to much of the visuals in Performance. However, in this instance this does rather fit with the atmosphere and aesthetic of the whole thing. It is, after all, the story of a deeply troubled young man, swinging between excesses of violence, sex, cultural and social self-discovery and all that. That having been said, however, again in a rather typical Roeg foible, none of those themes is really investigated. Everything is on the outside, a simple, visual experience of a few people's lives coming into confusion with each other. Not necessarily a bad thing, but with little story to speak of, one is rather left wondering what was the point of it all.The film, though, does give a striking portrait of a particular kind of social existence, one that was current at the time of its making, but in truth is probably applicable at most times and in most places. The suggestion that the criminal and bourgeois margins of society actually have much in common in terms of the nature of their somewhat teetering existence is a valid one. It's interestingly portrayed, and certainly eccentrically so. The performances are convincing, as you would expect, and unlike David Bowie's presence in 'The Man Who Fell to Earth', you don't ever feel that Jagger is simply trading on his familiarly odd outward character - there is a genuine enigmatic quality to his performance, and it brings something to the atmosphere of the film. James Fox, again, is on good form, if often called upon to manifest a limited palette of expressions of confusion and inner turmoil - a fuller script would have benefited this.All in all, a very atmospheric film with a certain captivating music to it, and certainly the only film of Roeg's that I have ever found to be really successful.