steven-222 Enough of this half-ass "I love Boom! but I know it's a guilty pleasure, because everyone says it's crap" nonsense.Boom! is a great movie. Period.There. Someone needed to say it.I first saw this film at a young age when it was first shown on TV, and found it fascinating and unforgettable. (Literally unforgettable, scene after scene and shot after shot; how often is that true?) Since then I've watched it a number of times, and never failed to be completely mesmerized by it on every level.My most recent viewing (on the DVD now available from the UK) comes after a sustained period of tracking down and watching all the available movies of director Joseph Losey. Boom! was the first Losey movie I ever saw, and for years after, any time I happened to see a Losey film, I found the experience fascinating but difficult to pin down. What was the Losey "thing"? Now, after seeing almost all of his work, I return to Boom! Is it as profound as Losey's best (King & Country, The Servant, Accident, Mr. Klein)? Absolutely.If anything, as I've drawn closer to death myself, the film's themes have grown more profound for me--the acceptance of inevitable death and the realization that all (not some of life, but ALL of life) is vanity. Tennessee Williams came to know a truth which cannot be expressed in literal terms, and so he wrote the original play, which is even more stylized and fabulous (literally: like a fable) than the movie. Joseph Losey was perhaps the only film director working at that moment with the artistic touch to transmute the story to film. The cast was perfectly suited to the larger-than-life (but not larger-than-death) theatricality of the film.Can the movie be enjoyed at the level of "camp"? Yes. Is it also a profound work of art? Yes.And there has never been another movie even remotely like it.

ptb-8 This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.

amedusa50x "Boom" is a BOMB, but it's a totally lovable bomb if you have even half a heart and a fully developed sense of the bizarre. John Waters (director of "Pink Flamingos") loves this movie, and so do I, probably for different reasons, but that's the beauty of wacky movies like "Boom." I love "Boom" because it's such a breathtakingly beautiful mess, just like Liz Taylor herself at the time she starred in it. Richard Burton is a lovely mess in this film as well; he's as hunky as ever, but his years of boozing are beginning to show. Thing is, if any two actors colliding with each other -- and with an outrageously choppy screenplay (written by the great Tennessee Williams himself; what was he THINKING?) -- can look absolutely divine while they're making the best of a bad situation, Liz and Richard can (and do) pull it off in "Boom." Frankly, I don't see how anybody could pass up a movie that features Michael Dunn (remember him from "Ship of Fools"?) playing a smirking, sadistic, jack-booted dwarf who thinks he's a generalissimo; the world famous playwright Noel Coward turning in a delightfully queeny version of himself at his prissiest; and the veteran Italian actor Romolo Valli ("The Garden of the Finzi-Continis," "1900") going all-out to make a fool of himself as a dope-pushing doc-for-hire ... for what more could you ask, except maybe Liz and Richard, and "Boom" has them all! That's not even the best part. The best part is the island of Sardinia, where the film was flawlessly photographed. If the dwarf and his vicious little doggies don't amuse you and Liz's goblet-smashing antics tend to annoy you, not to worry. "Boom" delivers such stunning photography of the wild beauty of Sardinia's unspoiled coastline that you won't run out of things to look at, not for an instant. "Boom" is total eye candy. As a Camp classic, it's tough to beat. If you adore Liz Taylor at her brattiest on the screen when she's insulting all the servants and chewing the scenery without even smudging her lipstick, this is the film for YOU!

graham clarke "Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that it seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid-forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream, providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuse, that from the man who claimed such a talent.The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier."Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested.