DC1977 Just read between the lines of his audio commentary to this calamity of a film. To be honest there aren't that many lines in the first place as Russell seems lost delivering an audio commentary on his own and without Mark Kermode to prompt him and keep him on track. There are long gaps in the commentary that are occasionally broken by dull observations from the director. This is not a DVD review but Russell's commentary does reveal a great deal about the huge flaws in this film and the director who seemed so obsessed with shocking his audience probably comes as close as he ever did to apologising for taking things too far even by his own extreme standards. Some of his comments can be easily re-interpreted: Russell: 'Raising money on classical subjects is not the easiest profession so I'm taking a holiday from that.' Actual meaning: 'No one will allow me to make another feature film on the life of a composer after the monumental disaster of Lisztomania.'Russell: 'To really appreciate the film you'd have to know quite a bit about the reality behind Liszt.' Actual meaning: 'If you knew nothing about Liszt before seeing the film then you'll be none the wiser afterwards.'Russell: 'Maybe it wasn't as successful as I'd have hoped it would be.'Actual meaning: 'It was a catastrophe that ruined my career.'Russell: 'In drawing the facts together I've probably annoyed the Wagner family more than I might have.' Actual meaning: 'I deeply offended and insulted the Wagner family for showing the following: 1) Wagner as a vampire who sucked blood from Liszt's neck 2) Wagner as a mad Frankenstein-like scientist who used his music to create a monster in his laboratory that would turn Germany into a great country3) Hitler as another monster that was created out of Wagner's body. Russell: 'I raised the odd eyebrow as I saw it.' Actual meaning: 'This film is totally over the top and I'm embarrassed by it.'Russell even stops his commentary nearly 6 minutes before the end of the film as though he couldn't bear it any longer and wanted to get out of the studio as quickly as possible. I don't blame him.I saw Lisztomania out of curiosity as it had been denounced as the most extreme of Russell's films so I shouldn't have been too surprised by what I saw but there really is nothing to recommend this film apart from Paul Nicholas who is actually quite good as Wagner.The film critic Alexander Walker likened Russell's The Devils (which incidentally is a much better film and nowhere near as over the top when you consider the subject matter) to the masturbatory fantasies of a Roman Catholic boyhood. Lisztomania seems like the masturbatory fantasies of the director himself. There's really no pleasure to be had in watching someone as talented as Russell undoubtedly was taking his career and flushing it down the toilet. Give it a miss.

chinch gryniewicz Do not waste a minute of your time on this. It is a truly awful film by any standard. It tries so hard to be funny, different, clever and over-the-top, but it just fails and fails and fails.... Please change your drugs, Mr. Russell. It does not even deserve the time it took to write this short review. Enough!And now IMDb tell me that a review must contain at least 10 lines. That's a bit like the film itself, then - nothing there, really, just a lot of noise and spectacle stretched out for no good reason at all. And, no doubt, a lot of people got paid a lot of money for it - a shame.

marie-236 Pure escapism! This film is fantastic. It contains farce, humour, nudity and crudity along with lots of laughs and many cringes. It's ludicrous, hilarious and colourful with great music and costumes. I like the music and also the paradox of some of the scenes. My daughter and I love it, and happy to watch it time and time again, but everyone we've loaned the video to can't get past the first 20 minutes, and think we are weird, so maybe we are off-the-wall like the film. I haven't seen the film Tommy and would like to do so now I've seen this. Don't watch Lisztomania if you are easily offended. Sit back, relax, take it all with a pinch of salt and you'll be grinning all night.

Matthew Janovic To many, this film is the stunning-proof that director Ken Russell never had it, and that idiocy and egotism were mistaken for genius. You could say mistaking idiocy and egotism for genius has been the appeal of rock music! Others might say that Russell is simply childish or immature, and that his films are the "masturbatory-fantasies" of an overgrown-adolescent. This belief is unfounded. Is this film over-indulgent? Yes it is, dear readers, very-much-so, because it is art, not entertainment. That-said, if you chuck any expectations, this is a funny film and allegory about the rise of pop-culture in the 19th Century. It draws parallels between Liszt's fame with the other generally-hollow spectacle known as "rock." This is great film-making, and it should be noted that it has similarities between itself and "Rocky Horror," and even "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," as they all examine and explore the relationships between sexuality and pop-culture in similar-areas. It really is true that women threw their underwear at Franz Liszt during his performances, and that he had many-many lovers--groupies.Lisztomania is an odd bridge-between "classic" rock and the emergent punk-movement of the time. The film can also be seen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive or rebellious at-all, but ultimately arch-conservative, and repressive. Amen. It's just a hilarious, wild-romp that will make your guests extremely nervous, which films should do. Movies should challenge people to think and reflect--at-least occasionally. Ironically (or maybe-not!), Mr. Russell had contracted Malcolm MacLaren and Vivienne Westwood to design the S&M-costumes for his film, "Mahler." It should also-be-noted that "Liszt-o-Mania" was released exactly the same year that MacLaren's shop "SEX" opened on King's Row, the rest is as they say, is history. It couldn't be more camp, it has Little Nell in it.Basically-put, this is about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop-culture, and WHAT we generally-want from our "pop-idols" (sex, of-course). One could easily-say this film criticizes the absurd spectacle that rock had become by 1975, and we get this quite-often in the film. But this theme goes much-deeper, into the relationship-between artist and patron (once, just the aristocracy, now the mob is added). The sexuality is about mass-psychology, too, so Wilhelm Reich gets-his-due, and there is a plethora of Freudian-imagery. It is certainly a very-personal film for Russell, and probably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enrages so-many critics, but it should be noted that some of the absurdity and excess came from the producer of the film, not Mr. Russell. Ken Rusell enrages all the right-people, and that's what some film-making should be.God love this lapsed-Catholic, and God love his ways. A flawed part of his canon, but very watchable and educational. As Russell began his career doing documentaries and impressionistic-films on composers for the BBC, it makes-sense that this is considered one of his most heretical-works. He complains about the opening country-song in his autobiography 'Altered States', and there were other aspects of the production he didn't want in the film. It's interesting to note that the 1980s was the period of his purest-work, due mainly to a three-picture-deal with Vestron. The 1970s were actually a very mixed-bag for him, as Lisztomania attests. He isn't entirely-pleased with it, but had some fun with the material, and there it is. I think it's a hoot, which means it isn't on DVD.