Product Description

Great Britain released, PAL/Region 0 DVD: it WILL NOT play on standard US DVD player. You need multi-region PAL/NTSC DVD player to view it in USA/Canada: LANGUAGES: English ( Dolby Digital 2.0 ), SYNOPSIS: Rudolph Valentino, born in Italy in 1895 as Alfonzo Raffaele Pierre Philibert Guglielmi, emigrated to the U.S. and became for a time the reigning male romantic lead of the silent-film era. He died in 1926, having led a short, troubled and tempestuous life which included several stints in prison. The crowds surrounding his coffin before and during his funeral were among the largest ever seen in the U.S. In this film, Ken Russell has used events from the famous actor's life as the basis for an extended meditation on the nature of stardom, and especially on what it means to be a sex idol. Beginning and ending with the funeral of Valentino (Rudolf Nureyev), the story chronicles his rise to Hollywood stardom from life as an Italian emigrant dishwasher and show-dancer. Often embroiled in controversies about his manliness (or perceived lack of ), in the film he dies as a result of internal injuries suffered in a boxing match he fought in to defend his honor.
SCREENED/AWARDED AT: BAFTA Awards,

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #116330 in DVD
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Format: NTSC
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 123 minutes

Customer Reviews

Deserves to be watched and bought for you home collection
I am not gonna talk about "Valentino"'s cinematic merits or Ken Russell's ones, for that matter. Previous reviewer has done a pretty good job on that. I'll just say that I own this movie and I watch it every so often. I enjoy it, because it is full of satirical images and it DOES take me back to the Hollywood of 20's. Of course, people should not consider it a real biographical movie about RV, but rather a huge satire with terrific costumes and wonderful cast. I must say that the film looses its edge half away thru; in the beginning you are taken by it, then it becomes more of a toy for Ken Russell himself. As for Nureyev's playing Valentino, I think that was THE INGENIOUS PART OF RUSSELL'S PLAN. Yes, it was Nureyev's first role in cinema (first and the only one, buy the way). Yes, he seems stiff at times, but I believe this was part of the idea: to "ham" it up a little in order to heighten the effects of constructed set (Hollywood of 20's). Anyone who saw Nureyev on stage/in ballet/ should have no doubts about his actor skills; he did not simply dance, he ACTED. Besides, for anyone who saw movies with Rudolpho Valentino (well, I did), com'on, how much "ham" is that, especially from today's perspective?.. NOW, think about it, Valentino and Nureyev: they had the same name, they were both dancers, they were both immigrants (suffering from not ever seeing their mothers again), they were both gay, they were both surepstars, etc. I think the similarities are uncanny! Russell took full advantage of them, by constucting a surrealistic plot, where you are not always sure whether you are watching Nureyev as Valentino, Nureyev as Nureyev, or even Valentino as Nureyev. That is possibly why Nureyev would want to play this role, even though he had not done any films before. ONE SCENE ESPECIALLY PROVES MY POINT ON THIS: right in the beginning we see young Valentino, who lived in NY then, is supposedly giving tango lessons to the great Nijinsky, who was also in NY at the same time with his troop ("Russian Seasons Ballet"). No such encounter ever happened in the real life, I am sure (Valentino was young and handsome small time jiggalo...Nijinksy's each move was monitored by Sergey Diagilev, troop's director and Nijinsky's pathologically jealous lover... Diagilev would have never allowed Nijinsky to see a handsome/ gay/Italian for private lessons or any such thing). So, how fanastic was it of Russell, to put two of the 20 century's greatest ballet dancers together in a marvellous tango? I just loved it: the idea itself and the scene! Anyway, if you watch this movie, you'll see it for yourselves. This movie is well-worth watching repeatedly.

A cinematic fantasy that provokes and enthralls
Ken Russell's "Valentino" was released in 1977 to the condemnation of most of the critical populace as well as the Catholic Church.Most of this disapproval was due to an ignorance of Ken Russell's artistic method,his intentions,and the extreme nature of some of his work.Over twenty years later with baroque directors more common and sexual and violent imagery less outre, "Valentino" deseves to be recognized as the undeniably flawed yet vital work of art that it is. Influenced by "Citizen Kane",Valentino's narrative is presented in a series of flashbacks by the people who admired,pitied,despised and loved the silent screen superstar.Ken Russell weaves tragedy and satire together to criticize the absurdities and nightmares engendered by the pursuit of the American Dream.The film dissects the obverse and reverse of stardom with its mindless and volatile adulation on one side and jealous hatred and contempt on the other."Valentino" also depicts the ethnocentism and homophobia of the 1920's-and by implication,as in most of Ken Russell's films,depicts ours as well.The film's tone is mercurial and constantly challenges you to think about what is being depicted as you are affected by its power.It enthralls as it provokes. Yet the film is not without its flaws.Rudolph Nureyev in his first acting role displays charm,grace and sex appeal-but he is sometimes stiff and lacks emotional depth.The great actress Alla Nazimova is savaged (in a very funny performance by Leslie Caron)as a pretentious and vain phony.Natasha Rambova(a very beautiful Michelle Phillips)is depicted as a shrill,grasping shrew.The screenplay as written by Ken Russell and his co-scenarist sounds unduely influenced by films of the early 1930's(though this does give the film atmosphere,you sometimes feel as if you were watching an R-rated Lloyd Bacon picture). Yet the film's merits make it worth experiencing.One can mention its exquisite art direction and costumes,its tour de force cinematography by Peter Suschitsky.But its Ken Russell's direction of its many great setpieces -choreographed with great intensity that are the ultimate proof of its genius.Not every setpiece works-one involving an empty-headed starlet brought to orgasm through sheer fantasysing while going through the motions of having sex with Valentino falls flat.But others such as Valentino's revenge on Fatty Arbunkle or the Nijinsky photo session with Nazimova and Rambova are emblematic of Ken Russell's use of images rather than words to achieve poetic comedy.Much more disturbing are Rambova's seance turned nightmare as well as the jail sequence in which various lowlifes sexually taunt Valentino and force him to urinate on himself.It is one of the most horrifying scenes in film history. "Valentino's" faults(such as its occasional historical inaccuracies and the aforementioned depictions of Nazimova and Rambova)seem irrelevant when you begin to understand that Ken Russell's intentions were not to tell Valentino's life story but to explore satiric and tragic themes based on his and his contemporaries' lives.His method is similiar to Shakespeare's Macbeth.Macbeth's raison d'etre was to enact corruption through ambition.The biographical or "real" Macbeth is of no significance to the play.Ken Russell's method is the same.This is not to say that he willfully distorts history for distortion's sake-but that he presupposes his audience will have prior familiarity with his subjects and will be able to reference both his fidelities and his departures from fact. Is "Valentino" a great film?I think it is, despite its uneveness-though I don't think it is one of Ken Russell's best films.But other great works of English art such as "Women Beware Women","Paradise Lost" and "David Copperfield" are all admittedly uneven and hopefully one day "Valentino" will be judged upon its strengths and not weaknesses -as they are.

VHS Tape - Valentino
I was pleased to find this tape. The vendor replaced one that would not play on my machine. The replacement was fine, but in the ensuing years, MGM or someone had seen fit to edit the tent scene. This was the first film in America with full frontal nudity. Unfortunately, that was edited out. That was difficult to understand 30 years after release.