The Day of the Locust (1975)

the audience applauded

Such a frustrating disappointment

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

This movie, its like: You come home from work, right, come home and there are your kids, only it appears that they've performed some sort of autopsy/voodoo ritual on a llama and now the reanimated mutilated corpse of the beast lumbers about through your trashed living room, at your children huddled together for safety in the corner you yell, " What did you DO!? ". So to this movie do I yell, " The f*ck did you do!? " I mean there's a scene where a cock-fight is depicted as erotic, who would DO that ? How is that erotic ? Sh*tty people who force animals to mutilate one another to death and bet on the outcome, that sound sexy to you ? Awesome bro good for you. No, for real this movie is nuts, if you've never seen this movie I dare you-I DARE YOU- to watch this movie

I wasn't going to write a review but felt guilty that someone might read all the film school gushing and watch this dreck. I'm not a young man and I regret wasting 2½ hours just to learn a lesson.Very good acting, great characterization, loathsome characters (which I like) and an excellent premise, but just a premise. We unfortunate viewers are bashed over the head with the idea that people in Hollywood are bad. Over and over and over for two hours and twenty four minutes. This may be a spoiler, but how can I spoil something that rotted before the novel's author sat down at his Corona portable? The over the top ending is not needed to reinforce Hollywood bad- it is needless violence- not even entertaining violence. I've said this before and fear I will say it again- you can't act your way out of a bad script. Don't watch this movie, if only to learn from its mistakes. Find a copy of Carey McWilliams' Southern California Country (1946). His book covers the thinking behind Hollywood and its neighbors in greater depth and with wit. Lesson learned for the short remainder of my life- no more 1970s dramas except for thrillers.

You could write a whole book on the topic, "Movies About Movie-Making" – indeed Rudy Behlmer and Tony Thomas did just that with their Hollywood's Hollywood back in 1979. For this movie, they give a rave review. However , I disagree. Even though it is superbly photographed and set, I would describe Day of the Locust as an over-rated, pretentious, and disappointing production. Admittedly, Burgess Meredith , brilliant actor that he is, adds some zing to the turgid goings-on , but, aside from William Castle's curiosity-value brief appearance as the Waterloo movie director and the spectacularly staged "accident" on that set, the movie tends to out-stay its welcome. Donald Sutherland is a drag and some sequences like the cock-fighting episode (which doesn't figure in the book at all) could well be eliminated to tighten the very meandering, self-indulgent plot. Paul Stewart in an all-too-brief scene as the Zanuck-style studio head, plus Black and Atherton are mildly effective. The precocious brat of a kid is also very credible, but the film's longueurs and its arty climax destroy pace, illusion – and believability.

Something prevents me from giving a thumbs down for this classic. This movie got away in being a bad film but it's quite weak if compared to movies with a similar theme that appeared before and after it. It's a confusing and strangely empty film carried with an impressive imagery that slowly dies in front of you, almost a tragedy if we consider the amazing ensemble casting, the screenwriter and the director.Based on the acclaimed novel by Nathanael West, "The Day of the Locust" haunt us back to the inglorious days of the Great Depression, most precisely, the story is situated in the non-stopping factory of dreams called Hollywood and its glamor with its films and stars. There, an variety of empty souls and figures such as an film art director (William Atherton), an actress (Karen Black), her old father (Burgess Meredith), the frustrated accountant Homer Simpson (what an coincidence!) (played by Donald Sutherland) and others try to build a future of their own in this God forsaken place where no kind of values existed, and where the appearances, money, fame count more than love or anything. According to some, here's an work about people's alienation and desperation in trying to get what they want and the things they do to stay on a comfortable position.Movies that work with hyperlinked situations and multiple characters need to introduce instigating moments, to keep us curious right until the ending, and connect everything and everyone in one same context or message. Now, John Schlesinger film even back then in 1975 trying to do something that is most regular now, failed a little in its connections; it doesn't know how to make us interested in this messy portrait. Characters and performances keep on slowly dying in front of our eyes. Atherton, Sutherland, Black, Meredith are all great actors and their characters have great beginnings, they're very promising but after they're established in the movie and what they do, their development until the conclusion gets uninteresting to watch, so numb. Some of the situations are presented without a clear meaning (the cockfight, Karen Black's back and forth relations with men, leaving one for another, then returning) no emotion is given or taken from anyone or anything (part of this is comprehensible because of the movie's theme but sometimes it just doesn't work).The dream-like aspects of this film, the art direction, costumes, electrifying moments such as the disaster on the film set of a Napoleonic war and the shocking ending (ok, it wasn't all that much for me, and by the way, the boy deserved his ending and I know I shouldn't say that but that's what I think), all those moments are magically filmed, brilliantly presented. In the whole, these are the things that count a little for making this a favorable piece to watch. Lately, I've been watching films that are a little bit flawed in creating and giving a message or a purpose but somehow their presentation, their package and visual are interesting to make you at least compensated for the lack of destination. They worth your view and at least are a hundred times better than some recent films. But all I can say was that the same story scheme worked way better in "Ragtime" (1981). 6/10