hyped garbage

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Critically much maligned but really rather an outstanding screen adaptation of Nathanael West's 'difficult' novel about Hollywood in the 1930's and based on West's own experiences there as a 'hack' writer. The British director John Schlesinger helmed the picture, bringing much the same jaundiced eye to bear on proceedings as he did in "Midnight Cowboy". Waldo Salt wrote the excellent script and the outstanding cast included Karen Black as the wannabe actress trying to make it big in the movies, Burgess Meredith as her drunken father, William Atherton as the young art director in love with her and Donald Sutherland as the sad and lonely Homer Simpson that Black all but destroys and whose presence instigates the films tragic ending. The great Conrad Hall photographed the picture and the monstrous child is Jackie Earle Haley.

Based on one of Nathanael West's five short novels, this movie portrays and attacks Hollywood of the late 30s, just as the Nashville, released the same year, satirized Nashville. Although there have been many satires about the movie industry, none is quite as acerbic as this one.Set in a Southwestern adobe apartment complex, the San Bernardino Arms, we see an assortment of Hollywood hopefuls, has beens, and want-to-bes as well as some hucksters and con men. The story is viewed through the eyes of Tod Hackett (William Atherton), a talented Yale sketch artist and set designer who actually does get a Hollywood job in his chosen field. Faye Greener (Karen Black) is there as an extra and dreams of making it big someday. She lives with her father, Harry Greener (Burgess Meredith), a washed up vaudevillian clown who goes from neighborhood to neighborhood, selling bottles of elixir, using his old vaudeville routine as a sales pitch.Adore (Jackie Earle Haley) is the brat child actor with the stereotypical stage mother. Another REALLY obnoxious character is Abe Kusich (Billy Barty), a dwarf bookie who takes advantage of his difference, knowing that no one can really fight back—I've personally known people like this who use their apparent disadvantages to their own obnoxious advantage. (Both Adore and Abe fit into this category. I mean, who can lash out against a child or a dwarf?) Homer Simpson (Donald Sutherland) also belongs to this strange group of Hollywood misfits. He is really the ultimate outsider. He is a strange repressed accountant from the Midwest, who really wants to be loved for who he is. After Harry Greener's death, Faye, uses Homer---for his money and slavish love —as long as his unrequited worship of her remains intact.Most of the men love Faye and want her as their girlfriend or lover. She almost drives Tod crazy, since he tries to get her to love him, but she says something like 'I don't love you that way.' When he asks her why she would have sex for money, she screams 'That's different!! They are STRANGERS!!!' The asexual Homer is different too: He just loves to be around her and cook for her. "Big Sister (Geraldine Page)—who could have been based on Aimee Semple McPherson—is the woman evangelist begging for money in exchange for promises of everlasting live, health, and happiness is Hollywood's religion, 'the false, utopian theology California is famous for." I'm not sure what the symbolism is behind the movie's constant motif of cockfighting. It could represent male sexual competition (cock fighting) or it could be the need for voyeuristic nihilism so prevalent in Hollywood. The final scene of the movie is very long. (And I think it is way overdone.) It starts with a Hollywood premier of Cecil B. DeMille's The Buccaneer (1938)and ends in chaos, death, and destruction. The movie is mostly filmed through a yellow lens, suggesting 'sunny' Southern California.

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

I haven't read the novel that this is based upon, but I would like to. Have you ever wondered what it would feel like to be trapped in front of a car crash just about to happen, with no means of preventing it? That's what this is. You see the people, the situations, and you want to crawl through the screen and stop them. This movie hurts. At no point did this make me smile, or inspire any hope. I see another reviewer has called it nihilistic, and I agree. Is this a failure on the film's part? I don't think so. It's what it set out to be. On principle and as a personal test of strength, I try to never look away from what I'm watching, unless it's visually disgusting(not the case here). Yet this often had me avert my eyes. Not in response to the presentation, which is excellent, but the content. It is rather unpleasant. Set during the Great Depression, this shows us several youths in California, with dreams of making it big. What happens is that Hollywood chews them up and spits them out, and proceeds to walk out the door like it was nothing. This could also be argued to be somewhat about materialism. While I realize that this is not the only famous picture about this, it is the only I have seen, as far as I can remember. We see intolerable, superficial celebrities(not to mention wanna-be's) and those that suck up to them. The climax is extremely visceral, and I'm not sure when I was last that gripped and affected by, well, anything. Atherton is Tod, who wants to make it in the art department. Sutherland is Homer Simpson(no relation), an incredibly pitiful, lonely middle-aged man. And Black is miscast as Faye, the object of the males' desire. She nails the obnoxious, unrealistic and spoiled aspects, and I can't complain about her empty, glassy-eyed stare. Where she comes up short is that she isn't sensual or sexy. Yes, she is meant to have been mangled by the city as well; however, we don't find her attractive or alluring, and it harms the overall result. The acting is great. These characters are not likable; they are interesting enough, and I wasn't bored following them. I've heard others describe this as excessively long... I suppose cutting it down could help it. The dialog is well-written. This is sardonic and darkly comical in tone. There is a lot of disturbing content, some brutal violence and blood, and a little sexuality in this. The DVD comes with no extras. I recommend this to those that this sounds appealing to. 7/10