bettycjung 4/7/18. Somewhat disappointing. I read that because of the explicit scenes of sex and violence, it was released two years after it was made in 1970, and then to mixed reviews. Over time it supposedly reached cult status, simply because this was Mick Jagger's first acting role. I don't think he was acting, he was just being himself. So, now 48 years later, even through nostalgic lens, it isn't artsy fartsy enough to be considered art house to me. The documentary short included on the DVD was an interesting watch as people involved with the filmed talked about the movie.

rodrig58 I've been waiting for decades to see this movie and finally I've done it. My interest was very high, considering the names of the two directors and a few names in the cast. Well, I was very disappointed. Most of the other reviewers gave it 10 stars. I can not give it more than 1 star, that is the minimum possible. Because I didn't like anything, the story is particularly irrelevant, nothing makes sense. Anita Pallenberg and Michèle Breton show their empty bodies absolutely free to pass the time, almost half of the movie that's what we see. I can not even talk about their "acting" performance... I like Mick Jagger, as a singer, in Rolling Stones, but as an actor, really... James Fox is a good actor, but he has no place in this movie. Static, boredom, big waste of time!

Alex da Silva Gangster James Fox (Chas) quite correctly exacts revenge on fellow bad-guy Anthony Valentine (Joey). But, this goes against the wishes of his boss Johnny Shannon (Harry) and so he has to go into hiding to prepare his escape from the country. The police are also looking for him although they don't figure at all in this film. Fox holes up in a house owned by faded rock star Mick Jagger (Turner) which he shares with a couple of druggy hippie chicks – Anita Pallenberg (Pherber) and Michèle Breton (Lucy). These three swap philosophies and indulge in a spot of identity swapping as well as a magic mushroom breakfast. Fox goes on a trip and he and Jagger truly become one. Meanwhile the gangsters are still searching for Fox… This film definitely has 2 parts – the beginning gangster story and then the unworldly lodgings with Jagger. The latter part of the film is quite amusing and both my wife and I commented that we should spend all our afternoons like that, especially when they are partying to the music. Let's all get a bit boho. I'm sure there are things to spot on another viewing. The cast are good although Johnny Shannon (Harry) doesn't quite cut it as top dog. His surname is Flowers, though, which suggests a pansy in charge – and the Krays are obviously given another nod in this offering by look-a-like gangsters.Both lifestyles no longer survive – the gangster world is totally different as is the bohemian lifestyle on show. Who does mushrooms these days? Back in the day, though….

Nooblethenood I suppose I come to this from a slightly difficult perspective, having seen some of Nicolas Roeg's more recent films before this. Compared with the rest of his output, as far as I can see, this is far superior, but it's not so easy to judge things impartially with exposure to so much inferior work.In any case, certainly this feels like the most successful of Roeg's films. Of course, I recognise his is co-director and co-producer, but his visual style is immediately obvious. This comes with its problems. For a cinematographer, he is surprisingly shy of framing shots very carefully. There is a very spontaneous, somewhat 'wobbly' quality to much of the visuals in Performance. However, in this instance this does rather fit with the atmosphere and aesthetic of the whole thing. It is, after all, the story of a deeply troubled young man, swinging between excesses of violence, sex, cultural and social self-discovery and all that. That having been said, however, again in a rather typical Roeg foible, none of those themes is really investigated. Everything is on the outside, a simple, visual experience of a few people's lives coming into confusion with each other. Not necessarily a bad thing, but with little story to speak of, one is rather left wondering what was the point of it all.The film, though, does give a striking portrait of a particular kind of social existence, one that was current at the time of its making, but in truth is probably applicable at most times and in most places. The suggestion that the criminal and bourgeois margins of society actually have much in common in terms of the nature of their somewhat teetering existence is a valid one. It's interestingly portrayed, and certainly eccentrically so. The performances are convincing, as you would expect, and unlike David Bowie's presence in 'The Man Who Fell to Earth', you don't ever feel that Jagger is simply trading on his familiarly odd outward character - there is a genuine enigmatic quality to his performance, and it brings something to the atmosphere of the film. James Fox, again, is on good form, if often called upon to manifest a limited palette of expressions of confusion and inner turmoil - a fuller script would have benefited this.All in all, a very atmospheric film with a certain captivating music to it, and certainly the only film of Roeg's that I have ever found to be really successful.