The Legend of Valentino (1975 TV Movie) User Reviews

I'll say it was a "Romantic Fiction"!...

[AlsExGal · 4/10 · 24 June 2023]

... which is what is written under the title in this complete fantasy.

I don't know Valentino's life story like the back of my hand like I know Buster Keaton's, but I know enough to realize that only some of the names are correct, but dates, the order of films, and especially the relationships between the players are all wrong.

Valentino's first role was not "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". It was his breakout role, but he'd been in films for seven years prior. In the final scene he's onstage after "Son of the Sheik" has played and says he came to the United States three years before. That would be 1923, which was two years after Four Horsemen, which would be quite a feat. June Mathis, who wrote several of Valentino's best films, did not come from Brooklyn, and did not move there. She continued to write scripts until her death in 1927, just a year after Valentino died. And most importantly, Valentino did not meet Mathis by burglarizing her house one night when he was hungry.

All of this is the work of producer Aaron Spelling, who produced "mind candy" shows for TV like Charlie's Angels throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s. Thus this is par for the course. So he makes Valentino out to be an easily conned rube who is considered gay by all of the women in his life in spite of his reputation.

I will say that the performances were good, whoever it was that the actors were actually portraying.

THE LEGEND OF VALENTINO (TV) (Melville Shavelson, 1975) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 10 December 2011]

I was only vaguely aware of this one, so much so that I added it to the Ken Russell tribute schedule (since he also made a film about Valentino) at the very last minute! Interestingly, Russell's big-screen biopic was released a mere 2 years after this TV-film, just as Karel Reisz's 1968 version of ISADORA came hot on the heels of Russell's own for the small-screen from 2 years previously!

Like those 2 biopics, there are the expected similarities but also major differences between each version: Shavelson's background in scriptwriting serves him in good stead (especially as delivered by Suzanne Pleshette, playing a scriptwriter herself i.e. June Mathis who is credited with giving Valentino his big break). However, here, we are supposed to believe that the actor (played by Franco Nero – a fellow handsome Italian, at least, but who managed to transcend the Latin Lover image fairly early on) became an instant star upon entering the movie industry when he had really languished in the medium for a good 7 years prior to making THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE (1921): with this in mind, his lead role in the film is described as small but significant(!) and, what is more, since he is caught by Pleshette – who immediately notices his magnetic qualities and iconic possibilities – burgling her house (his very first line of dialogue, in fact, is the Italian cussword "stronza"!), she fakes an aristocratic background for him on the spot!

As with the Russell version, the script plays around with the chronology of events (1925's THE EAGLE – incongruously shown in a montage via snippets of the genuine Valentino footage – comes before BLOOD AND SAND, made a full 3 years prior to it!). Incidentally, judging by the titles that are mentioned, one would think that the star made nothing but exotic costumers, when this is clearly not the case and that he knew beforehand just what properties would suit him (since no sooner is HORSEMEN released that he is already discussing the acquisition of CAMILLE, actually as Alla Nazimova's leading man – his future wife Natacha Rambova had been a close collaborator of hers and possibly even lover, BLOOD AND SAND and MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE!). While Rambova is shown being superstitiously influenced by runes in the Ken Russell picture, here she persuades Valentino to attend a séance in order to communicate with his mother (who passed away during the shooting of CAMILLE, as per this version and while he was still on HORSEMEN according to Russell's)!

While he is also shown being involved with his leading ladies, this one commits the cardinal sin of making Rambova (as played by a dark-haired Yvette Mimieux) a total bore and utterly unsympathetic to boot – while Michelle Philips from the later film may not have looked anything like the genuine article (but, then, neither did Rudolf Nureyev), her striking looks at least make us accept his dependence on her! Indeed, as already intimated, Pleshette comes across much better (with the film's best scene – which does not appear in Russell's biopic and is probably a complete fabrication – being the one towards the end when Nero presents Pleshette's Mathis as the real force behind the Valentino image). Despite the fact that some of Valentino's directors appear here (notably Rex Ingram), they are not played by recognizable faces as in Russell's film, but we do get Milton Berle as Paramount head Jesse L. Lasky and Judd Hirsch in more or less the part played by Seymour Cassel in 1977. Besides while the actor's effeminacy ("finocchio") is brought up, oddly enough, the boxing match held in order to uphold his manliness is omitted – as is, for that matter, the 2-year sabbatical he took from movie-making after the failure of the expensive THE YOUNG RAJAH (1922; which, regrettably, is currently unavailable for appraisal)!

Well, at least the subtitle is honest...

[MissSimonetta · 5/10 · 6 November 2023]

While less putrid than the Ken Russell debacle released a few years later, this TV biopic of Rudolph Valentino is about as truthful. At the very least, the subtitle of THE LEGEND OF VALENTINO is "A romantic fiction." It admits upfront that this script is BS.

Being a 70s TV movie, it's shot in the pedestrian fashion you'd expect and the cheese is laid on thick. There is a certain pleasure to corny TV movies very much present here, though it's soured by the film's gross sexual politics, particularly regarding the controversial Natacha Ramobva, Valentino's second wife. Rambova has been pilloried for decades as a controlling pest and heartless harpy, micromanaging Valentino's career to further her own and refusing to give him the children he so wanted. This ignores two things: 1) Rambova had a successful career as an art director and designer before Valentino entered her life; her desire to collaborate on films with him came from wanting them to be creative as well as romantic partners, and 2) Rambova was upfront about not wanting children before the two were married. I'm not arguing Rambova was an angel, but from what I've read, I have no doubt the Valentino/Ramobva marriage was initially founded on mutual affection before it all fell apart.

This movie doesn't bother with such nuance. Rambova is a monster who emasculates her husband constantly, withholding sex on their wedding night before a frustrated Valentino drags her to bed and rapes her in a scene of catastrophic bad taste. Shot in slow motion and accompanied by "The Sheik of Araby" in minor key, I'm not even sure what the filmmakers want the audience to feel watching it: Horror? Sorrow? Titillation? Satisfaction that this "evil woman" is getting subdued and humiliated? The blocking of the sequence is meant to suggest the famous ravishment scene in THE SON OF THE SHEIK, but that film is meant to be sadomasochistic fantasy divorced from reality, not a depiction of the marriage of two actual, complicated, flesh and blood human beings.

The great ironic thing about Valentino was that in real life he was not the dashing bad boy or romantic icon he played in so many movies. He was a mild-mannered guy who liked tinkering with cars and making spaghetti, and he had horrible luck in his romantic relationships. Onscreen, he took charge of swooning women, but in reality, he could barely take charge of his own life.

Both this movie and the Russell film give shallow nods to that irony but they're too obsessed with lurid sex or the question of Valentino being gay or bisexual to bother fleshing him out as a person or properly engaging with the tragedy of his celebrity. Sadly, as in Valentino's own life, the fantasy of his screen image obscures the far more fascinating reality.

Something resembling the truth would have been nice.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 8 February 2022]

The second of three movies about the silent film legend, This TV movie came out two years before the more controversial Ken Russell film, and is even more obscure than the 1951 Columbia film starring Anthony Dexter. Here, the Italian heartthrob is played by Franco Nero, a realistic casting choice, but you see more of the character played by Suzanne Pleshette (a scriptwriter of silent movies) then you really find out about Valentino himself. The film simply flashes over so much of his life, starting with Pleshette finding Valentino robbing her house, holding a gun on him, then telling the police that they were lovers having a fight. He goes on to a quickie marriage with starlet Lesley Ann Warren that ends on their honeymoon, becomes a heartthrob by the way he treats women on screen (tossing them around, hitting them before bedding them), something that Pleshette's character insists that women want. I cringed at those words coming out of Pleshette's mouth, and I'm sure she cringed being forced to say them.

Other than a few mentions of a few other silent stars, (Nazimova, Tom Mix), everybody he works with here seems to be a fictional name, while characters played by Judd Hirsch and Milton Berle are obviously pseudonyms for people whose names they couldn't use. The narration by Pleshette doesn't seem appropriate for this tale, a legend which is simply another word for fiction. It's not her fault. They should have just made the whole thing fictional, created a Valentino like star, rather than try to create something that rings so false. Other films about Hollywood's early years coming out during the wave of nostalgia failed around the same time too, and it's no surprise that the 1977 Ken Russell version was a critical disaster. At least the production design is in keeping with the time period. This TV movie, while not absolutely terrible, isn't really recommended for giving a good look at the silent era and the issues of the heartthrob behind the legend.

Franco Nero,credible as Valentino

[AudemarsPiguet · 7/10 · 26 February 2005]

Not necessarily worse than the Ken Russel version.In fact it is hard to tell which one of them is the better and/or the worse,both of them having flaws as well as qualities. It is often hard to tell which is the best out of two films,simply because every film has its distinctive style and therefore it is hard to say what is better or worse,it's just style. Franco Nero is a more credible Valentino than Nurejew,in compare to the Russian ballet-dancer,he even has a genuine Italian accent,besides he looks more...Italian,he is passionate and handsome(maybe less expressive,yet more conventionally good looking than Nurejew) enough to pass as the(once)world's greatest lover. On the other hand this version is not so much a quizzical art film like the Ken Russel version,though it doesn't lack symbolical,metaphorical scenes-not in the inimitable Russel style,just to add a slight touch of class and mystery. The overall impression of this film is,as expected,of an immense,lavish parade of twenties'lifestyle,depicted in a both accurate and entertaining way. The focus of the story is about the relationship between Valentino and his friend,companion and adviser June Mathis,who(as it often happens in Tinseltown)did get few rewards for the fact that she facilitated most of his career-and while he became rich and famous overnight,she ended up increasingly poor,lonely and forgotten;and still she doesn't hold the grudge,still being devoted(and probably hopelessly in love)towards him.A probably overreacted love story,but it fits good into the film. In fact,almost everything about Valentino both as an actor and a private person seems to be a legend,a marketing gag,a one man-show,a cult of personality.Franco Nero,rather than deconstructing the myth,does a good job fitting into the Valentino legend. All in all the film is pleasant,entertaining,even fascinating at first view. I was inclined to think that movies like this are only for the fans of the period film,but now I'm convinced that films like this or like Russel's Valentino,Day of the Locust,The Bad and the Beautiful,The Last Tycoon and others like this should be watched by anyone once in a while,just to see the other face of that loved,hated,worshiped,but never quite totally understood Hollywood(and its either forgettable or immortal mass-produced idols).