Rosebud

1975
5.2| 2h7m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 24 March 1975 Released
Producted By: United Artists
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

In a bold coup a Palestinian terrorist group captures the yacht Rosebud and kidnaps the millionaires five daughters on it. At first they demand film clips to be shown on major European TV stations. Undercover agent Martin is hired to hunt the terrorists down.

Genre

Action, Thriller

Watch Online

Rosebud (1975) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Otto Preminger

Production Companies

United Artists

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial
Watch Now
Rosebud Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Rosebud Audience Reviews

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie
SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless
Beanbioca As Good As It Gets
PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
JasparLamarCrabb A disaster. Forget the inflammatory political suppositions, the film is a disgrace on just about every level. A group of wealthy girls is kidnapped by the PLA(?) and CIA operative Peter O'Toole is brought in to locate them in director Otto Preminger's woefully misguided "thriller." The director, usually one of the most sure footed technicians, really loses his touch with this film. There are times when the camera pans so quickly, one is left wondering if Preminger is unable to recall who or what the focus of action should be. Scripted by Preminger's son, the movie is neither suspenseful nor exciting. It's muddled, at times awkward and almost completely miscast. O'Toole, a replacement for Robert Mitchum, literally mugs at the camera in a few scenes and the rest of the actors appear either fleetingly (Peter Lawford is in one scene) or look ridiculous (Richard Attenborough as a Brit who's running a terrorist outfit from a cave in Lebanon). And just WHAT is former NYC mayor John V. Lindsay doing in this? Fortunately for Preminger, he had one more film in him (THE HUMAN FACTOR) which turned out to be one if his best.
nycexpatagain Spot Cliff Gorman (Cathy Casserole of The Boys in the Band), John V. Lindsey (of the Mayor's office of New York City -- wow, he was handsome!) and Kim Cattrell (Liverpool-born, but who put the sex in Sex and the City) Hint: none of these emblematic New Yorkers are sporting New York accents. Isabel Huppert and Otto Preminger and Peter Lawford are amusingly findable, too. Okay, now you've had the fun that's to be had from this sadly prophetic, but soft-core version of terrorism. Plenty of tiresome speeches about Palestine and "the Jews," and Israel, all of which are far, far past all expiration dates. Oh yes, one other pleasure for those of a certain age is a bit of retro-tourism for the way Europe looked thirty-forty years ago. Enjoy.
Psalm 52 After reading so many reviewers opinions written against this film, I am very glad I saw it tonight. It is the 70's "Syriana" and/or "Munich." It is NOT James Bond, thank god! O'Toole was fine by my taste, just as I'd like a Newsweek-writer-cum-CIA-agent to be portrayed. I especially enjoy his verbal banter w/ the one the father's of the kidnap victims, and his verbal battle w/ the German dyke, photo shop owner. While some reviewers complain that the pacing is s-l-o-w, it requires just this type of feel for what is a docu-film disguising itself as a studio release. The few scenes w/ Attenborough are all that is needed to establish the evil in terrorism. It's no coincidence this film was made in the 70's ... our little geo-political landscape hasn't changed.
kyle-garabadian-1 Here is even more evidence of the decline of director Otto Preminger in the 1970's. His penultimate film is egregiously horrific. This suspense thriller lacks both suspense and thrills. The films hackneyed script by Preminger's no talent progeny just barely surpasses the ham-fisted direction that Otto delivers.Perhaps he let his son direct most of this movie too. It certainly looks like the work of a complete amateur. Unlike many of his other failures, which are at least interesting to watch, this film has no redeeming value at all. The first problem is the way the film plods along. At times we just wonder if this story is ever going to get moving. Secondly, all of the somnolent actors look like they are lost and confused. Finally none of the characters we are suppose to be sympathetic towards deserve are sympathy. They seem either banal or puerile. Is it any wonder Mitchum turned down this stinker!