Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

treblemaker-2 This film was designed for children, and as a result, it is an excellent movie if used for that purpose only. Having said that, the fact that this film won any awards is beyond me.Pro: Neil Munro is to Beethoven as Tom Hulce was to Mozart (in Amadeus) - absolutely and perfectly dead-on! If one were to meet the real Beethoven, this is likely the person they would see.Cons: Everything else.Children might not notice the difference, and that's fine, but from a factual point of view, take this one with more than a grain of salt. There are so many errors and artistic liberties taken by Heather Conkie (who I respect for her work done, both past and present) that this film can never be taken as anything more than pure fiction with regards to Beethoven and his life.Examples: In the film, Beethoven says he's becoming deaf for six years. This would put his age at about mid-30's, yet the premise of the film is that he has just died. This wasn't about to happen for another 20+ years or so. Also, in the film, he is working on his 9th Symphony. Fact: it should have been his 7th, but Conkie has altered history for the sake of the children. And there's much more. So, in this respect alone, don't plan to do a master's thesis on the factual stuff in this film - it's mostly fiction.Then there's the acting itself, which ranges from wooden to horrible to outright poor. Illya Woloshyn as the young boy Christoph is just terrible, as is Albert Schultz as Uncle Kurt. Veteran actor Paul Soles almost makes a convincing Schindler, who in actual life was a more dominant personality, and the only one who could boss Beethoven around and get away with it. Sheila McCarthy's only good scenes are where she goes toe-to-toe with Munro's Beethoven, and these are worth the price of admission alone.So, providing this film is seen only by children up to the age of maybe 10, it's excellent. To anyone older, it's horribly misleading, slower than a glacier and historically butchered beyond the call of duty. Its only saving grace is that it's a children's film on Beethoven. And as far as I know, it's the ONLY one. Not hard to be number 1 in a group of 1.Caution: Watch at own risk.

jessi4788 I first saw this movie 12 years ago, as a first grade student. I didn't think much about it - it was a really neat movie, and I was jealous that Christoph got to meet someone who I'd always heard adults refer to with reverence and admiration. I don't think I really realized how much I'd enjoyed it until we were given the opportunity to buy the film. I didn't have enough saved to buy the VHS, but I could afford the cassette soundtrack. When it arrived I was so excited. I took it home and spent hours listening to the story over and over, until I could practically recite it word for word. As I grew up, I would occasionally stumble across it and listen to the story again with a smile. Now, as a freshman in college, I'm taking a course on Beethoven's Symphonies. I credit my interest to seeing this movie as a child. It's a fantastic film for children. Is it on the same level as Amadeus? No, but it's still very much worth watching, and is a great way to introduce the great classical composers to young minds.

ladycat-1 I have seen this movie many times and even own it. It is excellently written and produced. I have shown it to my piano students to give them a better understanding of the life of Beethoven. It is very definitely kid friendly as opposed to "Immortal Beloved" because of the content.The young boy goes through an adjustment period after having lost his father, that is compounded by having what appears at first glance to be a monster living upstairs in his house. The 'monster' of course turns out to Beethoven! When showing it to young children as part of a class, it is recommended that one should give a bit of background on exactly who Beethoven is and that these events are not happening in real time. They may tend to buy into the events a little too much. Explanation might also be needed about his deafness. The actor who portrayed Beethoven did a very excellent job of getting across the difficulty of being able to hear so much wonderful music in your head but always knowing the frustration of never being able to actually hear it.The costumes are very accurate for the period and the cinematography is also very good. I give this movie, eight stars!

MovieHoovie Beethovan Lives Upstairs is a very bad movie. In my World History class, our teacher had us watch this movie and Amadeus to be able to compare the two composers or something. We watched Amadeus first and it was a very good movie, but when she had us watch this movie directly after that, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The acting was horrific, the costumes were ugly (the little boy's was especially ugly and girlish), and the cinematography was z-grade. My Friend compared it to a home movie without the date display in the bottom right corner. I understand this was a T.V. movie from Canada and probably cost $10 to make, but please, they could have done better. I have seen a few good T.V. movies in my time, but this was not one of them. The biggest thing that I don't understand is why my World History class couldn't just watch Immortal Beloved or something. How is it possible to compare composers when given the movie Amadeus, for Mozart, and Beethovan Lives Upstairs, for Beethovan? It's not possible to do that when this is the choice of movie for Beethovan. I give Amadeus an A- (9 out of 10) if anyone cares to know, but Beethovan Lives Upstairs gets an F (1 out of 10).