Tockinit not horrible nor great

SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Kirpianuscus at first sigh, more a Ken Russell film than a biopic about Mahler. irreverent, to poetic, crazy in few scenes, far by the public image of the great composer. in fact, a great work. not only for the strange biographical accuracy but for the fascinating exploration of a ambiguous existence essence. because each step to the legend is presented with subtle precision. it is not the portrait of a statue but the story of the circle of a man. and the option for the lead role of Robert Powell is a fantastic idea. not for physical resemblance but for the art to define the sides of choices, answers to tragedy, self definition of a young Jew in Austrian society, success and shadows of marriage. a film of his music in same measure, provocative, as each film by Ken Russell, Mahler is a seductive show. and this is the most important motif for see it.

aklcraigc Continuing with his theme of artistic 'biography', Ken Russell brings us 'Mahler'. There is no real plot per se, the movie consists of a series of vignettes very loosely based on various phases of Mahler's life, each one is brought to life in Russell's florid and romantic style, with the Lake District once again serving as Russell's scenic background. The highlight of the movie is probably the 'conversion' sequence, which has to be seen to be believed. Wagner's descendants must have been thrilled with the portrayal of Cosima Wagner as a whip cracking Nazi. A must see for Russell fans, probably best avoided by musical historians and sticklers for accuracy.

jonathanruano The life of Gustav Mahler could potentially be turned into a brilliant film if the right combination of great actors and a good screenplay is achieved. As for Ken Russell's "Mahler" film, it is a close call, but ultimately it gets thumbs down. Robert Powell does a good job playing the protagonist, but everyone one else in the film is average or mediocre. But the main weakness of "Mahler" is the screenplay. The narrative is disorganized and jumps all over the place. First we see Mahler at the end of his life, then we see him as a child, then we see him at the end of his life again, then we see him as the young and ambitious composer willing to do anything to get ahead in the music world, then switch back to his meeting with a doctor in Paris, then to a cottage where Mahler tells his wife Alma (Georgina Hale) that she should abandon composing music, etc., etc. Disoriented? Don't worry. You are not alone.But worse than the scattered presentation is the undercurrent of silliness running through the movie. If you are going to do a movie about Mahler, then present your subject matter in an intelligent and serious way. But Russell does not do that. He has this tendency of getting carried away. At best, Russell's over the top filmmaking could generate incredible laughter. But if the joke does not work, then the result is incredibly embarrassing. Having Gustav Mahler fantasize about his wife Alma as a cocoon is not only strange, but also absurd. If Russell was trying to make a joke out of this sequence, then the joke did not work. Another scene has Alma Mahler playing a topless stripper for several Nazis, one of whom is her lover. I guess no one told Ken Russell that the Nazi party did not exist in 1911. But perhaps the most ridiculous scenes, where Russell goes way overboard, involve Gustav Mahler's conversion to Catholicism. First Gustav lowers his trousers to Emperor Franz Joseph after the latter asked him to do so. This scene was inserted to bring up the composer's Jewish identity. Then Gustav Mahler has this fantasy encounter with Cosima Wagner who is dressed -- get this! -- as a dominatrix with a swastika on her leather pants. Was this scene necessary? Apparently, Gustav has to become Cosima's sex slave to convert to Catholicism and get a job at the Vienna Opera House. When watching this scene, I could not help but think that Russell was portraying not Mahler's fantasies, but his own, and that his inspiration came not from the early 20th century, but the sleaziest strip clubs and dominatrix clubs of London.The result is a film that has some interesting scenes, but is otherwise dragged down by silly fantasies. This film is filled from beginning to end with Mahler's compositions, and yet we are given no insight into his genius or his humanity. Mahler was probably one of the finest composers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But Russell makes Mahler the subject of a freak show, in which the protagonist is put on display and humiliated. Perhaps the director is trying to make a joke or maybe he is trying to tweak the noses of professional film directors who take their craft seriously. Maybe Russell is even making fun of Mahler and his obsession with conformity. Whatever Russell is trying to do, "Mahler" plays like a joke in poor taste.

victorsargeant Yes, you had to have developed an appetite for Ken Russell's visions. Mahler works beautifully for me. I happen to like Mahler's music and historically, Russell, captures the juice of this man's genius.Russell moves behind the music, into the skin of Mahler, his wife, Alma, and the tragic circumstances that surround them.Mahler would have smiled when experiencing Russell's image of him. Thomas Mann's book, Death in Venice, is about Mahler, and Russell includes the railroad station scene, with the young boy and the business man, courting a bit, and then the camera, goes to Mahler, who understands whats going on here, and smiles, in amusement. Clever touch for Russell, but is most likely lost on the general audience. Not to say Mahler liked little boys, but his sexual orientation was ambiguous, at best.Alma was like that, and the officer, whom she was having an affair, was most likely that way? Mahler went to see Freud over this affair in reality. Russell always takes us inside the psychological drama and visualizes, the inner Hell, Mahler feared regarding his wife and his coming death.Alma had affairs after Mahler's death, and was a star f...ER, and had marriages and affairs with Europe's most brilliant geniuses, for real. She loved bright men, but loved herself, the most, I think? Later Erich Wolfgang Korngold, wrote a violin concerto for her, in Hollywood.The film's tracking of the creative process regarding the music, is most likely right on, though the little composing hut, was not on the lake shore, but on a hill top, overlooking the lake.Over all the film is historically correct, and emotionally, shows it as it most likely was for them as a famous couple. Alma did harbor jealousy, and stopped composing her music. Of late a CD has been released of her music and her music is acceptable, but pales compared to her husband's giant compositions.I would have liked for Russell to include Richard Strauss's music, and their personal friendship. Both composers often talked about their troubles with their music and their wives. Strauss and Mahler are often similar in their musical genius, and understood each other's vision musically. It would have been nice to have the two together more in this film's history.You have to have a taste for Mahler and Russell, to really get the humor and the brilliance that lies just beneath of surface. At least, Mahler, did not turn out to be another TOMMY...ha Bravo to Ken Russell and I am so glad he came along in my life time. Cast was perfect as well.