Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

bbrooks94 This Ken Russell 'biopic' follows the composer Gustav Mahler as, nearing the end of his life, he recalls his life and music through surreal dream sequences during a train journey. Like the great man's music, this film is at times intense, powerful, moving and beautiful. However, at other times it is confusing, indulgent and over-the-top, something which Mahler's music never was, I should add. That's Ken Russell I suppose, and if you can get past the tiresome dream sequences and focus on the imaginative ones (of which there are many) then you will really enjoy this underrated vision of musical genius. Russell conveys the feelings of awe and wonder of the musical world better than any other director in history. No doubt this is to do with his good track record of composer's films but also a deep personal investment into the subject matter. Robert Powell expertly plays the composer as an intense man beyond any human understanding of neurosis, filled with repressed anxiety. The film is excessive, almost irritatingly so, but ultimately filled with great moments.

Ana_Banana Interesting movie, generally dealing with accurate historical facts, but in a dreamy, psychological manner. However, it looks a bit rushed and almost lacking the grandeur, the fury and the sarcasm which were also characteristic to Mahler the man, the composer and the conductor. The Monty Python scene with Cosima Wagner as a Nazi Domina is a blasphemy, totally out of the blue, ridiculous and not based on anything real. Of course she was a fierce anti-Semite, but did she really have so much influence? Perhaps it's a metaphor, but then it should not have been treated in circus style, as its ground themes were not light matter. One more thing: although a very good actor, Robert Powell looked in several scenes more like Harold Lloyd than like Mahler. LE: Now it striked me: Hugh Grant might be a more appropriate Mahler, at least looks-wise.

looneyfarm Mahler is an interesting case. Whereas Ken Russell's films are either just over the top (his theatrical films), or maybe even too subtle (his television work), Mahler is both. Its closest companion may be always the simple but exquisite Song of Summer, but there is that usual kitsch and excess you can find without a magnifier from Lisztomania and other Russell classics.What I'm trying to say is that if you find Russell's television work too tame, and The Devils and Tommy are just too much, Mahler might be your film. It's not Russell's best, but in this film he found a balance which is rare to him. It may be a slow and long film, but in the end game is wonderfully rich and profound in explaining the essence of artistry and creativity. And much like Michael Powell did to ballet dance in The Red Shoes, Russell doesn't just explain his subject matter in Mahler: he brings it alive. It's like the romantic Gustav Mahler himself made this film.And, of course, there is the music! Much recommended to everybody.

gratian-2 As with so many of Ken Russell's films, this work probes, again, the nature of artistic genius, the mores of artists during the last 150 years and, especially, the proximity of this form of genius to psycho-pathology. During this period-- 1968 to 1980-- the period of Russell's greatest popularity, infamy and exposure coincided with a formative period of my life. He was ' a god of my adolescence.' By this I mean to say that my critical 'objectivity' is somewhat blurred when it comes to assessing the films of this period. For I, too am a music lover.