I lived in Vienna for four years so I was really excited to see this movie. My attention was grabbed by the DVDs cover art which is a repackaging of The Kiss by Gustav Klimt. The late 1800s until World War II was a very unique time in the fields of art, psychology, music, architecture/design and literature that is very rarely touched upon nowadays. So I had high hopes. But I was disappointed in this movie and I felt it could have been in a much more interesting way. The actors were OK I guess. I don't think they had much in the dialogue department to work with. The points that would have made this much more interesting...the art, music and literary aspects...were just touched upon. But that said, it was billed as a story about one woman's life during this period and how she was a muse to some of the now famous men of the era. Actually I came away being much less sympathetic to this woman than I was before I saw the film. She seemed less of a muse than a woman who used famous men for her own ends. I find it unusual that out of all of Vienna, she managed only to make well-known men her lovers. Men such as Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kolkoschka, Water Gropius, Gustav Mahler and on and on. It really did no favors to this woman's reputation and I viewed her as kind of a user and a whiner. Yes she did not have a lot of freedom but it was the very early 1900s, neither did any other woman. She seemed to have the daring to jump from man to man in the days when this was simply not done in polite society. Yet she did not seem to have the courage to try to make it on her own in the field of music. If she was adventurous enough to throw caution to the wind and live such a bohemian lifestyle, I do not know why she would then have cause to complain about being stifled when she knew full well what marriage in that time entailed. How about having the courage to life your own life and pursue your own dreams in the field of music. Rather than depending on some man to fulfill your dreams then complaining when they are not. So I just found the storyline became very uninteresting very quickly and the other points such as the arts & culture of the time would have added much more interest to the film. But were just glossed over in the end.

Alma Schindler was a fascinating woman, with considerable talent of her own, who served as a muse for Gustav Mahler and several other important artists in turn-of-the-19th-century Vienna. Based on this portrayal, this would be a person I would love to know!I found this to be a wonderful, subtle, portrayal of her life and times, capturing not only her talent, but her challenges and the compromises that she made (particularly in the context of 1910 Vienna). All the leads were well chosen, particularly Schindler, Mahler, and Klimt.I would strongly recommend this movie to anyone with an interest in the way of the artist, feminism (not overt, but much food for thought), or the artistic ferment in early 20th century Vienna.

I went to see the L.A. premiere of this film, in which the director and screenwriter (sic) attended. While looking through the tasteful, elegant, and researched program - I couldn't wait for the theater to darken: A film about 19th Century European Art/Music! Also, I was awaiting the biography of Ms. Mahler.Afterward, I couldn't believe some people had the gall to get up and commend this film. Although the film is about enlightened artists, this film is so bourgeois - and we never understand the female lead as she bounces from one bed to the next. The film is sumptuous-looking, and the production values are high - but this does not a good film make. The biggest culprit is the superficial and boring screenplay: There is just no depth in either the lead character, or her relationships with others. Barring feminist politics, the script just doesn't have it in the drama department. It's as if someone said, "Gee, if we make a film about Gustav Mahler's trampy wife, and put all these famous artists in it - that'll make a good film!". Beresford was obviously gathering a mere paycheck, and Levy probably has friends in high places (what else has she written?!).

At the end of the movie, I could not really understand why so many accomplished men were so taken by this beautiful yet shallow woman. The movie failed to show her passion or her talents in any foreseeable way. Alma was depicted as just a pretty wooden doll who showed faint signs of a woman with great zest, but this was not brought to life in this dull experience of a movie.Jonathan Pryce was so under-utilized and frankly speaking, the music he conducted in the movie was not moving-since I think more dramatic pieces could have been used to emphasize his characters greatness and his torment as a refugee from his past.It was exciting to see Klimt and Gropius come to life in a movie, but they were shown as boring and uninspiring men, unlike the legacies they left behind in real life. The accents were irritating, and so it was very distracting and difficult to remain focused on what was being said throughout the film. (Much like Johnny Depp's attempt at a gypsy accent in "Chocolat").This movie needed more work on the dialogues between the characters and more focus on its intent. The producers seem to have depended on scenery rather than substance.