Being the final part of Italian director, Luchino Visconti's German Trilogy which also including 1969's "The Damned" and 1971's "Death in Venice". This film about the life and death of King Ludwig II (Helmut Berger) of Bavaria was very disappointing. Honestly, I came out from watching the movie, knowing the same things about the man, when coming in. This movie doesn't seem to want to show, anything new about the guy. Nor does it seems, to wants to analyze the real-life character at all. Its skips and gloss over a lot of the most information parts of his life, such as his childhood's relationship with his father, Maximilian II, his brother, Prince Otto (John Moulder Brown) and Prince Paul. Not only that, but the movie doesn't show why, he was so obsess with composer, Richard Wagner (Trevor Howard) and medieval German folk tales. It would be nice, to hear more about Castle Hohenschwangau's history, or see more of the Gothic Revival style with many frescoes of those heroic fantasy sagas like Tristan and Isolde. Maybe, play more of Wagner's music in the background, rather than walking around the castle in dead silence. I would love the movie to show how, he was able to have a close friendship with the composer, only to over-stalk and praise him, until his lost; but the movie doesn't do that. It rarely focus on them at all. So, you never get to see the true emotional depth of Ludwig's relationship with him. Another thing, that really bug me, about the film, is how they don't show, much of the Austro-Prussian War. For a war that was a big deal of Bavaria's history, you would think, they would show some battle scenes. Sadly, they do not. Instead, they focus on the King hearing bad news from the front lines. You really can't tell, how important, these battles were, by being in the sidelines. One thing, the movie focus, way too much of, is the relationship, he had with Empress Elisabeth of Austria (Romy Schneider). While, it's nice to see Romy Schneider reprises her role as the Empress Elisabeth from 1955's "Sissi" and its two sequels. In truth, the real-life Elisabeth rarely was able to hang out with Ludwig, due to her duties and standings in her own country. I get that, the movie wants to establish that he loves Elisabeth more than Duchess Sophie Charlotte (Sonia Petrovna), but gees, that far from accuracy. Ludwig did love Sophie, and both were very entertained with each other. They were known to often make jokes with each other, make poetic and had a deep interest in the arts, but we rarely see that. Instead, we get tiresome no chemistry shots of them, walking around the castle rooms, or going horseback riding in the pitch dark. It sucks, because these parts takes most of bulk of the first 2 hours of the film. If they did show some chemistry, maybe these scenes would be so boring. If anything, save this movie from being a total drag. It would be the second half of the film. It's here, where the movie gets good, because it kinda show the signs of his so call madness. I love all the scenes with Ludwig and his protégé Joseph Kainz (Folker Bohnet), because it shows how the king declines further in decay and resignation. Even if, the events depict here, are somewhat grotesquely-staged and almost out of sync incorrect, emphasizing that Ludwig's indeed seem confusion and mentally ill. While it's clear that he's peculiar and irresponsible, in truth, the question of his clinical insanity remains unresolved, even today. Another unresolved issue is the mystery of his own death. While, I like the film love to show the conflict with his people, it wasn't as dramatic as it shown in the film. In real-life, Ludwig barely displayed any violent tendencies; and, although he had mentioned suicide, he wasn't that suicidal. So, I don't know, where the film is getting that, from. In real-life, nobody knows, if he was murder or suicide, but the movie acts like he did commit suicide, when clearly, there is no prove of that. However, it's pretty clear, by historians, that the majority of people around him, also knew that he was a closet homosexual. Because of this, I think, this is where the movie fail to exploited. For a film, about a notorious homosexual. The movie doesn't explore Ludwig's sexuality, enough. You would think, that the movie would show more of his relationship with the same-sex. Instead, Visconti's film became a romantic tragic primarily intended to arouse heterosexuals than homosexual, because how much, they focus on his lost on the relationship with women, rather than with the men in his life. Because of this, it made love story relationship, seem so bland and generic. Rather than engaging for both sexes. Despite that, I do like how the filmmakers were able to film at, his real-life castle locations. It made the film, seem so authentic. I have to give director Visconti, props for that, and also doing all the filmmaking, even after suffering a stroke. I just wish the movie would be shorter. There was no need for this European cut film to be, nearly 4 hours long. Even the English version is a hard watch, with 3 hrs. It was so bloated and badly paced. Just way too much padding and dry scenes that could have either been excised or shortened. Nevertheless, the movie's greatest pro is the acting. Everybody did alright, however, Berger appearance as Ludwig stands out. He was amazing. He was perfect for the part. Overall: While, this movie isn't as bad, as directors Marie Noelle & Peter Sehr 2012's film, 'Ludwig II" or "1972's Ludwig: Requiem for a Virgin King". It's extremely boring running time, ruin what could had been a good epic film. Can't recommended.

An almost four hours long tale of how King Ludwig II loses his empire, his loves and his mind. Starting with his coronation, and ending with his final demise, it tells the stories of his great loves; his love for (the music of) Wagner, his love for his (married) niece Elizabeth (which remains ultimately unrequited, and he then he gets engaged to another niece, but they never marry), his love for opera, men... and the moon. He spends the fortunes of Bavaria on building gigantic new (mostly unoccupied) castles, becomes addicted to chloroform and finally is dethroned after indicating he wants to commit suicide.That would be it in a nutshell, though not all seems entirely correct. Elsewhere it says he was also sexually involved with a certain prince, but that is not implied here. And it was not until 2007 that it was revealed that he was probably killed by hit men. Many scenes are very long, but they are very aptly shot, the acting is very good and the costumes and settings are impeccable. The story is never hard to follow and the dialogues are intriguing, to say the least.I'm not the one to decide if this is a masterpiece or not, but I have no arguments to claim otherwise, either. But this is indeed a far cry from the Sissi trilogy (as expected) and a very good film. It's too bad that it is in Italian - it should have been in German of course - but alas.A big 8 out of 10 nonetheless.

"I would like to remain an enigma; to myself and to others", is one of the most memorable (and cryptic) remarks of Ludwig II, the last king of Bavaria. Whether intentional or not, director Visconti seems to have honored the wish of the tragic monarch. Rather than analyzing the person Ludwig, Visconti focuses almost entirely on Ludwig being a neurotic being, alienated from the real world, living in his own fantasy-land of music and mythology, a classic closet-gay, whose entire existence is overruled by his suppressed sexuality.Arguably there has been much more to the historic Ludwig, which was a very complex human. However, this doesn't make "Ludwig" a bad movie.The movie is carried by Helmut Berger who proved with "Ludwig" that is wasn't only a mere pretty face and the toy of homosexual filmmakers, but that he could actually act formidably (and it's rather sad that his carrier declined rather steep after "Ludwig", coming to a point where he only haunted the tabloids with drunken antics, today a mere wreck and definition of a shadow). Equally strong are actors Trevor Howard as the manipulative Richard Wagner and Romy Schneider, who played Sissy, empress of Austria, for the fourth time and finally got to play the character as a real human-being, far off the schmaltzy persona of the Ernst Marischka trilogy.Further points go to the exquisite cinematography and having filmed on the authentic locations ("Ludwig" was among the last films that was permitted to be filmed in Ludwig's castles, which remain among the most visited tourist-attractions in Bavaria, perhaps with the exception of the "Oktoberfest"). Though Visconti obviously has an eye for the aesthetic beauties of the locations, he manages to build up an almost claustrophobic atmosphere which underlines that Ludwig, despite the splendor and grandeur, essentially built himself a golden cage.On the downside are the other supporting actors, which were apparently all chosen on their physical merits, not acting ability. Yes, we all knew that Lucino Visconti was prone to handsome males, but seeing this parade of handsome youths, one almost gets the idea that Visconti cast this crew in his hotel room.In short: "Ludwig" is often overlong, a tad too colorful and occasionally even boring, but it captures the essence of the time. If you're into overlong, colorful epics that can fill an evening, "Ludwig" is highly recommendable.A word of warning and a recommendation: After watching "Ludwig", I'd avoid the 1993 movie "Ludwig 1881", which again stars Helmut Berger in the title role. While generally not a bad film, it pains to see the almost 50-year old Berger reprising his role as (supposedly) youthful king. On the other hand, if one wishes to delve further into the story of King Ludwig, I can only recommend Hans-Juergen Syberbergs 1972 film "Th. Hierneis oder: wie man ehem. Hofkoch wird". It has likewise been filmed on location and despite being a one-man-show of Walter Sedelmayr as Ludwigs former kitchen-aid-cum-master-cook, it does offer many insights into the psyche of the "Fairy-Tale-King" Ludwig.I'd give it a dashing 8/10

For many many years I wanted to see this movie, a film you never get to see on TV or at a Visconti retrospective at the NFT or one of the Curzon cinemas here in London. Perhaps it is so because this film has been so much underrated by critics and public that it drags far behind the director's most famous and praised works (The Leopard, Rocco, La Terra Trema, etc). I read in a biography of the director that "Ludwig" was a mammoth project that took four production companies from different countries to put up the budget, it obsessed and consumed Visconti to the the extent of almost killing him when he suffered a stroke as a result of long working hours and too much mental strain, went well over schedule and budget and finally was taken away from the author's hands by the producers and butchered and re-edited in order to make it shorter, simpler and more viably commercial. The result was a mess almost half of the length of the original and with a lot of key scenes missing, presenting an inconsistent story full of plot holes and with characters appearing now and then from nowhere. It took several years after Visconti's death for his usual collaborators (d'Amico, Nanuzzi) to gather the missing sequences and re-edit the film into a cut as close to Visconti's idea as it could be. The result is a a DVD edition of 228 minutes. This movie, visually speaking, is with "Death in Venice" probably Visconti's most beautiful,lavish and rich in colours and small details. As to the story, I agree with other viewers on the fact that it is a bit too overlong and it drags at places and some sequences could have been shorter without the plot missing anything. But then it seems like Visconti deliberately wanted to give it that sedate pacing in order to suit the dreamlike mental state of the protagonist during his reclusion in his castles and his lapses into his own fantasy world. In order to understand better Ludwig's personality I read one of his many biographies after watching the movie for the first time, and then I watched it again, and I could appreciate better Visconti's approach to the character. I think this is a movie worth of its director, and even with its flaws and extreme length it deserves better criticism and appreciation than it unfairly got since it first came out in 1972.Helmut Berger is quite good here and has a remarkable resemblance to the real Ludwig, Romy Schneider is as beautiful as ever and the real Bavarian locations are breathtaking. The night sequence with Ludwig and Elizabeth riding in the snowy forest in the moonlight is one of the most beautiful and romantic I have ever seen in film. The cinematography alone makes "Ludwig" worth watching if you like beautiful things. Hopefully this movie has gained some appreciation and seems to be getting better reviews nowadays that it did in the past. Many call it Visconti's lost masterpiece. Although I don't think it is one of his greatest works thematically speaking, it surely stands among the most beautiful and lyrical and it is one of my favourite choices for a long winter evening.