A surrealistic experience in old Russell style. Hunks of crazy dream, chaotic touch lines, violent nuances, flavor of cesspool,ignoring of essence. It is vision of a interesting director about a myth. The reality, in this case, is only insignificant detail, the music- web for personal frustrations, the marriage- grotesque cartoon. The madness as supreme rule, the victim like poor puppet.And yet, this film is not a form of irony or sarcastic blasphemy. For me, it is a strange form of homage. An endeavor to discover the images of a genius . A special fight with a world who is not only golden legend. The virtue of director is subtle exploration of composer's childhood. The wonder of ineffable miracle- crux of existence.In fact, "Mahler" is a good movie not for script, images or fantasy, for political or cinema hints, for music or skit's elements. Not for original interpretation of biographic elements, for the hysteric atmosphere or for the Russell seal. It is superb for the special art of suggestion. For the colors of fear, desire and tiredness. For the taste of renunciation. Gustav Mahler is a great composer. But more important, like Kafka, Gandhi or Ingmar Bergman, he is a impressive conscience of his century. His music, his touching music, is part of a real world of every dream. In essence, this film is a game. Brutal, kitsch, morbid or painful. In same measure is pledge for self- discovery. Mahler is only symbol-guide for a important interior trip

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.

This film, though good in parts and with a fascinating performance by Robert Powell, is too stylised and idiosyncratic to be looked on as a true representation of Mahler's life and works. Rather it should be seen as an essay on Ken Russell's view of his inner struggles, and particularly his conversion to Catholicism. Too much of the dialogue and camera-work is stilted, and it has the look of a film on a budget, using locations in the lake district and Derbyshire (Chatsworth House) to represent Austria. This last comment may seem nit-picking, but using well known locations that many know are not where they are supposed to be can be distracting. Georgina Hale didn't really convince as Alma for me, a strong, stunning and seductive woman that Hale can't quite portray.Given the fascination of Mahler (and a ready made soundtrack of stunning music!) its perhaps time filmmakers had another go at portraying his life, works and tragic death. The perfect actor for the lead role - Robert Powell (who can forget that silhouette of Powell's face on the train, looking exactly like famous photos of Mahler himself?) - is perhaps too old now, though he could portray him in his later years. It would be one of those bio-pics of people I had always been intrigued to see on film (others include Alexander the Great, Howard Hughes, Hitler - all who have been portrayed recently).

This movie, while beautifully shot, grows completely out of control as is moves along. The once over of Gustav Mahler by Ken Russell falls into the trap that all the other Russell films do--over excess. The shot of Mahler biting into a pig snout is one of the most disgusting and offensive images I have ever seen.