Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Executscan Expected more

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

hou-3 I just watched The Music Lovers for the first time in decades and thought it still very enjoyable. Glenda Jackson does a wonderful job, and Richard Chamberlain does OK -- the script doesn't give him a huge amount to work with. Full marks to three individuals - Ken Russell for superb direction, Melvyn Bragg for a script which gets a lot across about Tchaikovsky and his times, and Andre Previn (with the LSO) delivering large chunks of the music. Russell put a lot of work into his locations with the Queen's House at Greenwich standing in for St Petersburg and a splendid studio set for Moscow. The country house scenes were filmed at Wilton House and High Wycombe House. All very effective. The music includes lengthy snippets from the fourth and sixth symphonies, the first piano concerto, the Nutcracker and Swan Lake ballets, the Romeo and Juliet and 1812 overtures, Eugene Onegin, one of the string quartets and other pieces which slipped by me. That is a very impressive list! Unlike many people I love the 1812 fantasy sequence though could have done with less of the lunatic asylum. The railway carriage scene is one of my all time favourites, making brilliant use of the Pathetique. To my mind this movie and Women in Love are the best Russell films.

st-shot Ken Russell's audacious take on the life of composer Peter Tchaikovsky will either dazzle or enrage you with its no holds barred presentation of the tortured composer. Utilizing Tchaikovsky's music with both romantic and sardonic abandon Russell paints a flamboyant picture to accompany his score with stunning countryside homes and belle époque surrounding of grandeur while savagely crosscutting squalor, depravity and the horrors of asylum existence. Whether pluming the depths of despair with his Symphony Pathetique (6th) or dark comically putting the 1812 Overture to use Russell eviscerates the man with his music while at the same time sympathizing with his plight. When first released I can recall parents ushering their children from the theatre during the first two reels. It was no Sleeping Beauty. Russell opens his film in bravura fashion at a winter carnival with an energized montage that expeditiously introduces key players in his life. It ends in overt declaration by confirming rather than hinting at Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. With this out of the way he concentrates on his poorly planned and ill fated marriage to Nina (Glenda Jackson)as well as relationship with family and patroness Von Meck who gives him the freedom and ability to write and compose. When she unceremoniously cuts off his allowance without reason he turns to conducting which provides a huge source of income and honors. Meanwhile Nina is rapidly descending into madness.As Tchaikovsky, Richard Chamberlain does a fine job of conveying the highs and lows of the composer's existence as well as an impressive feigning of the First Piano Concerto. Glenda Jackson's Nina is a raw unforgettable powerhouse of madness that few in the business might be capable of rising to. The cast also boasts some strong supporting performances from spot on acerbic foils Max Adrian, Ken Colley and Maureen Pryor.Douglas Slocombe's lush cinematography and wife Sheila Russell's costuming greatly add to Russell's vision of the paradise and hell on earth the tragic composer lived and rather than allow for the mundane tedium and worship that goes along with most bios of great men and women went to it with an unquenchable ruthless energy brilliantly juxtaposing Tchaikovsky's (along with a few perfectly placed bars of Rimsky Korsakov) music with his poetic license to create one disturbing an unforgettable biography of a musical giant.

Atty Tude I first saw this film EONS ago, when I was about 13. I remember at that time, I was quite disturbed by it. Fast forward a couple of decades, or three. I saw this again ... and I LOL. I must have been tremendously innocent and unsophisticated way back then (we were at that age, in those days). I could not believe I could have been even mildly disturbed by this piece of trash. It's one of those films it's so bad, it's comical. The production is garish, the acting is over the top (even the excellent Glenda Jackson), the history inaccurate (Tchaikovsky never even met Von Meck; they just corresponded). The whole thing is so silly, you feel mortified for all those involved. Ken Russell was considered very much the "bad boy of film making," in those days (rolleyes). The only bad thing about him was his penchant for cheap theatrical thrills. This is one of those 1970s films, which at the time, were considered shocking and now are merely dismissed as ridiculous. What I find truly shocking is that some reviewers here actually praise this turkey to high heaven. Some people's taste is all in their mouth.

zounds82 I have not seen The Music Lovers since the 1970s but it remains vivid in my mind, regardless of its historical inaccuracy. Perhaps it was that I was just coming to terms with my homosexuality at the very time I saw it at 17. Nevertheless, I have its visual images burned into my mind and will do for the rest of my life. That says something about the imagination of the director. No other Russell film made such an impression on me, though, I have to say, so perhaps the effect had to do with my love of Tchaikovsky's music and my identification with his struggles. How I would like to have met Tchaikovsky! What a musical imagination he had! So many great works that will live forever.