User Reviews

As a deeply interest on European's history, I'd already knew about this mad king of the Bavaria a long time ago, Ludwig just came at my hands this years and was too long, then I had decided spent the last friday night watching this restored Visconti's masterpiece, what a great movie indeed, but the cut off version stayed lame and was a flop at release time, assembled again it's was the closest that they could get as early Visconti's concept, the king Ludwig was presented as a lunatic man for arts, sponsored the financial excesses of Richard Wagner, and drained the already rundown Bavaria's treasury on those useless Castles which he dares to build in exchange of the penury of his people, also Visconti alludes the decaying process of a King who wasn't linked with reality at all, he living in a parallel world as screened, plus Visconti was visionary when cast Helmut Berger whose had an extremely sameness with the real Ludwig, what a lucky, just mourns a small appearance of Sissi (Romy Schneider) on the plot for obvious reasons, furthermore exposes the odd Ludwig's weakness as his shy behavior and how he handles with your latent homosexuality as well, the history as a whole teach us that the ordinary statesmen rarely go down in history, instead those mad rulers that through their wacky minds were often recalled, aside be too long more than four hours the picture doesn't tired me, due so valuable asset to understand the German merger and how it really did happens, it gave me priceless clues for whom Germany deserves his unification, apart the Ludwig the mad the movie brings to light the German's history!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 9

Being offered something common (no matter if it is a painting, a musical bit, a play or a movie) one can praise it, criticize it, evaluate it according to some standards. Yet, what happens if one encounters something elaborate, something that knows no limits of standardized conventions, something that follows no paths of shallow commonness?

This seems to be the case with a few pearls of artistic cinema, including LUDWIG (1972) by great aristocrat-director Luchino Visconti (1906-1975). As Visconti's most underrated work, this is the film that I have owned for 5 years, the film I have seen a considerable number of times; yet, the film I have found so hard to fully understand. Nevertheless, a rhetorical question seemed to help me in such a lack of understanding: is it possible to fully understand a human being, is it possible to fully understand oneself? The similar idea appears to be hidden in this film.

LUDWIG, as it is well known, tells the story of the 'eccentric' (for some) or 'fairy tale' (for others) king of Bavaria, Ludwig II (1845-1886) who is now famous mostly among tourists who visit the elaborate, almost dreamlike castles in the southern Land of Germany. While getting to know his psyche, we realize that Ludwig was an extraordinary psyche, someone filled with contradictions, absorbed in struggling for the sublime beauty, living seriously within the illusive walls of an unfulfilled reality. Meanwhile, Ludwig, with certain characteristics, appeared to be 'much ahead of his time.'

Visconti, having deeply analyzed the phenomenon of that man, not only develops these aspects but brings them back to life by means of three miracles on screen: flawless direction, breathtaking sets and talented cast.

Although some people may detest Mr Berger for some opinions expressed in public, we cannot deny the fact that the film owes much to him. Berger appears to give one of the most sublime performances in the leading role. He makes LUDWIG a genuine analysis, a must see for all movie buffs by portraying a unique, sophisticated man threatened by fears, filled with dense emotions, carnal pleasures, suffering from the quest for the blissful and illusive reality; an eccentric experiencing the storms of mind, an artist-dreamer gradually disillusioned by the mute world of contemporaries. How modern and, yet, how universal the character appears to be in his search for the individual world! All this is so well manifested that the viewer is not merely watching, being an observer of the character's hard states of mind: he/she is experiencing a slow, perhaps sometimes tedious, but exceptionally claustrophobic journey with the main character; yet not so much the journey of tear-jerking sweet compassion but something far more than this, something revealed in the self-reflection.

Berger and Visconti allow us to experience this journey into the mind of a human being that aims at being uncommon rather than decent. Gradually, we are led into the strange world of the king and, unexpectedly, into the unknown perceptions that we ourselves own. We get to know Ludwig as the feminine moon rather than the masculine sun. He is not ready to make love to women because his feelings occur to be the personally peculiar inventions of his mind. Therefore, he turns to homosexual pleasures being, in this way, a reflection of Visconti himself. Extraordinary images of lavish elegance, subtle imagination throughout the film besides the aforementioned Berger's exceptional talent and Visconti's excellent direction help us in this journey.

When we consider other performances, Romy Schneider seems to be the other 'treasure' of the film...not as beautiful yet saccharine Sissi but as delicious, disillusioned, mature Empress Elizabeth. Her strongest point here is the cold attractiveness. She is the absolute female beauty, the 'dove' Ludwig is impressed by; yet, a woman he finally does not let into his castle. Although I very much appreciate her role in Marischka's SISSI trilogy (1955, 1956, 1957), I must admit that here, at last, under the direction of great maestro whom she highly respected, Romy was able to interpret Elizabeth in the accurate manner. She perfectly portrays a very independent yet contradictory character who is already aware of the fact that history forgets us and the bitter conclusion that the world does not care. Her appearances in the movie are astounding including her looks, her acting and her wardrobe, mostly black which is inspired by the later photos of the Kaiserin Von Oesterreich.

The great performances are also given by the supporting cast, in particular Trevor Howard as king Ludwig's idol-composer Richard Wagner with his destructive manners, extravagant nature yet powerful illusion resembled in 'a figure' so much glorified and appreciated within the mind of the king. I also liked Silvana Mangano as Cosima, Wagner's wife whom he offers an unusual Christmas gift in the memorable scene...

However, it would be highly unjust to claim that only performance make the movie an elaborate cinematic production. It is much more, it is foremost VISCONTI, his unique style focused on single important details and the entire psychology of the character's development. Besides, it is the clever script and authentic sets including Neuschweistein Castle, Herrenchiemsee, Bad Ischl, etc. It is, finally, the musical score that appears to be beautifully fitted within particular scenes that one cannot omit. Therefore, any shortened version does not make sense at all as Wolfram Schütte nicely put it (1975) referring to omissions: "Who has seen the film in Germany has, in fact, never seen it."

Highly recommended movie and a must DVD release! 9/10

"Du Warst Ein Maerchenkoenig, Die Freiheit Das War Dein Tron...Koenig Ludwig, Wir Vergessen Dich Nicht" (you were a fairy tale king and freedom was your throne...king Ludwig, we won't forget you). So says a German 'Lied' (song) by singer Bianca. Utopian as it may seem, isn't that, after all, something we really don't forget?

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.

I have not seen the highly edited 180 minute version of Ludwig, available in the US. However, I am lucky enough to have seen the full 4 hour and 7 minute version available on DVD in Germany. Alas, there are no English subtitles or soundtracks, but my mother is fluent in German and so I was able to get a line by line translation!

And my GOD, was it worth it. Although I felt it was a little slow in places, I was utterly drawn in to Ludwig's world as the film progressed. I can't speak for the US video version, but the full cut is divided into 5 parts. As each part comes and goes, we are steadily immersed into the world of Ludwig II (Helmut Berger in compelling form once more, as he was in Visconti's The Damned [1969]). Ludwig has often been dismissed as "mad", but this film really lets you identify and understand the tormented man's life. One cannot help being on the verge of tears in sympathy towards the end of Part IV, when Ludwig is hiding in his absurdly decadent and expensive castle and Elisabeth (Romy Schnieder) tries to visit him. Wagner's Tristan und Isolde blazes on the soundtrack and he cannot bear to be seen by her in his state. He cries out her name repeatedly and sinks down on the ground. Some people have criticised Berger for being too melodramatic (Helmut 'Ham'-Berger one review once said), but he is perfect in this role. Not only does he strongly resemble the original Ludwig, but his acting is spot-on for capturing Ludwig's romantic and highly emotional personality.

This film deals with many themes that Visconti continually returned to in his career. It was made after his planned film based on Proust's epic masterpiece 'In Search of Lost Time' fell through (and what wouldn't I give for Visconti to have made that film!!) and might be seen to contain similar themes. There is decadence, decay, decline, homosexuality, and music. Not only is this film a fine study of historical events (the 'wars of Unification' in 1866 and 1870-1), but also of art and music (Ludwig's relationship with Wagner and the influence of Wagnerian art on his life), and of Ludwig's own highly-strung personality.

In short, this is yet another Visconti masterpiece. It's a CRIME that no-one has given this film a DVD release in its restored (or even any other) form in the US or the UK. The film was also filmed in English, but no English soundtrack is available on the German DVD, or subtitles. Again, this is another example of Visconti's work being overlooked and ignored - the sound quality is also not what it could be (the sound quality on the German track being DIABOLICAL, as opposed to the good Italian track). This film TRULY deserves a proper DVD release - music, direction, acting, and script are superb and this film deserves a far wider audience than it is allowed to receive. At least the German DVD is in the correct aspect ratio (2.35 : 1) as this film deserves to be seen in it's full glory (sets - most the real locations - and costumes are utterly stunning). I urge anyone who reads this to see Ludwig - even if one must resort to a horribly cut VHS version (how can you loose a whole HOUR from this film?!!). This is another Visconti masterpiece and cries out for a better and more widely available DVD release.

This long and lavish biopic of the mad Mittel European monarch is both Luchino Visconti's grandest and - oddly enough - his most intimate and personal film. Visconti's autobiography in all but name, it tells the story of a cultured aristocrat who ruins himself through an obsessive love of art, luxury and handsome young men. The film paints King Ludwig as a well-meaning but hapless victim of his grasping courtiers, artists and lovers. If Visconti himself was an arch-manipulator and a bit of a sadist, well...Ludwig is one of those films where life and art never do quite match up.

Most revealing is its portrayal of the aging king's obsession with a pretty but none-too-talented actor, Joseph Kainz. It is tempting to view their romance as a mirror of Visconti's own passion for the exquisite Helmut Berger, who - a twist within a twist - actually stars as King Ludwig in this film. In the roles he played without Visconti as his Svengali, Berger is barely competent. In Ludwig (as in The Damned) he gives a staggering performance, ranging from fresh-faced idealism to homoerotic heartbreak to bloated waste.

Shot just after the collapse of Visconti's long-cherished film of Proust, Ludwig is rich in characters who reflect (whether consciously or not) the gilded Belle Epoque monsters that haunt the pages of A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu. As the Empress Elisabeth of Austria, poor Ludwig's magnetic but manipulative cousin, Romy Schneider might just as well be playing the Duchesse de Guermantes. The opportunistic composer Richard Wagner (Trevor Howard) and his scheming wife Cosima (Silvana Mangano) stand in as the vulgar social-climbing Verdurins. The king himself is a kindred spirit of the Baron de Charlus - a doomed aesthete who refined tastes are at odds with his sordid love-life.

With its majestic cast and flawless photography and design, Ludwig has all the makings of a screen masterpiece. Alas, it falters badly in its last hour - which depicts the bourgeois conspiracy that topples Ludwig from his throne. Perhaps Visconti (who identified so closely with the mad monarch) could not face up to the waning of his own powers. He suffered a crippling stroke after finishing this film, and would never again attempt work on such a scale. Ludwig stands as a flawed testament - as a portrait of one enigma by another.

>

First released in 1972,with a running time of three hours,the movie was a colossal flop and it was sold by auction.It was the eighties before it was re-released as TV series,with a lot of added scenes :the running time was nearing four hours and the restored scenes gave the movie more substance.Now the film is often broadcast as a whole but its length and its very slow pace might repel some people.

It should not be missed though;it is one of Visconti's peaks,and probably the most underrated .In "la caduta dei degli"(1969),history was on the stage ,with the rise of the Nazis:the hero,Martin,(also played by Helmut Berger),was some kind of puppet in the hands of his mother and the Hitlerians.In "Ludwig",he stands alone,it's really the story of a solitary man,trying to establish a lasting relationship with one human being:first, Sophie,Sissy's sister :but it was not to succeed because he treated her like a Wagnerian heroin,or a Sissy ersatz .Sissy (Elisabeth,Empress of Austria)was not fooled:"do you want me to be your impossible love? " she says;of course she knew Ludwig was an invert.Wagner made use of Ludwig because he helped his career,but there was no friendship from him.Ludwig had to content himself with his (male) lovers he used to pick up everywhere around.

As the movie progresses,Ludwig is more and more alone,and his megalomania knows no bound.He makes up for his sad destiny with his extravagant castles,but politically he was still aware.He first refused to raise troops during the 1870 war and reluctantly did because of the Prussian' s pression;that might be the reason why,when you come to Bavaria today,the people there do not accept the fact Ludwig ended his life as an insane.

Helmut Berger was to make another movie with Visconti(gruppo di famiglia in un interno,1975),then his career quickly waned after Visconti's death;it was really too bad,because he had shown he could be an impressive actor.Romy Schneider portrayed Sissy for the fourth time(after the famous mushy trilogy "Sissi" "Sissi die junge Kaiserin" "Sissi ,Schicksal einer Kaiserin",which Schneider hated,),but this time in a historically accurate way.She acted as though she had got a score to settle with this character.(hear her lines about her husband and her family:it's a far cry from the Ernst Marischka's trilogy)

You could tell that Director Viconti and the rest of the crew really cared about this movie and worked very hard. This would account for the beautifully re-created scenes from the life of King Luwig II of Bavaria,...and it would account for the movie lasting almost 4 hours!! I actually LIKE movies that are 3-4 hours long--provided the subject matter is compelling. For example, in Ben Hur, there is so much action and so much plot that 3 hours plus is indeed warranted. BUT, with LUDWIG, it seems like there is just too much padding and dry scenes that could have either been excised or shortened. For example, the first scene where we see Ludwig is when he is about to be crowned. Instead of simply showing the crowning, we see the members of the delegation slowly enter the room and we see them wait for Ludwig while he gets dressed. Was this really necessary? Plus, although too much of the bland is included, there is a major omission that seems inexplicable. Ludwig was a homosexual and had a long series of sexual encounters (followed by internal contrition and self-loathing). But none of this was directly dealt with--only very mildly implied. In fact, although we know he was gay, the movie instead implied that he was sexually attracted to his über-famous cousin, Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary (a VERY strange woman in real life who appears very normal in this movie). My assumption is that because the film was made in 1972, they were afraid to broach the issue of homosexuality, but considering the emotional toll it took on Ludwig, it seems dishonest to ignore it.

In this last part of his German trilogy, Visconti delves the most into the human psyche, and in particular it's contradictory forces within. On one hand the self-destructive urge for physical pleasure, on the other the spiritual search for the sublime. The Dionysean and the Apollonian. Body and soul.

Ludwig II, aka the "mad" king of Bavaria, is dragged to the limits by these two opposite forces. Losing focus on a vulgar reality, he surrenders to sexual perversion and yet also to a search for artistic purity, eventually leading him to madness, and finally to death. Trying in vein to find the sublime and eternal kingdom of the literary heroes he craves for, his behavior becomes more and more erratic until he is violently dethroned (a recurring theme in Visconti's work: the fall of aristocracy and the rise of bourgeois democracy).

Visconti directs this paradox with a highly elegant style, influenced by the romanticism of painters like Caspar David Friedrich and Frederic Edwin Church. The movie reaches a climax at around the third hour, when Ludwig and his protégé Joseph Kainz travel together through the endless frozen night, so that Ludwig shows Kainz his "real kingdom, the mountains under the moonlight, a world for ourselves, pure and uncontaminated". "Think about your soul, not about your body" Ludwig tells him. This a last hurrah. After Kainz's rejection, Ludwig declines further in decay and resignation.

The events depicting the conspiracy that dethrones him are grotesquely-staged and almost out of sync, emphasizing Ludwig's confusion and ill mental-state. Knowing his downfall is near, he confesses to one of the staff how he believes in the immortality of the soul and God's justice. "I've read many things about materialism", he says, "but it will never satisfy a man, cause he doesn't want to be put in the same level as beasts". That's a rare confession for Visconti.

After he is captured, the film once again alters in style, to a kind of austere chamber-cinema with a funereal feel. Near the end (and his death), Ludwig says to psychiatrist professor Gudden: "There is nothing more beautiful and fascinating than the night. They say the cult of the night, of the moon, is a maternal cult. The cult of sun, of daytime, is a masculine myth, therefore paternal. However the mystery, the greatness of night, for me lie in the infinite sublime kingdom of the heroes, which is also the kingdom of reason. Poor Dr. Gudden, you are forced to study me from dawn to dusk and from dusk to dawn. But I am an enigma, and I want to be an enigma forever, for the world and for myself".

Just like man. Sublime.

Luchino Visconti's masterpiece - beautifully restored to the full 4 hours+ length on dvd in Germany - is breathtaking due to the Maestro's imprints alone. We see lush castle's, gold glitter, men in black or silver talking morals, and persons fighting their destiny ... and loose. Ludwig has something extra though: never seen the 110% Englishman Trevor Howard better as the very German Richard Wagner. And words will never be enough for yet another brilliant role of Romy Schneider, portraying Elisabeth rather than her renowned Sissy here.

The sheer brilliance of Visconti comes to light with the performance of Helmut Berger. Quite known as an actor in both Italy and the German speaking territories, he really goes above and beyond in his role as King Ludwig, the boy destined to drown in himself as a man.

Please do not miss this superb film, even though the bilingual (Italian-German) DVD of Kinowelt/Arthaus silly enough doesn't give any English subtitles.

Historical evocation of Ludwig, king of Bavaria (Helmut Berger), from his crowning in 1864 until his death in 1886, as a romantic hero. Fan of Richard Wagner (Trevor Howard), betrayed by him, in love with his cousin Elisabeth of Austria (Romy Schneider), abandoned by her, tormented by his homosexuality (or bisexuality?), he will little by little slip towards madness.

Special attention must first be drawn to Romy Schneider, who reprises her role as Empress Elisabeth of Austria (from the 1955 film "Sissi" and its two sequels). Playing the same role four times? Admirable... not uncommon, perhaps, but it definitely makes it a character you know deep in your soul. Perhaps this story should have been told from her angle?

This really is a European epic. The "epic film" seems to be mainly an American thing, or somethings a British thing, but not typically a continental thing. This is the exception, and it really chronicles a man who is no longer very well known. I am not sure why, other than that perhaps the Bavarian monarchy doesn't really resonate with modern audiences. Though many films have been made about Ludwig, the fact remains his bloodline is quite distant from any ruling family.

The late, great critic Roger Ebert was not a fan of the film, or Visconti in general. He said of this feature that "the movie is so lethargic and persistently uninteresting" and considered it "merciful" to see it cut in order to avoid endless amounts of "penetrating stares". Ebert may have never come around to loving the film (he gave it one star), but its reputation has grown over the years.

Luckily for fans, Arrow Academy has given "Ludwig" the royal treatment. A 4K scan of the negative makes the picture look better than it ever has. And, of course, Arrow packs the film with extras: an interview with Helmut Berger, an interview with legendary screenwriter Suso Cecchi d'Amico ("Bicycle Thieves" and many others). A half-hour look at actress Silvana Mangano ("Bitter Rice") and a full hour on Luchino Visconti.

Ludwig truly is Visconti's magnificent epic masterpiece. The life of Ludwig II of Bavaria is truly worthy of a great film epic and Helmut Berger is amazingly good in the lead role. The exquisitely beautiful Romy Schneider is incredible as Ludwig's cousin Empress Elisabeth of Austria. The costumes and settings are truly magnificent. Visconti has actually gained access to some of the original locations which make his film truly wonderful. Castle Nymphenberg is truly beautiful. The luscious coronation preparation scene is truly evocative of the period with the magnificent uniforms and court dresses. Izabella Telezynska is amazing in the role of Queen Marie of Bavaria, Ludwig's Mother as is Gert Frobe as Ludwig's confessor. The very talented Helmut Griem is fantastic as Count Durckheim as is Trevor Howard as Wagner. The odious Professor Dr.Gudden is well played by Heinz Moog. John Moulder-Brown is also very good as Ludwig's younger brother, Prince Otto. This truly is a masterpiece of cinema.

The life of Bavaria's 'mad' King Ludwig II might have been tailor made for the silver screen, but this mammoth 4-hour long production is recommended only to viewers with superhuman powers of endurance. A patron of the arts and an incurable romantic, Ludwig ascended to the throne in 1864 at the tender age of twenty, where he proceeded to demonstrate his political ignorance and disdain for State affairs by bleeding the treasury dry in the pursuit of pure aesthetic beauty, leading his troubled mind to finally seek refuge in a Wagnerian fantasy of bold, beautiful heroes and sturdy Valkurian maidens. The film was lavishly produced and photographed in and around the fairy tale splendor of Ludwig's Alpine castles, but despite the impressive attention to visual detail the results are (at best) uneven, alternating moments of fascinating historical drama with long stretches of undiluted tedium. A few belated but colorful scenes of royal debauchery (temper tantrums, all-male orgies, etc.) aren't enough to jump start the leaden pace, and the typically haphazard Italian overdubbing holes the film below the waterline from its very first moments.

From the start of the film when Ludwig, the newly crowned King of Bavaria, is shown in his youth, it's made clear by the narration that he will go mad and eventually be interned for his own safety. From the start this circumstance hangs melancholically over the film.

Romy Schneider made a career out of playing unobtainable women, but here, as Elisabeth/Sissi, Empress of Austria, she may as well be ensconced in a quartz grotto at the top of the Himalayas, surrounded by precipice and acres of stone for all the chance Ludwig has of winning her. Perhaps that is how Ludwig imagines her when he sleeps at night. Sissi hates to be taken for granted, she avoids family get-togethers and official engagements, and makes her presence always a cherished unannounced surprise. She speaks loosely of sexual encounters with her grooms whilst encouraging a certain intimacy yet always maintains a distance from serious discourse or lovemaking. She is the worst nightmare of every man. Ludwig is stretched out on tenterhooks. The introductory scene is my favourite, Sissi playing dressage in a circus ring, delighting in the control of her horse, her face lost amongst pastel lights, a part of her life that encapsulates the whole of her life.

Ludwig's relations, or lack of relations with women during the film is crushingly sad. It seems finally a bewilderment with them that leads him into the arms of beings he can understand - men. Stricken and alone, finally he even refuses to meet Sissi, for once come not to tease, and it made my heart break.

With a government content to do without him, Ludwig withdraws into a fantasia of his own, rejecting materialism, seeking to live beyond bestial factuality, to transcend via the golden barque of the arts. Alongside several architectural commissions, he also became a stream of golden coins, flowing into the coffers of Richard Wagner, who he set up in a house of unbelievable opulence, and provided finance to for the building of the great opera house at Bayreuth, and the staging of several operas. The scenes with Wagner become almost a film within a film, although Ludwig appears the more extraordinary, if only via an accident of birth.

I was au fait with both the idea and the execution of Italian dialogue in the mouths of Germans, however I was uneasy going into this movie that it would feel Italian. Luckily Visconti does manage to keep an authentic feel, though one notable lapse for me is Count von Holnstein, who the credits confirmed to me was played by an Italian, Umberto Orsini. Holnstein is the minister who was largely responsible for orchestrating the downfall of Ludwig. In this movie Orsini's manner of speaking, his delivery and facial expressions are quintessentially Italian, even his lines have all the pomposity and false sincerity that Italian officialdom can muster. Only a quibble in a film that I felt like I was living.

Quite an astounding experience.

I had seen the butchered English-language version that was released in 1972, but it might as well have been an entirely different film, for seeing the fully restored Italian version was like seeing it for the first time, a revelation, and so obviously an underestimated masterpiece. Yes it's long, and like other of Visconti's opera-like epics, requires patience, but giving oneself over to its deliberate, meticulously detailed pacing is richly rewarding - the splendid cinematography, stunning sets and lighting, Wagner's music, and the stellar cast: Romy Schneider, Trevor Howard (perfect as Richard Wagner), Silvana Mangano, Helmut Griem, and of course Helmut Berger in the role of his life. I was in awe of just how great he is, gradually transcending his looks in portraying King Ludwig's complex, conflicted character - at times unlikable, others sublime, tragic and ultimately heartbreaking. The story of the end of an era, of the Bavarian Empire, and of Romantic idealism itself, it can also be seen as allegory for Visconti's own artistic aspirations and conflicts, his excesses and foibles. Not least of all remarkable for not shying away from homosexuality. (Visconti was unabashed about casting Berger, his real-life lover.) Truly magnificent.

I loved it. The historical story is phenomenal of course, but its treatment by Visconti is not banal either. I just saw the restored version (I am speaking of the 4-hours long version in Italian (subtitled in English) in a movie theater recently on a big screen, and that kind of total immersion in the world of "mad" king Ludwig gives you empathy with this notoriously elusive character, as bizarre as his behavior might have appeared to his contemporaries, and a sensual feel for the era. I am still swooning over the lush art direction, astounding costumes, plethora of decorative details - and it certainly does not hurt that the film crew used the real Bavarian locations of Ludwig's life. Gorgeous Romy Schneider's as Empress Elizabeth of Austria steals the screen from Helmut Berger on her few appearances, but , oh boy, all the actors do a great job, and by the end of movie, this entire cast of strong and weak characters becomes as familiar to the viewer as... your own family.

I don't know whether to give it a "7" or an "8" so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and scored it "8". VERY nice film, though somewhat longish, about a very artistic, but also paranoid ruler of the 19th century. The period settings seemed, to me anyway, authentic. For example, it shows the interior glass lamps of the 1860s burning to produced light; then showing how by the late 1880s these lamps being the electric lamps that we today are familiar with. Ludwig II was an early advocate of the use of electricity; which was a new technology in his day and age. Other settings are definitely authentic to that day and age, and it is interesting to see how people did things in the 19th century. Having said that; it is unfortunate that medical technology was not then near as advanced as today. Ludwig could certainly have been treated successfully for his paranoia with some drugs that we have today; but were not available then.

Helmet Burger is simply speaking, Ludwig. He very closely physically resembles the historical figure, and I have no doubt that his behavior does also. One gets the nagging impression that Helmut Berger was the reincarnation of Ludwig!! Romy Schneider reprized her role as Empress Elizabeth of Austria; at first with some trepidation then with tremendous enthusiasm. By the time filming ended she certainly felt that her portrayal as a more mature Sissy was the ideal role for her. In fact, the only picture of herself in costume that she displayed in her apartment was of the role she played in this movie.

The major problem with this movie, and the reason why this film was never popular in the United States, is that you have to know quite a lot of European 19th century history to really appreciate it. Until the advent of DVDs; which gave one the opportunity to play and replay this movie at will, and of on-line encyclopedias that allowed one to do some quick historical research- most of the movie was probably unfathomable to most Americans. Today, with the tools that I mentioned this movie can be appreciated by the average viewer. Watch out for the language problem in this movie; it is certainly a little disconcerting at first as this movie has German actors, in roles set in Germany, speaking not German, but rather Italian!

Lasting for more than four hours, Luchino Visconti's "Ludwig" is an exhausting and unrelentingly gloomy film on the life of Bavarian king Ludwig II "the Mad." There is interesting subject matter to work with here. Ludwig's mania for Wagnerian operas and then castles resulted in him bankrupting his kingdom. Then he was forced to abdicate and seek treatment in an insane asylum, where he died along with his psychiatrist under mysterious circumstances.

Nevertheless, Visconti succeeds in making the life of Ludwig II (Helmut Berger) boring. A big reason for the film's problems are the overly long and slow-moving scenes of Ludwig II's coronation, enigmatic conversations with Elizabeth of Austria (Romy Schneider), Richard Wagner and his operas, the king's relationships with attractive males, and so on - all meticulously detailed. You would be forgiven for thinking, as I did, that these overly long scenes were somehow important, because otherwise what is the point of dedicating four hours to figuring out what is going on in this movie. Yet the film's details just accumulate rather than amount to any payoff. In fact, a movie- goer can arrive late, miss the scenes with the coronation and Elizabeth of Austria, and still get as much out of this movie as the person who sat in his seat for four hours. These scenes do not contribute to the plot and are only related in so far as they happen in the life of Ludwig. "Ludwig" also has scenes which seem unnecessary to the plot. Was it necessary to show that many Wagnerian operas or to show Wagner performing music for his mistress, Cosima? Did we really need to know that Bavaria lost the war to Prussia, when Visconti does not seem that interested in explaining what consequences this defeat had for Ludwig or Bavaria? Lastly, there is also something very self- indulgent about this depiction of Ludwig's life. Ludwig's obsession with building opera houses and then castles must have brought considerable hardship to his own people, but this theme is never explored. Instead, Visconti seems content to film Ludwig living in complete isolation of his people and getting swindled by favourites. The message of the film does not seem to be that Ludwig impoverished his people to satisfy his own obsessions (even though such a message would be consistent with Visconti's Marxist beliefs), but rather that living in damp castles is lonely and depressing. It's obvious that Visconti tried to generate some sympathy for Ludwig, but the problem is that the Bavarian king decided to make his own life miserable by indulging heavily in these obsessions in the first place. As a result, it becomes impossible to identify with Ludwig or any of the other characters in this film.

Like other Visconti films, "Ludwig" also has truly beautiful visuals. Yet so what, when the the story was not interesting enough to justify this fantastic cinematography? There are few people who can film a coronation scene as well as Visconti could, but that does not change the fact that I do not want to watch a coronation that shows no sign of ever ending. There are few people who illustrate ostentatious luxury with the same meticulous detail as Visconti, but watching Ludwig gradually deteriorate emotionally and physically in gilded prisons (i.e. Castles) of his own making is not my idea of entertainment. What this movie required were film makers willing to make the tough choices about which scenes to keep and which to let go of long before the screenplay went into production.

Being one of a minority who does not like Death in Venice, it was not a complete surprise that I should similarly not particularly enjoy this. What does surprise me is that considering the length (I watched the full 4hr non TV version) so little of consequence happens. So many pretty and colourful uniforms, dresses and rooms put to so little use. Ken Russell would have had a field day and I assume Visconti kept things purposefully restrained but with less than half a dozen memorable moments the length does inevitably become something of a strain. Interesting cast it has to be said but, for me, it is Romy Shneider that truly shine, truly seems to have some idea of what she is doing and actually seems to be enjoying herself, even if she played the part as a favour to the director. Dull and uneventful - how is it possible to say that about a film on the life of such a person?

After "Death Of Venice" , this is the second Time I have Encountered Visconti, again its Self- obsessed protagonist captured me. I need more background information about Ludwig II, the mad king of Bavaria. But as far as this film, it solidify Visconti's status of a unique director, a master of gilded resplendence.

The film has extravagant settings which could easily amaze everyone in spite of different backgrounds. I have to say only Visconti has this privilege as he has "blue blood" running inside his veins.

Ludwig is a proud black swan, noble and pure, maybe reflects the image of Visconti himself. His tragedy is that he is not suitable to be a king, he pursues art more than politics, and his homosexuality does offend some people. At his position his demise is destined and nothing he could do to avoid it, it's so cruel to see how he suffers all the way, the ultimate death is the best way to save his dignity as a human being.

The film is almost 4 hours, I have to watch it separately, which helps a lot to digest it. And Helmut Berger is so vulnerable and convincing in his role as Ludwig, plus at that time he was also Visconti's muse. I wonder how come he hasn't become more famous as he unfurls a unisex fascination from this film even could defeat Alain Delon at his peak youth.

Watching Visconti's film is a totally different experience from watching Antonioni's. They both excel over each other in their own ways, by far I still can not figure out I like whose films more, need to see more films from both of them.

So much could have gone wrong with this follow-up to Visconti's deeply flawed "Morte a Venezia": the treatment of Ludwig II's (dream-)life could have resulted in hokey mystification; Helmut Berger's impersonation could have been badly influenced by the actor's frequently mannered performances; re-casting Romy Schneider as Sissi could have been a mere folly; and stretching the running-time to four hours could have been the nail in the coffin.

But miraculously, it all works: Visconti's elegant and empathic direction finds the right biographical tone; Berger has never been better; Romy is simply dazzlingly charming and witty in her second, much more mature approach to the Sissi character; and (except for the bumpy last hour) there's not a single unwanted scene.

Plus, Trevor Howard's Richard Wagner is a real treat; the other supporting actors are uniformly excellent; Ludwig's dormant homosexuality is subtly handled; the soundtrack is a marvel and visually, it's Visconti's most impressive work.

9 out of 10 moonlit horse rides

A somewhat forgotten picture, made at the end of the career of Visconti. It is considered the last film from the "German trilogy", "The Damned" (1969) and "Death in Venice" (1971) being the first two films of this trilogy. When you substitute "Il Gattopardo" (1963) for "Death in Venice" you can also talk about a trilogy of "decadence and change of power". This trilogy is somewhat more spread out in time, but between 1963 and 1969 Visconti did not produce films of great interest.

The reasons that this picture has fallen into oblivion are rather obvious. It is very long (nearly 4 hours) and the emphasis seems to be more on beautiful pictures than on an interesting story.

I said "seems to be" because I do not agree. The film is about a man going from unworldy to straightout mad. This is a slow proces and the film shows every nuance of it. So the film is long for a good reason.

Watching the movie it is nearly inevitable to think about Michael Jackson who withdrew more and more into his fantasy world Neverland, just like Ludwig withdrew more and more into his fantasycastle Neuschwanstein.