Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

What happens when absolute power is placed in the hands of a kind totally unfit to rule? When the king neglects his country's problems to finance his artistic protégés and build sumptuous castles? When the king's mental faculties are clearly degenerating? When the country's independence withers and its public debt increases? What's a country to do with such a king? These are some of the questions Luchino Visconti's Ludwig poses. The final instalment of Visconti's Germany history trilogy, which includes The Damned and Death In Venice, Ludwig is about King Ludwig II of Bavaria, also known as the Swan King, the Moon King, the Fairy-Tale King, and, what is arguably the fittest nickname, the Mad King of Bavaria.The theme of madness runs through most of the movie, in a languid pace, demonstrating the slow mental breakdown of Ludwig (Helmut Berger). A young, idealistic aristocrat, he assumes power with the intentions of practicing only good and serving his country God. But the young King, obsessed with arts, and especially Richard Wagner's music, has a quaint vision of his duties. For him spiritual regeneration is more important than material matters, so his first decision is to bring Wagner (Trevor Howard), on the run from creditors, to Munich, to stage his magnificent and expensive Tristan and Isolde.From the beginning Ludwig constantly clashes against his ministers, who dislike the king's aloofness and squandering of the public treasury. In their defence, Wagner is portrayed as a grovelling, greedy sycophant who constantly exploits the king's idealism for personal gain. Trevor Howard does a great job playing the legendary composer.Ludwig's alienation from his people is clearly portrayed during when Bavaria takes the side of Austria against Prussia, during the Seven Week's War. While his people, his younger brother included, fight and suffer humiliating defeats, Ludwig retreats to a palace, refusing to accept that a war is raging on. Years later, when Wilhelm I of Prussia unifies the German kingdoms into the German Empire, Ludwig, by then completely oblivious to what went in around him, Ludwig is forced to sign away the independence of his kingdom in the new empire.Ludwig can be pretty hard to follow without a reasonable grasp of East European history, and Visconti tries to cram so much into the movie that most events are barely developed, but the second half of the movie, dealing with the construction of Ludwig's famous castles, with underground lakes for swans, is more interesting and dramatic. With his mental collapse obvious, Ludwig now inhabits a fairy-tale world, separated from reality, any chances of marrying and bearing an heir pretty much over, indulging in orgies and hiring actors to represent for him his favourite monologues. It's at this time that the ministers plot to replace the king with someone else.Helmut Berger, who was outstanding as an extravagant hedonist in Visconti's The Damned, plays essentially the same role but with less charisma. Berger is quite good but he can't carry on his own a movie with very little story. Visconti could have chosen to concentrate on a specific period of Ludwig's short reign, to condense the dramatic power of his life. Instead the viewer is asked to stand repeated scenes of Ludwig discoursing about art, of ministers worrying about public debt, and of beautiful people sitting in beautiful couches surrounded by beautiful decoration. This is the movie where Visconti's sense of design and art direction takes over the importance of drama. This takeover slowly asserts itself through the trilogy, with Death In Venice already barely keeping the balance between the story and Visconti's love for Venice's derelict buildings and dirty streets.In spite of Visconti's preference of costumes and buildings over people, Helmut Berger does a great job as Ludwig. His transformation is impressive. He starts as a clean-shaved, angelic youth and progressively assumes a more demonic look, growing his hair and beard, letting his teeth rotten until his mouth looks like a piece of coal, growing paler and developing sunken eyes. In fact most of his acting is done with his eyes, always showing a lot of emotions and mental activity going on, as befits a man diagnosed with paranoia. Berger's performance is one of the main reasons to watch this movie.This is perhaps Visconti's ultimate achievement in design and art direction and few movies can boast of being prettier than Ludwig. Although I was less than pleased with the glacial pace of this movie – not that I have anything against glacial paces, just unjustified ones – it deserves a watch, when one has four hours to spend without regrets.

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!

The color of solitude. The taste of freedom. The fear. "Ludwig" is a new tale about Hamlet. A new story about power and an age of dreams and limits of ash. About madness and the rules of real life. About life like trip or form of search. Ludwig of Wittelsbach is not present in this movie. In fact, like others films, "Ludwig" is a Visconti's self-portrait. Same crisis and same answer, same cycle of hypocrisy and same morgue. Ludwig is a victim but not of his era, error or illness. He is the victim of desire, like every romantic hero or existentialistic character. The action is the shadow of Visconti-Berger relation, and form of self-recognition. The tall of a fall and a disillusion's map. A contour of any game and a sacrifice without value.