Kirpianuscus and, maybe, it is enough. because it is not real easy to define, in right manner, a period and its remarkable personalities. the only problem - the portrait of Alma Mahler. too simple, almost a sketch, unfair in many scenes, reduced at the status of hunter of men. and, if you accept that, it is honest to remark than it is one of the sides of her personality. because she is, in same measure, an artist. not at the level of her well known husbands/lover but a voice in a period which remains defined by the freedom of creation. and this aspect of Alma Mahler seems be ignored in the film. but this sin is far to be impressive. only common to many filmmakers looking only to impress and to give perfect versions for a public who, in many senses, remains unknown.

nihilisia As with many biographical narratives, Bride of the Wind meanders more than most stories do. Because of this, one may have to be in a mood to do a little of the work while watching this movie.I think the film has been very well executed. The acting, photography and directing are all beautifully and thoughtfully crafted. The subtle quality of the writing and acting enhances the force of human reality and delineates the truth of emotions in a way that no overly dramatic movie could.One might compare this movie to the French movie, Camille Claudel, in that it is the story of a frustrated female artist whose energies are at least partially consumed by their roles as muses to more famous male creatives. However, Alma Mahler's character is quite different than Camille's.I highly recommend this movie to anybody with an attention span, especially if you have any artistic leanings. 8/10

inframan A pretty but pretty dreadful movie full of nyah-ha-ha acting that trivializes some of the most brilliant people & movements in art & music of the 20th century. Walter Gropius (the giant of modern architecture & leader of the Bauhaus) suffers in particular from a particularly fatuous impersonation while Jonathan Pryce gives his usual petulantly effete performance as a very Bloomsbury Mahler. Worst of all is the actress who plays Alma. In no way does she convey the temperament of a woman of the epoch of Freud & Mahler to say nothing of someone on intimate terms with them. Lord knows what Kokoschka or Mahler or Gropius would have seen in this one.

wand_elf I went to this movie and I didn't really hear anything about it before and didn't know what to expect from it. I didn't even know what this film was about. All of a sudden I hear a familiar trumpet and horn melody in the opening credits and I was filled with joy. For these were the notes as composed by the late great Gustav Mahler. I quickly realized that this was going to be a film about one of my favorite composers and I was totally drawn into the film. Of course, though, this film is not about Mahler, but his wife Anna. The parts that included Gustav and Anna were wonderful. There was some honest passion going on that very few films I have seen lately have exhibited. The overall communication between the two near the end of Mahler's life was very gentle, bittersweet and very believable. Gorgeous work from Wynter and Pryce together. However the film gets considerably worst with each relationship Anna has after Mahler. Everything seems forced and rushed and consequential. It almost seems that Beresford was out to make a film about Mahler and then right in the middle of production he finds out the Mahler died much earlier than an erroneous script had told him. So he decides to make a film about a confused female 'player' who only went out with successful men before having some success of her own. Oh well. Still though I had a good time with this film. I just wish this was more of a film about Gustav Mahler than it actually was.Elendil