kamenramen Count me as one the haters of this hodge-podge pretentious mess of a movie. The director is trying to act as if he's a Dalique surrealist with this film, but it comes across as choppy, uneven "art school senior" project filled with amateurish, hammy performances, especially from John Malkovich and his eurotrash cast. Ridiculously over the top, unnatural acting; the last time I've watched such bad acting is Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. So much potential, squandered by a talentless, Euro hack director; definitely for the direct to video Redbox crowd. For the art crowd that applauds this as a masterpiece; Klimt's artwork are beautiful masterpieces, but this movie is art drek for the pretentiously laughable. Cheap titillation and goofy performances do not equate art.

neulinguistics It's amazing how this poorly done movie still got published.Whoever was in charge for making this film didn't take a moment and think that the film was terrible. Was this film a school project for a drama class? Gustav Klimt was progressive. The movie was regressive.When I looked at the credits, Raoul Ruiz was mentioned. He died in 2011, so whatever anyone says about him is not fair. He is dead and cannot defend himself.When I looked again at the credits, various countries were listed that are responsible for this film. Austria was one of them. Any film that was done with Austria's help takes us back to the 19th Century with respect to movie-making techniques and technology.People in Austria---please stay away from producing any movies. They are just awful.

poolbeshlie The best film I have ever seen, or not seen as it may be. This film was so astounding that I actually dozed off, occasionally awaking, looking at the screen and realising that nothing had actually happened since I last watched. As an avid film watcher and art lover, I had expected this film to be revealing, telling the audience about the wonders and misdemeanours of Klimt the artist and the man. Actually, it told me nothing. The acting was bland, stilted and lacking in emotion, bar JM, who portrayed his usual oddball self. The best thing about the film were the costumes.My mum thought she had gone senile, I thought I was trapped in a bad art house film nightmare. I was.Modigliani the film is much better.

danielvalcarce I had the chance to see this long awaited movie on cable TV and I thought it would be interesting when I realized it was directed by Chilean-french art film director Raul Ruiz. Nevertheless it turned out to be a complete bore, absurdly pretentious and wrongly rupturist, perhaps taking too much for granted on Ruiz well-known abstract cinematic style and nothing to provide information on this very influential and important painter. John Malkovich repeats himself on a role that doesn't demand for any psychological progression due to a self indulgent non linear narrative that fails completely in attempting to portray the tormented life of the Austrian artist. Ruiz's style to film might be interesting for another kind of movies in which you don't need to illustrate facts of life or narrate biographic events. In this film he seems to be an accurate expert on the European description of intellectuals and artists belonging to the 20th century, but still he cannot give a coherent description of Gustav Klimt's eccentric life.