“The Music Lovers.” This film in my opinion is the greatest of the composer biopics ever.  Period.  Another composer flick and arguably the most popular of them all, Amadeus,  borrowed a couple things here and there such as the nuthouse ending.

What really makes me sick is when people bitch about whether a biopic is totally factual.  Give me a break.  If you want factual, go to a library and check out a book.

The film was panned by several reviewers, which leads me to my next complaint.  Popular film reviewers should stay the hell out of art house film.  You critics have no clue.  You’ve been going out twice a week handing three stars to any Hollywood film that has a beginning, middle, and ending.  The reviewer statements listed below are remarkably stupid.  One gets the feeling that since  Russell pointed a hypothetical microscope at Tchaikovsky’s sexuality (you know he was gay, right?), that it offended the critics and the poor citizens circa the western world, 1970.

Here are some of the wacky review lines from back in the day:

Vincent Camby of the New York Times -  “Mr. Russell has told us a lot less about Tchaikovsky and his music than he has about himself as a filmmaker . . . [His] speculations are not as offensive as his frontal — and often absurd — attacks on the emotions.”

Roger Ebert Chicago Sun Times- “an involved and garish private fantasy” and “totally irresponsible as a film about, or inspired by, or parallel to, or bearing a vague resemblance to, Tchaikovsky, his life and times.”

Time – “Seventy-seven years have passed since Tchaikovsky’s death. In this epoch of emancipated morality, it would be reasonable to expect that his life would be reviewed with fresh empathy. But no; the same malignant attitudinizing that might have been applied decades ago is still at work .

Give me a break.  My readers probably agree just by watching this couple minute clip that the film is outstanding (note Swan Lake in there)