उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

This is a colorful, enchanting though superficial fictional semi-biography of Ludwig Van Beethoven (Ed Harris) kissed with genius. His last days are brought to life in this entertaining drama musical . This 104 minutes film gives you a splendid idea of the most famous classical music composer .The picture concerns about the tempestuous relationship between a young girl (Diane Kruger) who works as copyist and the excellent musician. A number of factual liberties are taken is this imaginative screen-biography of the history's great composer but it doesn't matter because is also based on real events, as his problematic relation submerged by dramatics with his nephew Karl Van Beethoven(Joe Anderson). Not too bad as biopic go, but musical talent and Ed Harris interpretation is definitely the star in this production. Beethoven's music is the highlight of the film as when he directs the orchestra amid the strains of symphonies 5,7 9,¨Ode to joy¨ and she helps him .

It's a stunning film full of superb music, literate, wit and an immensely dramatic fire. The picture contains some striking visual images ,lavish setting, terrific period piece with realistic scenario for the XIX century filmed on location in Budapest,Hungary, besides nifty brilliant costumes. Ed Harris delivers a convincing portrayal, sometimes a little bit exaggerated, of the popular composer whose music is become immortal. Ed Harris(nominated for Academy Award by ¨Pollock¨) acting is magnificent, he expresses musical genius and a first class finger-matching and musical conductor of Beethoven's music has a glorious sweep. The German actress Diane Kruger(Troy,National treasure) is beautiful and gorgeous, she is resolute but vulnerable in the role as copyist and admirer of the greatest composer she has ever heard. The Academy of Ancient Music Orchestra and soloists contributed to the splendid soundtrack. Atmospheric and glimmer cinematography by Ashley Rowe is simply stunning. The motion picture is well directed by Agnieszka Holland. Devotees of the music will appeal this film which is a fine tribute to the master.

There are many things to be said in favor of director Agnieszka Holland's ('Europa, Europa', 'Total Eclipse', 'The Secret Garden', 'Olivier, Olivier') COPYING BEETHOVEN as written from fragments of questionable truths about the composer's final years by Stephen J. Rivele and Christopher Wilkinson: the film is gorgeous to look at for all its candlelit sepia scenes and of course a pleasure to hear as the musical score is primarily excerpts of Beethoven's music, and for the towering performance of Ed Harris as the deaf, dirty, cruel, grumpy, gross Ludwig van Beethoven. There have been sufficient biographies of the master to set the facts straight and this particular viewer has no problem at all with the tinkering of truth in creating a cinematic story that might help to explain the idiosyncrasies of the old master composers. It is a movie to enjoy: it is not a true story for all its attempts to recreate the life of the composer.

In COPYING BEETHOVEN the premise is that the 'hard of hearing' Beethoven needs a copyist to help him complete his Symphony No. 9 due to a premiere of the work in four days time. Wenzel Schlemmer (Ralph Riach), Beethoven's usual copyist, is dying of cancer and arranges for the best pupil at the academy to assist Beethoven. That pupil happens to be a female, one Anna Holtz (Diane Kruger), who arrives at Beethoven's filthy apartment and struggles to convince the composer that she is worthy of the task. Anna is in love with a bridge builder Martin Bauer (Matthew Goode) and finds herself devoting her mind and attention to Beethoven rather than to Martin. Beethoven has never married and instead is in love with his nephew Karl (Joe Anderson) who refuses to follow his uncle's footsteps and instead mistreats him by constantly begging/stealing money form him to pay his gambling debts. So with this cast of characters Beethoven proceeds to complete his now famous 9th Symphony with Anna's help. Beethoven is to conduct the premiere but must depend on Anna (substituting for the errant Karl) to sit in the orchestra and give him cues. The performance is of course greeted with rapture, but Beethoven knows his output is not finished and the remainder of the film deals with his struggle to write the Grosse Fugue for his final string quartet, a piece the public (including Anna) loathes but one that Beethoven recognizes as the bridge to the next advance in music writing. Reduced to self pity, Beethoven dies, but Anna is going to carry the torch for her hero...

The problems with watching COPYING BEETHOVEN that will make those who know the facts of the composer's life stumble are many: Beethoven was completely deaf in his latter years, unable to hear his music much less conversations with people; Beethoven did not conduct the premiere of his 9th Symphony but instead sat deafly in the orchestra not even able to hear the score at which he stared; the gentility with which Ed Harris' Beethoven shows is in sharp contrast to the rascally and despicable behavior of the real man. But those facts don't lend themselves to a good story for cinema and the writers and director were wise to realize this. So forgive the straying from the truth and settle back for a very entertaining if factually irresponsible 'biography'. The musical portions of the film are so truncated that the music suffers, but that matters little to the impression Beethoven's 9th, even in soundbites, has on audiences. If for no other reason, see this film for the bravura performance by Ed Harris. Grady Harp

And parts of it I loved. The casting of Ed Harris in the role of Beethoven was a stroke of genius in itself and like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ed inhabits every role he's in, extraordinary actors both, without mannerisms or methodisms. He just is. It is a serious misfortune that the script fell far short of his talent.

Diane Kruger for the most part is luminous and believable, I don't know if the picture was filmed sequentially, but in the beginning she appears to be struggling to find her feet, to roll herself into the part, and after a few wobbles, she eventually does.

The interpretation of the Ninth is sublime on many levels, the main one being the absolute sensuousness of Anna Holtz (played by Diane) guiding the maestro through the conducting of the Ninth at its debut. Right up there with memorable movie moments.

The main difficulties I had were with the depiction of Beethoven's hearing (he was totally deaf when he wrote the sublime Ninth) and with the anachronistic dialogue which had me "ouching" far too much. Using terms like "mooning", Beethoven himself no less christening his own Moonlight Sonata - spare us, American accents slopping around, a single woman completely chaperonless running freely around Vienna and on and of course the passionate kissing scenes with her kinda-fiancé, I think not.

As to the "Wash Me" scene, I got it (I think). He was composing in synch to her washing motions. More could have been made of it.

I understand why the director, Agnieszka Holland, would develop the story to highlight and Mozartize Beethoven, but I would have to say the experiment was a failure.

Evocative lighting but a sad little script which seriously under estimated this viewer's intelligence and I believe I'm not alone. 7 out of 10 for the bits that worked.

For a lovely little movie depicting the just about demented from deafness Beethoven composing his Ninth, see the delightful "Beethoven Lives Upstairs."

Greetings again from the darkness. Films on icons and historical figures are always risky. Either the greatness (or evil) is exaggerated or the dramatization leaves us feeling empty. Director Agnieszka Holland ("Europa, Europa") attempts to capture the ego and genius of "the monster" Ludwig Von Beethoven in a dramatized version of his last year.

The beautiful Diane Kruger (wonderful in "Joyeux Noel", and also in "National Treasure") plays Anna Holtz, the copier/transcriber for Beethoven's famous 9th symphony as well as his final quartets. It does have similarities to Beauty and the Beast, but the film falls short in capturing his genius. All we get for an explanation is Beethoven's shouts of "God speaks to everyone, but he screams in my ear".

Ed Harris, continuing his knack for playing the crazed artist ("Pollack" "Winter Passing") does an admirable job in heavy make-up and wig attempting to show us the constant torture of the musical genius, who is so clueless on how to deal with the little people.

Harris and Kruger do fine work in their many scenes together, but the film never truly captures the greatness or genius of the artist. The closest it comes is the wonderful version of the 9th as we see Beethoven and Anna working closely (very sensually) to pull off the first public performance. Instead Ms. Holland keep it in the form of a small film, which is not altogether a bad thing.

Given our modern sensibilities with respect to the role of women in society and, lest we be labeled Calibans, it is no great effort to overlook the anachronism and give the nod to the female copyist at the start of this movie. Not five minutes later, though, we are asked to completely strain the boundaries of credulity and accept that the creativity of the second greatest composer ever to have lived (Mahler being the first) owed its triumph to a twenty-three-year-old inexperienced female "secretary".

It is at this point one realizes that the creation of the Ninth Symphony is a patina, a mere plot device, for the true substance of the movie which is Beethoven's suppressed twentieth century feminist ideology. Alas, if only the maestro himself had realized how truly ahead of his time he was! Is it really only twenty years ago we discovered Beethoven was black?

...and yet, if you love Beethoven, it is all about the music. Whatever the historical flaws in this movie, the anticipation engendered when the Ninth begins and the excitement bursting within as the choristers intone "Freude, schöener Götterfunken" of Schiller's Ode to Joy; any misgivings about the picture are completely over-shadowed by the music itself. Which says more about Beethoven's lasting genius than modern movie-making "talent" ever could.

As a professional musician I'm tired of seeing movies that claim to depict the lives of musicians, but just don't "get" it. This one, with all its poetic excesses and liberties taken with the "real" story, does "get" it, and more. The writing has some good scenes, the acting for the most part is good. The scenes of music being written and made are quite true to the reality of the doing. In certain ways adding a fictional character to heighten the story weakens the integrity of the film, especially as the film clearly depicts Beethoven's unrequited love for his nephew Karl. Beethoven's real copyists at this point in his life were men. So what was the point of turning them into a young woman, except to sell the picture and make a political statement?

But no matter. The picture has its moments of real beauty visually and emotionally. It captures the look and sound of a world lit only by daylight, candles and firelight, and in which the loudest sounds heard are those of church bells, added by the sound designer at very telling points in the story.

But the strongest thing about the film is the performance of Ed Harris. This is an amazing theater artist. He totally inhabits the character as written, with no tricks, no Method-izing, no self-conscious showing off, as do his contemporaries, DeNiro and Pacino. He totally disappears into the character, and unlike the actors I mentioned, is totally different in each role, in appearance and in voice. It's done so simply, too, without any extra attention-grabbing flourishes. As I've said elsewhere, his work reminds me most of classic film actors like Tracy, Fonda and Stewart in that respect.

I was astounded by the way he acted the role of a musician, which was incredibly accurate, in ways I would expect from this actor, but still it surprised me. The only other performance on film that I've seen which equals it in this respect is that of Claude Rains in the 1946 melodrama "Deception". But then, Harris' father was a musician, singing in the most famous small chorus of his time, Fred Waring's "Pennsylvanians". So Ed Harris grew up around musicians, accounting for his accurate portrayal and his singing voice.

So do see this film, for the music of course, but also for Ed Harris' riveting performance.

Actually the film has much less similarities to Forman's masterpiece than expected from a biopic on a great composer. At the moment there's only two comments on it, meaning it hasn't have a wide American release yet. Whoever thinks the audiences can't enjoy the dynamics of two people in a cluttered Dostoevskian room is deeply wrong.

Anyway, just got back from the first screening in Jerusalem. Ed Harris is very convincing as Ludwig Van, and the whole film is paradoxically reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange, with its use of Beethoven's Ninth throughout the score. Another film we're reminded of is Girl with a Pearl Earring - the relationship between the artist and the female protagonist is quite similar at the beginning to what is shown there. Finally, "Copying Beethoven" is directed by a woman, for whom it must have been important to tell a story of a woman's status in a world of Arts dominated by men, especially at those times. A bit boring towards the ending, it's nevertheless captivating.

I enjoyed "Copying Beethoven" for different reasons than I enjoyed "Eroica" (the Ninth was the focus of practically every moment) and "Immortal Beloved" (the conflict between the composer's passion for creating music and his human need to be connected to others). For me, the focus of "Copying Beethoven" combined these two themes into a much more personal one, and dramatized the Maestro's need to communicate a comprehensive knowledge -- intellectual, emotional, spiritual -- of his art to this young copyist who was so intimate with his work. For if not her, than who?

While the musical performances were truncated out of necessity -- the success of the film, "Eroica", is due primarily to the performance of the Third Symphony in its entirety -- the actors' performances in "Copying Beethoven" reveal aspects of Beethoven not explored in the other two films. Beethoven is always portrayed as a "cranky genius", but Harris' Beethoven is so human -- impulsive and brutish, then reflective and apologetic, then insensitive and crude, then regretful and humble -- someone trying not to make the same mistakes over again. The relation he develops with the copyist realistically (and thankfully) does not influence his music, but it does cause his character to focus on his humanity, and I so enjoyed hearing this Beethoven talk about things like music, musicians, family, and God.

A word about the other performances. Kruger was radiant. The conflict between her respect for the artist and repulsion at his cruelty was wonderfully mixed with her character's own strengths, ambitions, and needs. The supporting characters were also splendid with hilarious and touching moments. The film is full of delightful words and gestures. Whether you have read volumes of history on Beethoven or are only passingly familiar with the Fifth, I recommend you see this lovely film about the humanity that lived within the genius who infused music with life.

there were some confusing aspects to this film which distracted from the potential to enjoy it more. first off, i'd just seen "Immortal Beloved" the week before, and understand that in order to not make "Copying Immortal Beloved" the interpretation of the screenplay had to avoid mimicry. that was OK, to see things through a different sets and props, and draw the relationships from another angle.

but the inclusion of a fictional character to highlight the story of a well-known personage is tough for some fans to accept. there were moments of wonderful emotion and power, but to invest in these scenes while being told a historically-inaccurate story cheapens the feeling.

someone mentioned "Shakespeare in Love" as being inaccurate as well, but fun, and i suppose if that sort of revisionism doesn't bother one, then definitely see this film. it is comedic and doesn't linger too long beyond the story's needs.

for the more discriminating folks, be advised that this film doesn't make use of the standard British-actors-with-German-accents, but British/American/German actors with American (and in some cases, unplaceable) accents. even some words which appear on-screen in Gothic script, that were read aloud, were written in English, something that for me changes the setting in a subtle way.

the story itself was a bit confusing, and enough various ideas were put forth to make me wonder what the film was actually meant to be about. is it a tale of Beethoven's struggle for acceptance and success after a long period of not composing? is it meant to show the strains & events leading up to his passing? was it a study of relationships, in that the people in his life had their own particular opinion & approach to him?

see this film with a mind that it is not meant to be realistic historically (ie. the anachronistically-plucky heroine, for one), but another way to think about a tormented, complex human being who saw himself as divinely-appointed to make some of eternity's most beautiful music.

Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:

-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")

-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)

-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")

-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")

-and the list goes on...

The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.

No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.

And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".

AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!

AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).

AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.

For those of you who have trashed this film with comments about the music not being accurate for the times or there was no such thing as a female copyist,etc, can't you go along with the fact that it's a fantasy? I saw it at a screening last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed it...for what it is, a made-up story to give us some insight into what might have been in Bethoven's mind toward the end of his life. I felt it did just that. It is well acted, directed, and the screenplay is very inventive. I certainly can't speak for the director, Ms. Holland, but while watching this film, I had the sense that she strongly wanted me, as the viewer, to feel a certain way so that I could get into the heart of what she was portraying. It worked, because several times I was totally drawn into the scenes and forgot I was in the theater. That's a big cue for me that it's a good film. Go see it, and decide for yourself.

I was going to praise the other reviewers even as I disagreed with them and then I read a few more and a few more and I started stewing. I am not a professional writer. I neither write movie reviews or movies themselves. However I do understand the idea of "willing suspension of disbelief". No one ever said this was a totally factual account of the life of Beethoven. First of all, we will never see one. No one knows all the facts of his life. It was too long ago. So let us enjoy the movie which does a beautiful job of trying to explain what Beethoven's life might have meant, seen through the eyes of a young woman. Women perceive people differently. They listen differently and pick up on other's inner monologue more easily. I think telling that particular story in any other way would have been a big mistake. I most strongly disagree with the statement that Beethoven tries to speak for God. No, Beethoven tries to explain that God speaks to him and it was only when he became deaf that he could hear her clearly. It is an inspiring movie. If you love the music of Beethoven as I do I think you will enjoy this movie. I have to admit that I started to cry during one passage when a some favorite music of Beethoven's was being clarified and completed. Rent the movie or borrow it from the library. It is worth the price and the time.

I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.

Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony – isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer).

Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.

Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.

For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.

Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.

Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?

As an historical insight into the life of Beethoven this movie is next to useless. It is completely fictional, a parallel universe to the real Beethoven but not the real one. That aside it's reasonably entertaining if only for the writers imagination for the fantasy of what they imagined Beethoven to be like if he really did have a sexy female assistant with aspirations of being a great composer.

The real revelation here is Ed Harris. I had to check 4-5 times to remind myself this was Ed Harris. The makeup and performance is fantastic. He is almost completely unrecognizable as the Ed Harris we are familiar with in all his other movies. I was looking for full face close ups to see how they did it but couldn't really tell.

The music is also pretty impressive. The 9th Symphony sounds brilliant.

I'm not sure what this movie was meant to be, but its turned out to be a fictional period piece using historical figures, it looks impressive, but why use and soil the name of Beethoven for it?

But Ed Harris, whoever he is supposed to be is amazing.

Fine artistic student/teacher piece, obviously echoing shades of Amadeus, borrows only those classical elements which remain timeless. Bolstered by an assured take by the reliable, hardly recognizable Ed Harris, Copying Beethoven manages to be both a study into the masterful composer's treacherous inner workings and his imaginary end-career partnership with a young female copyist. Thrown into the situation a few days before the historical debut of his 9th symphony, the movie may have a hard time finding it's audience with a lack of background, rendering the historical fiction confusing and irrelevant. And die hard fans seem off- put by the strange liberties the script takes with it's usage of the female counterpoint dealing with the maestros rather unhealthy behavior. Those left in the middle to enjoy this moving piece of faction (that would be fact mixed with fiction), could be pleasantly surprised by some enticingly heavy scenes, articulating the creative spirit in ways that have all but been lost in modern movies of the past decade.

Strangely reminiscent, though definitely superior to her misaligned study of the great poet Rimbaud in Total Eclipse, Agnieszka Holland proves that she is driven to portray the underlying creative genius present throughout history's chosen few. Powerfully setting out to capture what it is that makes one truly brilliant, (ignore the first scene's horribly edited montage) Holland again taps into that artistic and creative spirit which seems like such a viable and malleable subject yet is afforded little concern. The sensitive homage to tortured genius is refreshing, in all of it's musical and creative intellectual buffoonery.

Harris gets to continue his legendary-artist-portraying fetish, probably being one of the few American-raised actors who could manage to play the exalted genius without coming across as completely inept. The large screen time afforded his female co-lead Diane Kruger comes with some mixed results, though ultimately her beauty only intensifies a melodic passion her character gravitates towards.

A general negativity geared towards the movie doesn't do this one justice. Beethoven's staggering character still hasn't found the definitive film, and this largely pointless fictionalization of the composer's last years will do nothing for those studying the man. Still, Harris' performance remains a decadently fun affair, increasingly relevant to anyone who embraces musical composition, wants to walk with a raving genius, and otherwise longs for a taste of divine intervention themselves.

LOVED IT ! ! ! Rarely, a movie comes along that is a work of art. I felt that way about Tous les Matins du Monde, and hadn't felt that way about any movie since. This one really enhanced my FEEL for Beethoven - for his art, and for his life. It got across well the notion that there's a deeper substrate to Beethoven's music that transcends calculation and structure. I was rapt. I found at the end that I still had a full bag of popcorn - I'd forgotten all about it as soon as the movie started. My favorite scenes included the marvelous, exhilarating performance of the Ninth Symphony, and an exegesis of the Grosse Fugue. Happily will I go to see this movie again and again.

I actually like it....but its very similar to AMADEUS...I don't know why people didn't like it...It has reality with fantasy...a good mix...The music was excellent, there is a scene..when they are preforming the symphony...it send shivers to my spine...

I recommend this movie...and do not read the bad comments...The ones where people just leave because is not a Hollywood or typical romance movie....The acting was good..although Anna could have acted better and Karl should have cry less...but still great movie...enjoyable...and fun!

Like I said before...it kind of the same type of film as AMADEUS...how they mix facts and imagination...

See it and judge for your self

The idea that Beethoven would have needed help from his copyist to conduct the orchestra as in the film where he watches her hands -- is ludicrous.

You don't need to hear the orchestra to conduct it. You are conducting them. Not the other way around.

Anyone and everyone who conducts, does so from the written notation, unless of course it's memorized. Though helpful to be able to hear what's going on, it's not necessary ... especially at Beethoven's level, who could compose when he was deaf because he could hear the notes on the page in his head. Also, he would have been able to read the physical cues from the orchestra ... the bows of the violins etc.

No, it didn't happen that way, and yes, it's derivative, with the obnoxious genius trope from "Amadeus" and the young girl inspires jaded artist trope from "Girl with a Pearl Earring." Why is it still worth it? Because it makes you feel something of what it is like to write music--even if you don't write music. It also makes you understand what it is like to be around a genius, not just from the main (fictional) character of Anna, but even from minor characters, i.e., the neighbor who finds Beethoven a nuisance personally, but gets to hear all his music before anyone else. It also gives you some idea of Beethoven's matter- of-fact acceptance of his dual nature, that he can write such heavenly music while being an utter boor as a man.

About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic "eyes wide shut" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.

First a note here. Do not make the mistake I made and read all the 10 star reviews before you see this film. ESPECIALLY the review that actually wrote that this film is better than Amadeus. Really? Please, while this is a somewhat interesting effort at creating a historical picture of Beethoven, "Copying Amadeus" would be a much more accurate title.

Again, it's not terrible, Ed Harris and Diane Kruger gave admirable performances, the sets were good, if a little bit "constructed" looking, and there is little character depth except for the leads, but BETTER than...well, you be the judge.

Definitely too many notes.