I agree with those saying the film is uneven. It might be due to the script, the editing as well as the directing, each of which could have been much better I suppose. As for me, if the creators had been able to decide what they wanted to tell us from Mesmer's story, if it were a bit more well-paced and the script better elaborated on, it could be a good film.
I had heard a lot of criticism about it before claiming Alan Rickman was the only good thing in it. Yes, of course, Alan Rickman is mesmerizing, but although I am a fan I don't think either he could save the whole film or he was the sole good thing in it. To give the movie a bit more credit, I think Amanda Ooms was also excellent in her portrayal of the blind patient - and as there is much more to her character than just that, I think the basic idea of the story is excellent - if only it had been explored and elaborated on more subtly.
In addition, Alan's performance can be seen just as uneven as the story-telling, although I'm sure it is the screenwriter and the director's fault. The fragmented sketches of sometimes seemingly random occurrences of Mesmer's life and career left Alan Rickman with not much space for a coherent performance. Still, he does his best in every shot and his versatility shines through. I l-o-v-e the amplitude of the energy and the restraint he can display, I just love this in an actor! He is able to express the extremes without being over-the-top, this is first-class. (Though I know he doesn't need a pat on the shoulder from me, I'm just fascinated by his acting :).)
All in all, I think the film as a whole is better than I expected though it misses a real point, and the performances are worth seeing, not to mention the beautiful cinematography and the landscape (both Hungarian, so I might be seen as biased but I'm sure I'm not :)).
I had heard a lot of criticism about it before claiming Alan Rickman was the only good thing in it. Yes, of course, Alan Rickman is mesmerizing, but although I am a fan I don't think either he could save the whole film or he was the sole good thing in it. To give the movie a bit more credit, I think Amanda Ooms was also excellent in her portrayal of the blind patient - and as there is much more to her character than just that, I think the basic idea of the story is excellent - if only it had been explored and elaborated on more subtly.
In addition, Alan's performance can be seen just as uneven as the story-telling, although I'm sure it is the screenwriter and the director's fault. The fragmented sketches of sometimes seemingly random occurrences of Mesmer's life and career left Alan Rickman with not much space for a coherent performance. Still, he does his best in every shot and his versatility shines through. I l-o-v-e the amplitude of the energy and the restraint he can display, I just love this in an actor! He is able to express the extremes without being over-the-top, this is first-class. (Though I know he doesn't need a pat on the shoulder from me, I'm just fascinated by his acting :).)
All in all, I think the film as a whole is better than I expected though it misses a real point, and the performances are worth seeing, not to mention the beautiful cinematography and the landscape (both Hungarian, so I might be seen as biased but I'm sure I'm not :)).