Maria

I come at this from a different angle. I was an opera singer for many years, and I did an E! Mysteries and Scandals about Maria Callas.

Though Angelina Jolie is luminous in the role, this was not really representative of the real Maria Callas. This is the fault of the script and the approach of the director.

First, I could have used more music instead of most of it being in the background. We see an audience standing and screaming "Bravo" after "Qui la voce." Except we didn't hear "Qui la voce," just a few bars and none of the coloratura.

This aloof attitude Callas had during her interviews, etc. Was not Maria. The interview she gave John Ardoin, where she asked that the tapes not be played until she was dead, with the most heartbreaking thing you would ever hear in your life. She was miserable, codependent, and never got over her relationship with Onassis. She was a very damaged woman. I really did not get a lot of of that from this film. Just an opinion.

There were also inaccuracies, but that's to be expected in a script that has to telescope a life.

Maria Callas was a great artist and a deeply complicated human being. This film did not come close to who she was.

There is this old actors saying in film industry: "It's better to be a working actor, instead of a star",

Actors which often are considered stars, rely on their sex appeal, and personal charisma.

However, as the aging process takes its natural cause, their star power just like with real cosmic stars, burns out and fades away... Therefore being a working actor seems to be better path towards their carrier longevity.

Sometimes actors which are labeled as stars have a huge difficulty to shake off the moniker of a star and in the autumn of their career select projects which are more demanding artistically.

Now, the audiences and critics having them put in a "box", have a difficulty seeing in them something more than a shadow of their former self. However, if given a proper chance, senior actors performance can actually show what they've always were capable of doing, but because of their beauty and sex appeal, they were locked in the image they had to uphold for commercial reasons.

This brings me to 'Maria' a biopic about last week of life of opera Primadonna Maria Callas, which is a part of the trilogy directed by Pablo Larraín together with biopic about Jacky Kennedy 'Jacky' and princess Diana titled' Spenser'. Both lead female performances in previous movies received not only critical acclaim, but also nomination for Oscars.

"Maria Callas is one of the most iconic performers of the 20th century. The film follows the Greek-American soprano as she retreats to Paris after a glamorous and tumultuous life in the public eye, reimagining the legendary diva in her final days as she reckons with her identity and life."

To some extent Pablo's latest biopic seemed to polarize the critics. Some love it and others feel it is rather doll and uneventful. Some critics are extra harsh on Angelina Jolie performance feeling that she does not possess enough internal depth to portrait this complex character without falling into acting clichés.

Apparently Angelina trained opera singing for over half year to be able to try to attempt to vocalize at least in part the mastery of late opera, singing icon. As actors prepare for their roll, especially when the performance is based on a real person, it is ill advised to focus on the characters mannerisms and instead try to convey the inner emotional triggers that the original performer is known for. And therefore the internal approach often takes the charge instead of purely external characterization, which can feel theatrical in medium of film.

Some critics which I personally disagree with points out that although Angelina Jolie portraits the external aspects of Maria Callas character, she does not have enough acting tools to internalize the performance. Apparently between five and 70% of singing has been done by Angelina Jolie herself, which in itself is rather impressive, considering the magnitude of range and talent, the original diva possessed.

This film is mature cinema and what first stands immediately out is absolutely breathtaking cinematography. It has that grand look to it, supported by detailed production and costume design. The camera movement has a mastery to it, with seamless, dolly moves, always creating beautiful depth of field, as camera is tracking the protagonist, revealing a vanishing point that adds depth and three dimensionality to the frame. This aspect in itself gives this film, a feeling of "poetry in motion".

All the supporting performances are rather nuances, with Pierfrancesco Favino as faithful butler and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the documentary filmmaker and Haluk Bilginer as Aristotle Onassis to just name a few.

To larger extent, with 'Maria' Director is leaning towards arthouse cinema in the visual way the story is being shown, and therefore a choice of a lead actress which in her career had a commercial appeal, might be a polarizing casting choice. However I for one, am in the opinion that sometimes actors which are often type casted can break the mold and showcas their true, artistic worth, as it happens in this instant, with this solid performance by Angelina Jolie.

In conclusion, this film is probably best recommended for mature audiences, which are sophisticated enough to appreciate what the Director achieved here.

Again it might not be for everyone's taste, but there is certainly enough quality to justify 2 hours and 4 minutes of your time.

Just watched the film at a film festival. Our entire group was disappointed by what we watched.

The story line was paper thin to us, focused on the last part of her life, with major parts of the history around how events tied together left out. We would move from one scene to another without a clear link between sequences.

The focus seemed to center around Jolie posing for us, rather removed of the charm of the real Maria. I get it - Angelina is gorgeous but where was the spark?

I never felt like I connected with the characters and didn't feel bought into the film. There was a hollowness to this version of Maria Callas.

At the end of the film, as the end credits start, there are scenes of the real Maria Callas - full of personality and charisma - which were unfortunately not portrayed in Jolie's performance.

Gorgeous costume designs but that was it for me.

Pablo Larraín's film Maria attempts to portray the life of the famous opera singer Maria Callas, but it doesn't fully capture her strength and mystery. The film focuses mainly on the tragic aspects of her life, such as her difficult relationship with Onassis, the pressure of her career, and the pain caused by her fame. It is a film about sadness and suffering, but it misses the opportunity to highlight her immense talent and the beauty of her voice.

Nevertheless, the film does have its strengths. The cinematography is stunning, and Larraín's direction captures the heavy atmosphere of Callas' life well. The film subtly portrays the loneliness of her existence. The costumes and sets are beautiful and provide a visual tribute to the opera world in which Callas lived. The music is also well-chosen and creates some emotional moments that deepen the story.

One of the biggest issues with the film is the casting of Angelina Jolie in the lead role. She is a talented actress, but her appearance doesn't quite align with how Maria Callas looked. Callas had a very unique, but not "perfect" face-her face was full of emotion and vulnerability, which made her so human and real. Jolie's face often looks too polished, making it harder to see the true Maria Callas. Instead of Callas, the viewer mostly sees Angelina Jolie.

The film also lacks balance between showing Callas' sadness and celebrating her incredible musical talent. Callas' voice was one of the most beautiful in opera, and it's a shame that the film focuses so much on the difficult moments of her life. Yes, her life was filled with pain, but it would have been good to also show how magical her performances were, how technically skilled she was, and how much passion she put into every aria. A film about Callas should not only show her as a victim, but also as the great artist she was, who captivated the world again and again with her art.

If Maria Callas had seen this film, she might have felt uncomfortable. Instead of a film that celebrates her talent and voice, we get a somber portrait of her life, with little room for the beauty that defined her career. The film emphasizes her pain, rather than her most glorious moments. This is not what she deserved. Maria Callas deserves more than a film that focuses solely on her sorrow. She deserves a film that celebrates her as the legendary artist she was.

I agree with blanche-2 and other reviewers, as a former opera student for many years and opera lover and connoisseur.

This may be a delight for those who like Angelina Jolie and like to see a beatiful face on screen, but nothing here resembles the unique quality of divine Maria.

For starters, this is the worse lip-sync I have seen in my life in a biopic of a singer, and it was a surprise that a movie supposed to be a first-rate production went ahead ignoring this major failure. After all, singing is to the essence of the film, it is not a secondary scene. And if you want to recreate Callas life using real recordings, the performative effort must be flawless. Of course it is as hard as demanding, but if you want to compare Jolie's playback what a remarkable, well-executed example, please watch La Mome, the biopic about Edith Piaf, and find delight in Marion Cotillard's perfect, unbelievably good execution. (Jolie's lack of sync is as unbelievable.)

Then, the physique du role. Jolie is one of the most beautiful actresses of our time. But it has physical disparities with Callas which cannot be solved with make-up, and the lack of resemblance spoils the effort. Callas's beauty was tempered, life-chiseled, acquired, a result of a deep effort at self-awareness and self-hardening and reshaping her destiny. That kind of subjective process simply «showed» in her regal attitude, and imposing scenic presence. Jolie is a born beauty, her beauty a gift given from the start, and, in my opinion, she did not manage to convey the dramatic depth of Callas's appeal enough as to create the magical impression that we are seeing a credible Callas.

Also, for those who love opera, Jolie's embouchure (the singers' «mouth mould») is a joke, nothing close to the unmistaken bel canto mouth frame which opera singers (and Callas) distinctively employ. It may seem an unimportant detail, but the sum of inconsistencies and lack of attention to detail ends up being irritating.

I have not listed other observations already pointed by reviewers, which which I concur, related to the use of music score, plot and realism. I really wanted to like the movie, but it was a total disappointment to me.