Wings of Desire (1988)

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Make nothing happen... and viewers will look at your film like in a mirror ... the more boring and insignificant, the more meaningful it will be ... it will show your true independence, your courageous stance toward cinematic conventions. No you won't undergo the tyranny of plot, the dictatorship of having to "tell a story", the screen says its truth and they'll be there to experience it, and to drop some positive labels such as: a true-to-life story, a character study, like-looking-in-a-mirror, slap-in-a-face with a haunting atmosphere carried by monochrome photography.Nothing happens? You didn't get it? Never mind, some stuff is just beyond rational thinking and this is why Art Movies are for, conveying the kind of messages that demand many viewings to be fully gotten, and since you target a niche market, you'll find followers. The point is to explore abstraction and metaphysics , psychological and spiritual subjects, whose introspective content will justify the use of a dream-like atmosphere and a poetic screen writing, there is no answer to life, why should this film have one.I won't go as far as saying that "Wings of Desire" is arty indie for dummies but seriously, I've tried. I really wanted to plug my mind into that profound and stylish contemplation of human existence or the sheer loneliness of the human soul, inspiring at the end all these smart-sounding fancy words that make you sound like you've grasped a parcel of the director's light ... but I couldn't.I won't drop any director's names to tell you that I can handle intellectual movies, allow me just to say one thing about Ingmar Bergman, he's made movies that are as enigmatic and hypnotically bizarre-yet-intellectually-deep as WimWenders but one of his most notable trademarks is that his movies rarely lasted more than eighty or ninety minutes.Roger Ebert said that a good movie is never too long and a bad one never too short, I won't call "Wings of Desire" a bad movie but its languorous pacing and the time it takes to get to the point is so slow that even if you want to stay glued to the screen, you can't. The first act struck me as the kind of sequences you'd watch when embedded in the hospital, in fact, it's the kind of movie you'd watch at an old age or at the verge of death, staring at the screen while being carried away by your own "vague à l'âme" as they say in French.The film has Bruno Ganz, Peter Falk and the same cinematographer who worked in Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" but it also has a melancholic and moody take on life and you must probably be in the proper mood to 'enjoy' it, I tried seven years ago and I could barely finish it, I tried twice again, I just gave up. Maybe I'm not as much into this kind of film; maybe I've watched too many films to ever take seriously one that features so much existential voice-over and monochrome photography. The film tries too much to be that intellectual knockout, I tried to have some glimpses on the Bonus Features but even Wenders' interview bored the hell out of me.Then I tried to get some insights from master Yoda himself, the great Roger Ebert and I found this little pearl where he's commenting on the acting of SolveigDommarten, the deceased actress who played the trapeze artist. His comment reminded me of my instant dislike of Aurore Clément's performance in WimWenders' previous success "Paris, Texas", I found her so bad she was almost distracting, now here's a similar observation from Roger Ebert, albeit in more flattering terms: "That may make it a "bad" scene in terms of the movie's narrow purposes, but does it have a life of its own? Yes, for the same reasons it's flawed. Movies are moments of time, and that is a moment I am happy to have."I think that's the worst symptom of "great" movies, genuine flaws are perceived as 'moments of time', of 'genuineness', we're talking of the stuff that potentially ruin careers and I don't see why it should be minimized because it's a great director, when it's a bad one, we find the flaws, when it's a good one, we find the excuses.And we do look for excuses because typically, these movies say less about the directors than the detractors, I'm quite aware that this film has an existential value, but I think I just walked off symbolically from the theater and embraced my own desire to fly over these contemplative issues. I'll try again, in seven years...

There is good and bad critique around for this film, some people have problems with the pace at which the film runs, others take issue with the Director himself saying he might have been better as a photographer not a film-maker. But in my opinion these people completely miss the purpose of this movie. The Director Wenders, wanted to make something different, something alternative to the guaranteed ticket selling films.This film doesn't feed adrenaline junkies with high speed car chases or gun slinging shoot outs. Nor does it have oodles of sex.What this movie does have is a wonderful storyline but one that doesn't draw you in like some movies in this one you feel like your observing the events almost like a witness - from a distance what you feel what you think they are part of the interaction between yourself and the film.The camera angles and the choice of shots from the director are presented naturally so you know the two main characters want to be together. Some of the background scenery set in Post WW2 Berlin are just perfect Berlin is a wonderfully diverse city so suits this movie well. The film itself offers up so many different ideas and different perspectives you simply must watch it with an open mind so you can allow your own thoughts and curiosity to interact with the film.Wonderful film, but I guess not for everybody.

An angel tires of overseeing human activity and wishes to become human when he falls in love with a mortal.This film will be notable to Americans for two things. First, that it is the original (and better) version of the wildly successful Nicolas Cage film "City of Angels". And second, that it features Peter Falk as himself, musing over his hats, drawings and other mundane things. Why Falk was chosen is unclear, but he fits in perfectly.But more importantly, this film is beautifully shot, a work of art, and it goes above and beyond whether the narrative is interesting (it is) or if the actors are good (they are). Just a great film and a fine introduction to Wim Wenders if someone needed one.

I did not really like this movie. Maybe it's just not my kind of movie. I found it really slow. The first part was interesting but about halfway through it got kind of boring. The cinematography is really beautiful though. The movie taking place before the Berlin wall fell is a very interesting part looking back on it now.The listening to people's thoughts was great at first but it went on too long. The love story really did hold my interest.I think had it been shortened a bit it would have been much better. I did watch the whole thing as I don't think it's fair to review a movie without sitting through the whole thing but towards the end my mind was really wandering.