Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

GazerRise Fantastic!

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

rzajac I watched Paganini for the first time, then ran to watch bits of Fitzcarraldo again. I just realized why: It was the armchair cineaste's equivalent of taking a shower to rinse the muck off after watching Paganini.I needed to watch Fitzcarraldo to remind myself that, yes, Kinski was a great actor. And he was.I never thought I'd actually find a genuine-article case of this, but in Paganini you have Kinski finally using film--and his fans--as a full-tilt surrogate for his fading fantasy that he's the rooster in the barnyard.It really is shameless. People thought that Woody Allen used film like this way long after he shoulda. Well, guess what? Allen is a piker.If you're curious to see a great film star at his lowest ebb in this particular regard, watch Paganini.Now, people in these comments extol the natural lighting, Kinski's raw magnetism, the unstudied editing, the artful inattention to technique in general, genuinely moving scenes of familial love, etc., etc. Yes, all those things are arguably there. I'm not just being conciliatory for rhetorical effect. But there comes a time when you have to admit the evidence of what you're seeing before your very eyes, and the conclusion is inescapable: Kinski is jerking off at our expense. He's not just exercising an eccentric degree of artistic license. He's lost in unfiltered, unsublimated sexual self-aggrandizement.

OttoVonB Klaus Kinski, full-time actor and madman, takes on the character of Paganini in this painterly tableau of the artist's obsessions and world.Kinski assumes the role of star, director, occasional cameraman and places family members in prominent parts. The film is heavy on symbolism and sparse in the storytelling department. It is basically a series of meditations and the artist at rest before he goes on rampages of sex, as frenetic as his violin playing. The film is full of often beautiful photography (mostly using natural light or candles) and the distorted vision of the period comes to life in a staggering way. In terms of narrative, it is a complete fiasco, but Kinski does not give a damn about the story. He cares about the character and the moment. As such, character and moment are as intense and vibrant as any Kinski performance.Kinski as an actor always seemed to burn through the screen. This film is 100% Kinski. Therefore, predictably, it is completely overwhelming, unbearable one might say, even if one overlooks the manic sex scenes (a heroic feat): a woman touches herself to the sound of Paganini's playing, while horses fornicate; the camera whirls savagely about as Paganini dives hungrily into an admirer's skirt, etc. Frankly these scenes would be out of place in any other movie. What unsettles here is the fact that they seem entirely at home in this crazed psychopath of a film.Kinski Paganini is impossible to rate. You will very likely hate it (all the more so if you see it in the company of other people). As a window into Klaus Kinski's mind, it is essential. And, since it is a completely personal work featuring the creator's obsessions and themes, under his complete control, it fits the dictionary definition of art. Art is in the eye of the beholder (so no one need feel personally insulted), and for better or worse, this is one of the rare times I have seen its kind on a screen. You get it or you don't, and on a visceral level since narrative or sense is not the issue (in fact the only similar film is Luis Bunuel's "Un Chien Andalou", where you just follow a train of thought...).A train-wreck of a film. Filmed with bewildering sensitivity and and fueled by intimidating passion, this is the cinematic expression of a man's soul.

acousticroom Paganini the film by Klaus Kinski is a true work of Art... I think the reviewer before me just flat don't get it, it is far beyond their understanding.... First off Kinski really did capture the personality of the greatest Musician in history Nicolo Paganini... I also think the music in this film is wonderful, the acting is great, the directing is great.. I think one thing that may throw Hollywood fans, is that the film is done for Art reasons not for the all mighty dollar, greed, which is the number one killer of true ART... This film is about MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC.... and I think Kinski did a wonderful job with every angle, Hollyweird has tried their hands at making films about Composers and I think they should leave the Art to the Artist, and the ARTIST here is the passion of Klaus Kinski and the music of Nicolo Paganini.. this is now and will always be one of my favorite films.. if you like true ART and the some of the most amazing music ever written, then get this film you will not be sorry. Bravo for Kinski Paganini.... Curt

rosscinema Anything that Klaus Kinski is in is interesting but the only film that he directed is a compelling abortion! No pacing, lousy editing, mangled dubbing and female admirers screaming to have sex with Paganini. I heard that this was suppose to be a mini-series but the studio was so ashamed of it they edited down to a 90 minute film. Kinski has his girlfriend or wife and his son in it. In fact, his son did an okay job. I'm not sure what Kinski wanted to say here or how he expected the audience to react but it really is an incomprehensible mess. But a fascinating one to watch!