BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

SimonJack As a late movie about World War II, "Shining Through" has the intrigue and action of a good mystery. It's an espionage film based on a fiction novel by Susan Isaacs. But the plot of this film is so incongruous that it's hard to believe to begin with. That's often okay with fiction, except that in this case the viewer can't shake the sense that the story is preposterous. The acting is okay, but there just is way too much in this movie to give it any sense of plausibility. After all, most of us watching a film of this nature like to think that it really happened or could have happened. With no special qualities in it, "Shining Through" is just a so-so film. Hollywood tried to sell this one with a considerable cast of three big male names – Michael Douglas, Liam Neeson, and John Gielgud, but such a cast could only raise a ponderous, disjointed, confusing plot to six stars. This movie is supposed to be a romance as well, however strange. That defies all the traditions and we can see why those make sense. As with so many modern films made about WW II, the settings and scenes seem phony and staged. This film has much glitz and glamour, and lots of action, but little coherence and substance.

alessandra-quattrocchi I don't know how I missed this movie when it came out: I love the Susan Isaacs book which I've read several times. I'm glad I saw it, I like Melanie Griffith's voice and I think she makes a good job out of a rather awkward script. The plot is substantially modified in rapport to the book; Linda's first marriage disappears, Ed Leland is not such a complex or endearing character. But the thing which really annoys me is that Isaacs took great pains in the book to describe the class differences between Linda and her employers (she would NEVER have been so impertinent) and the training she undergoes before going into Berlin; which, harsh as it is, she underlines makes her little more than an amateur. Plus the language difficulties and the fact that Linda in Berlin would never have told anybody she was 1) American 2) a Jew. Also a cook in a large household with several kitchen maids under her does NOT serve at table herself. In short, inconsistencies all over the place: if the Americans had been that sloppy, they would never have won the war.

robert-temple-1 This is a terrible film, ruined by the catastrophic miscasting of the two leads. As the male lead, Michael Douglas gives one of the worst screen performances of the twentieth century. He manages to go all the way through the film without showing the slightest trace of any emotion whatever, despite the fact that the story contains much romance. It would be wrong to say that Douglas is wooden, as that is an insult to wood. Even stone is too good for him. Low-grade concrete would be more like it, the kind that crumbles and gives way. What is wrong with him? He has the eyes of a dead fish floating downstream, several days later. To say that there is no chemistry between him and the hapless Melanie Griffith is such an understatement that there is no point: how can you have chemistry with a corpse who kisses you? Melanie Griffith struggles valiantly to show emotion, and often succeeds, but she is walking in molasses. The situation is not helped by the fact that she was desperately miscast and is not at all well directed. Her soft voice is tragically wrong for the part, her quiet manner totally off beam. The underlying story seems to have been good, and Susan Isaacs's novel must have been interesting. In the second half, the film even becomes exciting despite itself, through the sheer power of the story, though the plot and details are all wrong in the film. The one splendid performance in the film, which is truly dazzling, is by Joely Richardson. She would have been a far, far better choice for the female lead. And Liam Neeson, who also does well, could have been the male lead. Why relegate those two fine actors to supporting roles? This whole film is simply a disaster. But if done properly, it could perhaps have been marvellous.

annabelle0524 This film, though it contains some plot holes and is not realistic per se, is an old favorite of mine and my family's. If Shining Through happens to be on TV, we will watch it. The compassions of the main characters, Linda, Ed, Dietrich, Margherite, really come across the screen, allowing you to fall in love with them. I think the best part of the film, however, is the music--with every swell of the strings, I fall back in love with the characters and the film. There are few films where the music becomes another character of the film, but Shining Through is one of them. (The Last of the Mohicans and Memoirs of a Geisha are some other films where the music is so wonderful.) The final scenes of betrayal and undying love are ones that will never leave you, and the music will haunt you with its love story. Again, this film is a wonderful film for rainy afternoons if you can move beyond the plot holes to get to the wonderful romance and compassion of the characters.