Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

classicsoncall I envy the folks who managed to watch the shorter three hour version of this movie. I happened to come across a download version of the film in three parts, each with it's own set of opening credits that amounted to nearly five hours of the director's cut. Quite honestly, the most interesting thing that happened in the movie for me was that horrific car crash to open the picture when one of the bank robbers threw that beer bottle out the window of his car. After that, it was a looong, slow descent down an extended slope, notwithstanding the global odyssey that took place involving the principal characters. That whole business about the runaway nuclear satellite from India barely managed to impact my attention span. More than anything, when it came to the sci-fi aspects of this picture, I was reminded of the original mid-Sixties 'Star Trek' series in which Gene Roddenberry's futuristic vision came up with things like flip phones and Uhura's mini-skirts, things that translated into reality only a short time later. For this picture released in 1991, director Wim Wenders made a dramatic leap of faith to envision a world eight years into the future that included such things as viewing kiosks, facial recognition and locator technology, and glass front refrigerators, which when I think of the latter, who really wants to see wilting celery stalks and dripping milk cartons even before opening the door? I have to admit, some of the hand held telephone devices looked kind of interesting, except for the fact that they all looked a lot like art-deco artifacts from the Fifties. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here compared to all the folks who praise the film for it's poetic vision, but for all of the lovely cinematography and stellar cast, for me this was as dry as the Australian Outback, which you could probably cross a lot sooner than the amount of time it takes to watch this picture.

calendulas Yesterday at the EYE film museum, in Amsterdam, the Directors Cut was screened. Wim Wenders was present, there was a Q&A and Robby Mueller was in a wheelchair in the front of the screen. Solving Dommartin, the lead actress, and co writer, passed away from a heart attack in her 40's. Until the End of the World – Director's Cut (4K) 287 min, with one 20 minute intermission. I saw this in it's "readers digest" cut (the words of Wim Wenders) when it first came to theaters. Wenders explained that he was forced to sign a contract, where he would agree to edit the film to something like 2.5 hours, before it would be promoted for wide audiences. There are so many beautiful images, Vermeer comes to mind in one scene, places in Australia that you will most likely never have the opportunity to experience, it's a wonderful opportunity if you ever get the chance to see the Director's cut,, do it. Wenders appears to me now as a soothsayer,, in that he predicts the narcissistic viewing on small screens, that we all see now. Selfies,, in the film it is shown as an obsession with ourselves in our dream state, and leads to a temporary insanity.

Theo Robertson ...said the voice over in the trailer and to be honest neither did TheoI made a point of watching this sometime in the early 1990s due to the hype involving U2 contributing to the soundtrack . This was before the internet era so it was kind of difficult for a layman to check facts and film critic Kim Newman in a review suggested that Bono and the boys had more than a little input in to the soundtrack . The title of the film does of course come from a track from their 1991 masterwork album Achtung Baby so you can understand where I'm coming from . On top of that Newman suggested this was road movie meets the apocalypse and I do love speculative fiction and being vaguely aware of Wim Wenders who did a strange twist on the serial killer thriller genre THE GOALKEEPERS FEAR OF THE PENALTY . On top of that it does contain several well known names in the shape of Hurt , Neill and Von Sydow. It surely can't have been a bad film in that case? An Indian nuclear satellite spins out of orbit and threatens to destroy the world so what does everyone do ? They stand around discussing their lives and the human condition . Is this logical ? Probably not . Is it compelling in any way ? Definitely not . This is really tedious stuff with the plot aimlessly wandering about . If you think there's a subtext to this where the plot line is mirroring the characters in the film I suggest you stop taking university film courses and try and find something more productive in life . I'm not being cruel just pointing out that this is the type of film that only gets produced to appeal to students and film snobs . I'm not defending the rubbish that Michael Bay and the rest of Hollywood churn out but there comes a point where the average audience member has had enough of slow moving brooding introspection and hope the film ends before the world does Apart from having a severe lack of anything to hold the interest of the audience there's a painfully unrealistic depiction of the very near future . In the 1991 depiction of 1999 nearly everyone wears a hat . In the real world of 1999 the only people wearing hats were chavs sporting baseball caps so the film has got that minor detail wrong and a major detail about having a machine that can capture dreams . Perhaps the worst mistake with hindsight is Wenders claiming the soundtrack reflects the type of music the featured artists would be performing in 1999 . This patently unlikely especially where U2 were concerned . In 1999 they were working on All You Can't Leave Behind which was a departure from their 1990s material so I'm afraid Wenders got that one wrong same as he seems to have misjudged everything else about the film

eluhnabroad I quite enjoyed this movie, for the most part; especially the near-future, global-electronic-village touches (the Beijing memorial in the background drew a big laugh when I saw it in the theatre). Unfortunately, just as one story reaches a denouement, a subplot emerges and drags out into yet another story arc. It's like a trilogy crammed into one movie. By the third reboot, I was too tired to enjoy it much and wondered when or if the movie would ever end. It's a shame, because the characters are very likable, and each story is entertaining; but it becomes too much and too long of a good thing. For this reason, three 8s add up to a 6. You might enjoy this movie more if you split your viewing into three parts.