MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

thinbeach Unseen by the human population, other than those who were once like them, angels wander around bleak Berlin, wondering what its like to be human - to see, to feel, to taste, etc... One falls in love with a beautiful trapeze artist and decides he must become human so as to be with her. How he does this we aren't told, but he does. Once he meets her, he doesn't even need to say a word, she immediately loves him, apparently because he visited her dreams, or some mystical connection. It is an ode to the human experience, with a wonderful transition from observance to experience. The ever flowing camera movement mimics the flight-like nature of angels, and gives the film a dreamy, poetic feel. However all the existentialism becomes quite monotonous, and one can't help but feel it should have been told in half the time. Without a plot it feels aimless, and although the themes are slowly revealed, it is far slower than necessary. It does sink us into the mundane, un-feeling nature of the angels, but it doesn't make for compelling viewing!I can't help but feel there are some cryptic messages behind all this, but like the angels, they are seen only by some, and I shall continue my human existence, invigorating the senses, and wondering what it's all about.

ElMaruecan82 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...

MisterWhiplash An angel (Bruno Ganz) gazes along the streets and city of Berlin, ruminating, being romantic for... something, anything, or for an actual person. And meanwhile, a famous actor (Peter Falk) ruminates about the ways of the world, of acting, of cinema (if not directly then in the subtext), and we follow him for a bit. Whether there will be direct interaction, who knows. But the angel makes a decision, and falls from the sky to try and become something else. Ultimately, the Angel is all about romance - whether he finds it directly is another question.Such is the thrust of Wim Wenders Wings of Desire, a film that many have touted as one of the greats of the 1980s. I think this is the kind of movie you either go for, or you don't. I mostly went for it, and the poet in me liked a lot of the words that came out in the voice-overs. It's a very humanistic movie and if nothing else it can be praised by that... actually, it's the visual scope that dominates and triumphs (I'd like to take this DP out for a beer).If only Wenders could back off just a little from his super-mega-sumptuous-Berlin-poetry and get back to the story a little more, it would really be something fully magical (rather, a marriage of the two). I have to recommend it strongly for its visual and usually aural beauty, and Ganz's touching performance too. But I didn't find it to be quite the masterpiece most do. I apologize on behalf of my brain not taking in all of the supposed awe-inspiring words spoken by people (almost everyone has the poetry of a master, and many of them just sound like they're reading as opposed to naturally speaking), but it's just how I took it in.Oh, and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds makes a prominent appearance in the third act. Reason enough to see it alone, and it makes the final act have a stronger impact than you might expect - there's poetry AND rock and roll combined!

Vihren Mitev This is the second film for which I hinted in the previous post. Film, with clearly defined idea surrounded by many dissolving in the absolute under topics. The place is Germany, and that we are looking at is humanity. Often forgotten fact is that the German title of the film translates in The Sky Over Berlin.Modern in the way of shooting and framing, as well as posting the shades of post military discourse. Themes of alienation, withdrawing and loss of sense. The transition of life from eighty years ago, the appearance of the first two cars in Berlin, devastating destruction that follows the subsequent development of technology and to the construction of the wall (which fall the director anticipates two years earlier).Here again we see where lies the spirituality of humanity and who are the people who have a relationship with her. Despite the existence of all these people, misfortunes and accidents occur. And the last time the echo is huge.The task of the angels who protect us is to find sense in every human being, in every touch on a subject, inhalation of cigarette smoke, feeling of cold, especially the element of love, which transmits the whole world in the life of two lovers, providing continuation of the flight on the wings of the desires of the human race.http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/