Der Teufelsgeiger

Niccolò Paganini (David Garrett) is a virtuoso violinist, stolen from Italian obscurity by the serpentine Urbani (Jared Harris) and brought to swinging 19th century London on the request of struggling promoter John Watson (Christian McKay). There his lascivious urges and his musical genius find equal outlet, until his heart is attuned to Charlotte (Andrea Deck), with whom he shares a harmonious partnership. Tragedy encroaches, however, as those who brought Paganini to the top conspire to cast him into the gutter once more.

What is the truth of Paganini? Bernard Rose's biopic plays fast and loose, which shouldn't matter because art strives for universal truths. Yet such striving often leads to cliché, as has happened here. As an instrument the violin lends itself well to furious solos, so the transition from classical musician to rock god is easy – throw in some long shaggy hair and stubble and sunglasses and we've basically got ourselves a Georgian Ozzy Osbourne. Not that the film is terribly anarchic. Early on we get some Dogma 95-influenced hand-held camera and hack 'n' slash editing but it soon gives way to familiar period stageyness.

Rose's film exists in the same realm as Milos Forman's Amadeus and touches on some of the same themes – genius emerging from chaos, both a creative and destructive force – but it's a relatively shallow movie, and one whose TV budget cannot be elevated by its impressively crashing classical soundtrack and its smoggy capital exteriors. Forman's film had a force-of-nature at its centre in the form of Tom Hulce. The Devil's Violinist has David Garrett, who's a wonderful violinist but no actor. Alarm bells ring when a character is meant to be thinking hard about something and actually grabs their chin.

But then, could any actor have provided a sympathetic portrayal? How charming is any man this juvenile; this unprofessional? Why should we care for a man who whinges about being "misunderstood" in one breath then dismisses his fans with the next? How do we side with someone who claims to love another and then accidentally shags a complete stranger with the same hair colour? Better writing and an actual actor might have helped us answer these questions.

Garrett isn't very well-supported, to be fair. Harris turns a scheming snake into a pantomime villain. Joely Richardson is gobsmackingly miscast as a cockney troublemaker. And while Alien Isolation fans may be pleased to see Andrea Deck in her full feature debut, I wouldn't expect the scripts to start piling on her doormat on the basis of this. But then, again, Charlotte is bafflingly written: she's genuinely repulsed by Paganini – a player and a player – only to spin on a sixpence once she hears him knock out a few notes, melody apparently trumping manners.

Rose has a firm hold of his film's darkly humorous tone, and the musical performances are, inevitably, spectacular (almost worth the rental fee alone, if for some reason an actual David Garrett Live DVD isn't available). But the decision to build a movie around a real musician backfires horribly, and with a bland and over-familiar script ("Who is the real you?" one character genuinely asks) it has to go down as a handsome, tuneful failure.

We did not hold out much hope for this after reading the reviews. Gratefully, the reviews, as they are quite often, were, in my opinion, wrong. It is beyond me how these negative reviews make it past the smell test.

The performance of the music was as visually captivating as it was sonically beautiful. The acting was more than passable and the direction was as good as any.

Anyone with slightest knowledge of Paganini, or anyone who bothered to even look up his name on wikipedia, would understand that this movie summarized his life with artistic license. The story itself was a composite of real events, failures and triumphs.

In short, if critics loved Amadeus ( truly pitiful depiction of reality with hyperbolic acting antics throughout) and hate this movie, then I will never fathom their trade.

Today we can't hear the performance of Paganini, there are only different interpretations. Fortunately, this virtuoso and composer has written on sheet many of his works.

I think the violin and her virtuoso are most important in this story. Everything else is just background. Yes, this background has flaws, but they are in the details. The feeling of the era is truthful and powerful. Playing and compositions of David Garrett - they are compelling. I will remember this movie primarily with the music.

Moreover - if Paganini could choose an artist to fulfill his role, he would probably prefer the same musician. David Garrett don't play himself - he has dedicated himself to Paganini in this film.

This can be seen as a parable, as a story that does ring true for any artist. Being good at something might not be enough. You might need a little help to push you over a certain edge/line, to become what you always dreamt you can (or could) be. Or main character is not exactly someone we might fall in love in (not sexually that is, just liking him is proving difficult most of the time).

But there are reasons he acts (plays) the way he does. There is certain downfalls that befall a person that is easily deceived. Or had a certain tendency to be too full of themselves. Of course there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. The question is if one can reach that end of the tunnel ... A nice movie that could have tried to tell a bit more, than it actually does. As it is, it's a decent movie with fine performances.

He is a very poor actor. His acting in this film was exact the opposite of his natural talent playing with his violin, maybe the worst ever actor I've ever seen so far. This film was also doomed and suffered from a very bad screenplay at the very beginning. The only thing that was so out of the world in this film was his crazy talent with the violin. You should watch and enjoy what he did in this film with his music but not his acting which in fact, was just terrible.