Opiniones de usuarios

If my grandchildren ever ask me what it was like back in the Cold War, I'll tell them to watch this movie. It is both frighteningly bleak and lyrically beautiful. It captures the spirit of the times (Western civilization immediately before the fall of the Berlin Wall) better than any movie I've ever seen. And it manages to be a love letter to those times while also showing the place and time in all its inescapable ugliness.

The overall plot moves forward pretty nicely for a movie where plot doesn't seem to matter all that much, and there are some beautiful vignettes, beautifully photographed, acted, and directed. I'm not sure how anyone can make it through the movie without falling in love with Bruno Ganz's angel. I think the movie's lyricism holds up well on multiple viewing -- as long as you liked it the first time. If the self-consciously art-house form bugs you, however, or you find the screenplay's "poetry" to be too facile, you'll probably find this movie grating. I, however, have never seen people reading silently in a public library without thinking of this movie . . . .

A visually beautiful film, which boasts one of the most poetic and literary scripts ever- the dreamlike poetry of the dialogue fits seamlessly in with the overpowering visuals. The acting is of very high callibre too, with Peter Falk adding a very welcome dimension to the film and Bruno Ganz proving a master at acting via expression and nuance. The storyline is nice and simple and is given much additional poignancy and depth by the way Wenders directed, Henri Alekan photographed and the choice of music for certain scenes- the use of Nick Cave's "The Carney" is especially perfect for the scene in which it was used, as was the music during the main scene where we get to see Marion's Trapeze act- the music, visual mastery and the act itself combine to stunningly entrancing effect. That 100 people have given this film a 1/10 mark is almost beyond belief, as it is an absolute joy from start to finish. Rating:- ***** (out of *****)

It's amazing that any non-German speakers can even appreciate this movie. True the basic story is universal and beautiful, but it's Peter Handke's poetry that makes it breathtaking. Wenders had done other Handke works in film - Alice in the Cities, The Lefthanded Woman, The Goalie's fear of the Penalty- but this one is very different.

This movie is about giving up the ethereal life of the observer and actually living it. Handke had lived as a hermit after his wife's suicide and raised their child alone for 10 years - claiming all he needs of a woman is a good prostitute every so often. This movie script marks his turn to the pure love of life that this dreary Goth never really displayed, even in his youthful writings. It's the wonder of the child within discovering life in all it's beauty -- in even the most mundane and everyday things.

************ PLOT SPOILER ALERT ***********

The job the angels that nobody seems to have noted here is this: They can exist in all times flowing through one spot (Berlin) and must record instances of Humans

expressing "Spirit".

A damned rare thing, it's true, but they must record it whenever they can.

Hollywood chose to leave that notion completely out of that horrible Nicolas Cage/Meg Ryan "Vehicle" remake.

(Worth it for the Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and Mick Harvey's Crime and the City Solution alone)

There are so many comments written about this movie, I almost don't want to write anything - but here I am anyway :)

Though everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it disturbs me to read negative comments that WOD is 'too slow' or that Wenders should have been a still life photographer. I think that some people are missing the point of this movie. Wenders filmed this after having been part of the Hollywood machine for several years, and had grown sick of the cookie cutter films that were (and still are) being made in that tradition to produce ticket sales. Yes, this movie doesn't have loads of action and car chase scenes and guns and sex. It does offer some interesting perspectives. The consistent third person view and 'objectification' of the viewer is one aspect. Watching WOD, you don't feel the typical draw into the movie as so often is the case, but rather are a bystander, looking through a window, with your own thoughts and ideas a part of the movie, not the other way around. WOD doesn't allow you to become a subjective part of the film; it 'pushes' you away from empathizing. Even the camera angles and shots motivate this sentiment. The goal and direction of the film are presented without struggle or thought; you know that Damiel wants to be with Marion. He tells Cassiel this, and the only question is - how will he achieve this goal?

WOD belies a sense of traditional film-making. Peter Falk is presented as perhaps the 'idea' of history as fans call out 'Colombo!' The angels are bound to Berlin, existing in a purgatory neither heaven or hell, unable to communicate. The trapeze artist from a traveling circus representing freedom - not only freedom from an everyday lifestyle, but also the key to Damiel's freedom. This movie contains so many interesting ideas and perspectives, that when watched with an open, curious mind, it is fascinating, mesmerizing, calming and inspirational. Filmed entirely in Berlin, the city is not a traditional definition of beautiful. But the industrial, modernist, post WW II reconstructed Berlin is stunning and diverse, providing the perfect background for this modern classic. I cannot recommend this movie enough. But please watch it with open eyes. In the same sense you cannot listen to the music of Schoenberg or Stravinsky as you would Mozart, you cannot watch Wings of Desire as you would a Spielberg movie.

In the first scenes after the opening credits, we see an aerial view of Berlin, but this is a Berlin that doesn't exist anymore. It's a city divided, between East and West, that still bears the scars of the second World War, and can't rebuild where the Wall stands in the way. There is a vast vacant lot where the cultural center of pre-war Berlin stood, with the facade of an old station, and nearby stands a bomb-shelter and the tower of a bombed-out church.

It is from this church where an angel stands looking out over the city, and then we see the people going about their daily lives. All this is shot in black and white, and we realize that we are seeing the world through the angel's eyes, seeing the same colorless world and hearing the same thoughts of the people around. As the story goes on, we realize that this is not just one angel in Berlin, for he goes to a car showroom, and compares observations with another angel. Then we go to the library, which is filled with angels.

The first library scene is my favorite scene of the whole movie. It is here where we see many different people studying, and their thoughts reverberate around the space until they are just a murmur, which becomes music. Because there are so few distinct voices, it doesn't matter that they are in German, which I don't understand. However, there was one young man studying the creation story of Genesis in Hebrew, which ties in with a later point where the two lead angels are discussing how they witnessed creation. First they saw the glacier recede, then fish and animals appear. They laughed when they saw the first biped, someone who shared their image, but they stopped laughing when the people learned how to make war.

As idyllic as the angels' lives are, it is through the pain we humans endure that know we are fully alive. And this is what the angels miss, to see colors, to touch, to taste, to smell, the ability to love and affect others' lives. The children can see them, but the adults may at times only feel some vague presence. They lay hands on people's shoulders, to try to understand their feelings beyond mere words. This is illustrated by a scene on a rooftop, where a man is about to commit suicide; as he sits on the ledge, an angel lays a hand on him as if holding him back, and when he jumps, the angel shouts `no!' For these angels are observers, spending their time being a presence among the living, not just to primarily serve as ushers to the afterlife (where I was sorely disappointed after watching "City of Angels," the American re-make). They are not harbingers of doom, but benign symbols of a creator's concern for humans.

Don't be turned off by the fact that it's in black and white, because one thing that really makes an impact is that it's only through viewing as an angel is it in monochrome, because when humans see the world, it's in color. A poem continues throughout the movie and ties everything together, repeating "When the child was a child..." and we realize that humans are the children, the ones younger than angels, just learning and enjoying life. The music adds a lot to the movie, since this film is more visual than verbal, which means that subtitles don't get in the way. I can't say enough about this film–it's wonderful!

A note to those of you who have only seen the bland, woefully wrong-hearted and half-assed "City of Angels", an unnecessary Americanization of this modern classic: this film leaves Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan in the dust. Co-writer/director Wim Wenders spins a visually stunning tale of angels living in Berlin before the wall came down. As they float through the lives of all they encounter, one of them falls in love with a beautiful and lonely trapeze artist. He soon must choose whether or not it is worth sacrificing the endless grace of being an earth-bound angel to know what it is like to be human, to "see at eye level."

After having seen this film eight times or so, I can safely say that it is my favorite movie of all time. I have to watch it at least once a year and every time I do, I discover a new detail, while still being enchanted by the things that made me love this film in the first place. Although leisurely paced, every scene makes a valuable point about how our lives are touched by divinity every day.

A calm and wonderful fantasy with such a simple vision that makes you want to believe in angels. Perhaps they are there... whenever my mood changes, seemingly unprompted, I always wonder.

Hijacked and debased by people who don't know any better (even U2, I'm afraid, and the American remake must be avoided at all costs - ideally it should be wiped from the record and the memories of all who saw it) this film has become iconic and has infected the imaginations of countless filmmakers. Look carefully and you will see its influence in the most unexpected places.

I always thought that one masterpiece is all that anyone can aspire to in life. Wim Wenders has made several but for me this one stands out above all others. My favourite film.

Many reviewers here fawn over this film and dismiss anyone who does not share their worship as being juvenile or a philistine. I've watched enough films to know whether a film is truly profound or whether it is pretentious. Wings of Desire sways towards the latter.

It has a great premise- angels (not winged creatures but men in cool black coats, similar to the portrayal of the dead in Orphee) watch over late eighties Berlin, observing the humans they see around them. One angel (Bruno Ganz) falls in love with a mortal trapeze artist (Solveig Dommartin). You would think that this would be a winning formula and therefore a brilliant film. I was disappointed to find out that although it may not be a bad film, it is by no means a brilliant one.

The cinematography is great, although the monochrome angels and technicolour humans had already been done 40 years previously. We get some great shots of urban Berlin, which gives the film an interesting cultural context. It almost acts as a time capsule, and had Wenders concentrated on this aspect of the film, the film would not seem as unfocused and vague as it does.

The worst part of the film is the dialogue, which is pseudo-philosophical naval gazing. I don't mind introspective dialogue but when every sentence is some vague existential musing, I tend to tune out, which is fatal for this film as the action is essentially in their internal monologues. The trapeze artist's final monologue could have worked had the whole film not been composed in that way but the monologue is basically a repetition of what has been constantly repeated throughout the film. Some arty types might forgive this because they see it as some universal truth but for most, it is simply repetitive to the point at which it becomes meaningless.

I forgot the love story! Seems that Wenders did that too because it only makes an appearance in the last half-hour or so of the film, although there were tiny hints earlier on. Because the romance is so unprominent for most of the film, when it finally comes to it, you wonder why the film was two hours long and not one hour. Apart from the misjudged monologue by the trapeze artist, it is quite a romantic scene. Her dress is stunning.

Potentially a great thought-provoking film but self-indulgence on the director's/writers' part causes the film to feel unfocused and vague. The film tries to deny its artificiality by adding in lots of 'profound' dialogue but there are many points in the film where it comes off as very superficial. It's a bit like a New Romantic pop video.

I just saw this film for the first time. This film is simply amazing. So subtley powerful. The climaxing scene at the bar, is like seeing the world in a grain of sand. There, just now. Did you see it? There it is again. And again, over there. You didn't see it? Watch and you'll see. This film has just made #1 on my favorite films of all time. The way they use Peter Faulk to trancend the boundry between art and life, or perhaps erase the line all together, wonderfully creative. We are guided gently in to a world full of fallen angels, and then brought full circle back home again. This is simply a must see movie. I find it hard to imagine anyone not getting something out of this movie.

Only 3 years after the unforgettable "Paris, Texas" (1984), Wim Wenders presented us with another masterpiece: "Wings of Desire" (or "The Sky Above Berlin" in the original German title), a mesmerizing film about the joy of life, partially inspired by Rainer Maria Rilke's (1875-1926) poetry.

The story of the angel Damiel (the excellent Bruno Ganz, who'd play Adolf Hitler 17 years later in the Oscar-nominated "Downfall"), who falls in love with a mortal circus acrobat, Marion (Solveig Dommartin, Wenders's then-girlfriend, who died last January) and wishes to become human is told by breathtaking images (cinematographer Henri Alekan's courtesy - he worked on Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bête") - the angels see in black and white, humans see in colors; philosophical, analytical observations about human life (and death); scenes of beauty in the simplest things in a masterful way that never becomes corny or boring. More than a film director, Wim Wenders is a film poet; his films are fabulous intersections of image and sound (dialogue, music) crafted in a way that only some other masters achieved.

"Dedicated to all the former angels, but especially to Yasujiro, François and Andrej", "Wings of Desire" is a gorgeous celebration of life who should be seen by people aged 8 to 80. My vote: 10/10.

P.S.: Avoid at all costs the ridiculous Hollywood remake, "City of Angels" (1998), with Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan.

A movie that was confusing, different (in a good way), and pretty well played. All of these topics come to mind when thinking about the film "Wings of Desire" directed by Wim Wenders in 1997. This film was a unique fantasy drama that had a very interesting feel to it. Throughout this movie, Damiel and Cassiel had to be pretty quiet and emotionless as angels. People couldn't see them because they were angels. They would be in the skies of the city of Berlin watching over the great people in the city. The people's feelings and thoughts would draw the angels closer. The angels would try helping the hopeless people by making them feel like they weren't alone, which was actually true. The different colors of the backgrounds in this movie truly could confuse anyone. After figuring it out, the reason behind it was pretty interesting. The angels perspective created a black and white color background. The color switched to normal colors once the movie was in perspective of real life. There wasn't much of a plot in this movie, which made it interesting. The angels would just go from person to person which made it a little random from time to time, but it wasn't overwhelming. This movie was always keeping my attention. It might not be the go-to action movie, but it's definitely an interesting and well played out movie. The ending with Damiel deciding to take a dip into a real perspective going out of his angel self was a big turning point. Seeing Damiel after that just made you into it and made you wonder. Some of the scenes drug on for a longer time than they needed. Some scenes were just way too long that didn't need to be like that at all.

I can never be a film-maker because of Wings of Desire. It is such a stunning work, I know I could never match it, much less exceed it. I have never seen a film that spans such great heights (pardon the pun) of the spiritual, the social, emotional, political and existential. It's the most gorgeous love story I have ever encountered and its anguish and exilaration is unparallel. But enough of the Critic-Speak. This movie shows the loneliness and wonder of being alive and if you remain unmoved by it, you must have no soul.

A film about an angel who wants the feelings of a human, so he becomes one. A brilliant idea for a film, but this film did two things wrong in my opinion. For one thing, a lot of the angel scenes were very confusing and didn't seem relevant to the story. Secondly, I feel that the angel became human far too late in the film. I almost gave up watching this because I lost interest in the angel scenes due to my confusion. The film is about 2 hours long, and the angel becomes human at around the last half hour of the film, and this (to me) was the only interesting part of the film. It was fascinating to see how the angel interacts with the outside world, but not a lot of time was put into this part. I would have preferred it if there was less angel scenes and more scenes about the angel being a human walking on the land and interacting with others, including the woman he was interested in.

I'd read a lot of good things about Wings of Desire, so when I finally got around to buying a copy of the film expectations were high. I know it's lame, but straight away I'm going to say that my favourite film of all time is probably Nicholas Roeg's 'Walkabout'. Why would I make that point? It's really just to make clear that I'm not automatically dismissive of films that aren't event driven, or feature long periods where nothing much happens.

In some ways Wings of Desire isn't really about all that much and I'm not even going to try to explain the few things which do happen in the film. In another sense it's a film about absolutely everything and your interpretation and feelings toward the movie are going to depend largely on your own personality, what you expect from it and various other factors, including what sort of day you've had (it's very easy to space out during this movie!). The first two thirds of the movie are spent wondering what it is you're actually watching, as there's not really much in the way of dialogue (at least not much of interest). The final third of the film gives us some sort of resolve to the film, although really by this point most viewers are likely to be bored out of their mind. If I had to pick a scene which sums the movie up then it'd have to be the one where the angels are discussing what it is they lack in their existence. It seemed to go on forever and I couldn't really have cared less by the end of it, because they cite too many examples. If you think this sounds harsh, take a look through the quotes section on this movie to get an idea of what you'll be hearing throughout.

There's no doubting that this film is well filmed and visually it's very impressive. It's an unusual film too and one which immediately grabs your attention. However, despite these qualities, the 'introduction' is just far too long and drawn out. The director could easily have covered the first hour in about 15 minutes. And I know some people would argue that this is to give us a sense of what it's like to live forever and all the rest, but it's really not necessary. In movies there are ways of conveying long periods of time. Flashbacks, a montage etc. But there's really no excuse for the way this movie starts, it takes forever to get going and the ending is totally unsatisfying.

If you like your movies arty then check it out for the visuals alone, but if you like some sort of entertainment or something which is actually going to occupy your brain in some way then I'd avoid it.

The movie playbill for the American version of the movie (the one you see on the site) is quite misleading: a naked woman in the background with the title "Wings of desire" -- it almost looks as the movie should have some erotic content. But there's nothing here which will try to appeal to your immediate senses. This is a poignantly beautiful metaphysical excursion on what it means to be human. Wim Wenders has recognized the metaphysical nature of the movie by dedicating it to Truffaut, Ozu and especially Tarkovskij. And everything -- the bleakness of the landscape, the ubiquity of the Berlin wall, the anguish in which the characters are immersed -- acquires a deeper meaning when we see it through the eyes of two angels. And the sky over Berlin, with its angels, is the only thing that keeps together two painfully divided sides of the city, and the only perspective from which to see it as one.

But handle with care: if you're looking for a movie with an enthralling plot, a clear language and a reasonable pace, you'll be disappointed. The first time I saw this movie with a friend we laughed all the way. I've seen it more 5-6 times now and I've stopped laughing. I sit there and I'm mesmerized.

The movie was born without a script and it is a melting pot with dialogues by Peter Handke, improvised monologues by the actors, connecting material written by Wim Wenders. In one example, Wenders indulges too long in a scene just because he regrets removing it due to all the work the actress has made for preparing to be a trapezist. This is clearly against all rules and all common sense.

Despite all this the movie works and the reason is, the movie somehow manages to touch deep strings all the way through, because of its beautiful imagery (thanks to director of photography Henri Alekan), its eerie soundtrack, the disorderly collection of truly poetic dialogues/monologues, very inspired acting, and the impredictable combined effect of all this -- surely beyond what was planned by Wim Wenders himself. Should I add that the movie has created its own language for making its point?

The film has also become an incredible documentary on Berlin just before the fall of the wall.

Compelling, ponderous, exasperating, enigmatic, demanding and beautiful: Wim Wenders' rediscovery of his native Germany from its most symbolic city is all this and more. His spellbinding portrait of Berlin, past and present, is poetry in motion: a haunting, hypnotic masterpiece that lingers in the memory long after its final image fades from the screen.

From the opening aerial shots to the last (admittedly long-winded) soliloquy, the film is a provocative look at a world that has long since lost its innocence, as witnessed by a pair of benevolent guardian angels invisibly cataloguing human daydreams and emotions, and occasionally offering mute comfort in moments of private spiritual crisis. In the divided city of Berlin what they most often overhear are poetic expressions of longing and despair, but it isn't enough to stop one empathetic angel from trading in his wings for a chance to experience all the mundane, earthbound luxuries of mortal life, from something as simple as a cup of hot coffee to something as complicated as falling in love.

In less sensitive hands the idea might never have gone beyond a simple romantic fantasy (as in the inevitable Hollywood remake, starring Nicholas Cage), but Wenders and co-writer Peter Handke are more interested in making the film a vicarious tour of the human condition, overheard in passing: an infant's first joyous observations; the final thoughts of an auto accident victim; the calm resignation of a man on the brink of suicide; and the recollections of an actor (Peter Falk, playing himself, but with a whimsical twist) on location during the making of a war movie.

Wenders' typically moody soul searches aren't always easy to sit through, but the unexpected element of fantasy lifts the film completely out of the ordinary, and the soaring imagery (shot mostly in luminous black and white) goes a long way toward balancing the occasional clutter of repetitive prose-poetry during the sometimes protracted interior monologues. Viewers may find it either exhilarating or annoying, but behind all the angst and alienation is a stubborn, almost childlike faith in the benevolence of human nature.

'When the child was a child...' the film begins, or nearly begins, I can't remember, but it's not a bad place to start, so: when I was a kid of around 19, I saw this movie and thought, 'Naturally, very important, real art, how could you ever say anything against it? I am surely immensely edified etc.' And also, less consciously, 'I absolutely never need to see this movie again.'

As a fully fledged adult who actually has just seen it again, I look back and wonder why I couldn't just condense all that into 'boring, overblown, pretentious.' Because I hadn't seen enough that was really good, I guess. It's odd since some of that better stuff would have been by Wenders: Kings of the Road, Alice in the Cities, and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Paris, Texas. It's a bit like thinking Nick Cave is good because you've never heard his earlier, much better band, The Birthday Party.

The bands here are, in fact, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and Birthday Party alumnus Rowland S. Howard's subsequent outfit, Crime and the City Solution. Cave, in particular, at this point, had attained a level of humourless self-importance entirely appropriate to the film. However, it's really the beginning of the grandiose tendencies that eventually saw Wenders enmeshed with the much less down and dirty Bono and U2.

The aim is to let us know, in sweepingly epic terms, that human life just...matters - so much so that the really smart and feeling angels will trade their immortality to have a bit of it. Sure, there's pain, loss, longing and even, ahem, boredom, but in the end, when you scan the whole rich tapestry, it's all just so goddamned beautiful - especially when you, you know, take some time to appreciate the little things.

Too much appreciating the little things may be precisely how you make something as trite and tedious as this film, with its overlong wanderings in the Berlin everyday and its angels yearning after ordinary human experience. I am not saying anything against meditation, mindfulness, good photography, lengthened attention spans or heightened awareness in general, I'm talking about getting hung up on trivia. These things you're appreciating may be simple and small, but they're still just material things. If you want more by way of significance than enjoying your coffee and noticing minute, supposedly marvellous random oddments, well...you probably have a point - especially, one might suggest, in a city recently marked by the trauma of an apocalyptic war and now, at the time when the film was made, the embodied metaphor of the geopolitical schism traumatically dividing the world.

At any rate, it's not even a consistent message. Marion, one of the central figures, is a trapeze artist so fogged by gloom she's apt to fall off her swing and her life in sheer resignation at any moment. She is not taking any pleasure in things little or big and seems to have no other internal resources either. Well, not to worry, an angel has fallen in love with her and met her in a dream, and is giving up his wings to come rescue her from her existential black hole. When he finally finds her and is about to kiss her, she holds him off in order to deliver a poetic homily about commitment - that is, to this individual with whom she's barely exchanged a word - so long, over-elaborate and dull I almost worried for her that she was blowing the relationship. It's a paradigm example of the writers - Wenders and/or his long-term collaborator Peter Handke - letting themselves too far off the verbal leash while saying nothing much. And in general, the whole business is very teenage and not in a good way, a fantasy of the depressed person being saved by love - without dealing with or even explaining any of her issues - that, for all the floridly portentous blah blah, is actually phonier and more simplistic than many romantic fantasies purveyed by Hollywood.

Why the six stars and not the one or two all this would suggest? Because of gorgeous execution: beautiful camerawork and great actors giving strong performances. I really didn't mind watching to the end and it's only the next day that the irritation's come on strong enough to incur this review.

But If I had to divvy it up, at least two of those stars might simply be for the kids' circus scene, which is a joy.

Der Himmel uber Berlin has unsurpassed moments of poetry and clarity. It also demands a lot of attention and patience on the part of the viewer. Even after seeing it a number of times I find new, interesting and moving things in the movie.

Some vignettes from the movie astound me as I see inside someone's experience or see things freshly through them. The framing poem by Peter Handke gives meaning to the whole movie. It's one of the things that I respond to most strongly.

There are very minor choices in movie that I think could have been made differently, but at the same time they do not significantly detract from my enjoyment. Wim Wenders gives a lot of screen time to Solveig Dommartin as she works the trapeze and thinks to herself in her trailer. She certainly needs time to get audience's sympathy and attention among all the other characters, but some of her screen time seems a little indulgent. Also, some short glimpses into people's lives are not as effective as others--especially the later more non-specific "noise of humanity" sequences. The noise of humanity is well established in the library scenes and other sequences towards the first of the movie and the later less concrete vignettes do less for me than the earlier ones.

The movie is more of a visual and auditory poem than a traditional plot-driven movie. Plots do exist, but they are not relentlessly forwarded by everything shown on screen. You'll do a lot of people watching and find both grimness and despair as well as joy and beauty. It's a movie about experience, humanity, and both the joy and the pain of life. If you view it receptively, there are many entire worlds within the movie that you'll be able to enter momentarily and perhaps get a better view of your own world.

Watch this movie. It can be an amazing experience. You will need energy to pay attention, patience with the pacing, and a willingness to deal with some confusing aspects of the movie. If you don't have these things it might be better to come back to the movie at some other time when you feel more receptive. It is well worth the payoff, though.

Wings of desire, a romantic sci-fi film that was made in 1987 and directed by Wm Wenders. This film stared Bruno Ganz, Otto Sander, Peter Falk, and Solveig Dommartin. Wings of desire in my opinion is a 6/10. The movie was based in Berlin Germany during the Soviet Union era. It was about 2 angels who watched over the city unseen. One of the angels had a desire to become human and have feelings such as love, taste, and all other feelings associated with being a human. One of the main reasons I didn't really enjoy the movie was because of the corny acting. I feel as if the movie was made in the modern era (2018) it would have done much better with keeping my attention. There was also many drawn out scenes in the movie that I feel they could of shorten up or done without. Now on to the positives of the movie. I thought the movie was directed very well. Wim Wenders did a great job with putting in the symbolism into the filming of the movie. I thought this made it as interesting as it could have been with the corny acting. For example, while watching the movie Wim Wenders used black and white when it was the angel's point of view. He then used color for when the angels couldn't be seen. It was a little confusing at first but as the movie went on it became more and more clear to what he was trying to do. Overall, its definitely a movie that you should check out because of the popularity of it. Just keep in mind that you might have to deal with some corny acting.

In West Berlin, still surrounded by the Berlin Wall, angels Damiel (Bruno Ganz) and Cassiel (Otto Sander) spend their time observing human life and comforting those in need of it. They compare their observations, and marvel at the joys, quirks and special moments that are experienced by humans. When Damiel overlooks lonely trapeze artist Marion (Solveig Dommartin), he falls in love, and the desire to leave his observational duties behind overwhelms him, and he ponders the idea of 'taking the plunge' and becoming re-born himself. He and Cassiel have also taken a special interest in visiting actor Peter Falk (playing himself) who is in town to shoot a World War II movie.

The opening half an hour of this film is simply one of the most beautiful openings to a film I've ever seen. It is incoherent, and drifts seemingly randomly from person to person, as we hear their inner thoughts and experiences. Damiel and Cassiel drift around a busy library that is full of fellow angels comforting those studying and seeking answers. Even those in distress seem to please Damiel, as it is one of the things that makes us human. His life so far has been full of mere observation, and he longs for pain, worry, or fear, or something that will finally allow him to actually feel something. As much as this film is about humanity, it is equally about war.

As Damiel and Cassiel walks the streets of the still war-scarred Berlin, they discuss how they witnessed the First Days. They saw the first river reach it's shore, and the very first animals appear. They talk about they both laughed when the first human appeared, being born in their image, and opening it's mouth to say its first word. Was it 'oh' or 'ah', they try to recall. But then they stopped laughing when the humans discovered war. The Berlin in Wings of Desire is still full of rubble and half-destroyed buildings, and the inhabitants are still very much effected by the war. Cassiel takes a special interest in an old man named Homer, who is looking for Potsdamer Platz. Laid to waste during war and still lying desolate, the man only finds a chair in a field and graffiti-stained walls. He wishes for an 'epic of peace'.

But as well as portraying the dark side of humanity, it also celebrates the best of it. When Damiel comes across Peter Falk at a coffee stand, Falk feels his presence. He talks about how when he is cold, he rubs his hands together to warm up, and how good it feels. Damiel watches him in awe, and longs for the taste of coffee and a cigarette. When Damiel finally takes the plunge, the film turns from beautiful sepia monochrome into fully-realised colour. It's the same effect done in A Matter of Life and Death. It's a simple yet beautiful statement about how we can miss the things that are right in front of us, if we fail to just open our eyes.

It's a sentimental film that if anybody else's hands may have come across as patronising or whimsical. But Wenders directs with such as beauty and a poetry that it never feels preachy. He focuses on the basic human emotions and dissects them in such a complex way that is rarely seen in cinema - he also did a similar thing with his powerful Paris, Texas. An absolutely wonderful film that is truly one of the most moving and beautiful I've ever seen, and a true and a honest depiction of the human spirit.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

(Flash Review)

If I were to look up in the encyclopedia what an artsy film with a vague narrative embodies, I'd expect to see this film as the example. While it was full of interpretative symbolism and laced with poetic dialog, I felt it was trying too hard. Maybe it is too stereotypical vs a unique film like Personas which is a more rewarding viewing of a similar tone. The story slowly revolves around a couple of angels that wander around the city listening to people's thoughts and dreams. One has the poetic desire to experience being human and feel authentic emotions as they feel. He also has the hots for an angelic trapeze artist as she floats high above also like an angel. Will the angel have his expectations met and will he be able to catch the attention of Ms. Trapeze? From the first frame and first two minutes, I knew this was going to be artsy and meaty, which I more often than not enjoy. It took over an hour to develop a tangible narrative as it lead off with a barrage incessant poetic ramblings. Lots of talk about the innocence of children who live without a care and how that changes as life passes. Will this angel tap into their carefree nature? A story line did finally take shape but was it too little too late?

I really wanted to like this movie. I love "Paris, Texas", so realise that Wim Wenders' movies take some patience, but offer great rewards.

However, I just couldn't get into Wings of Desire. Just found it too slow-moving, and dull. Also found it visually unappealing.