Las alas del deseo

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.

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 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.

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.