The Devil's Violinist

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.

This is what it would be like.

It wasn't entirely unwatchable, but it was not a good movie by any means. CGI was distracting, although if you look at it as art, they did a good job, just not realistic enough to be passable.

I was surprised Bernard Rose was the writer and Director, who also did the same for Immortal Beloved. Perhaps this movie was just missing Gary Oldman? The movie seems to be confused whether Paganini is the main character or not. It is filled with sub-par, some acceptable, and some over-acted performances. I thought Andrea Deck was good. David Garrett as Paganini, well, maybe his performance was more related to the script. I did enjoy all his performance scenes (performing on the violin, you dirty minded people you).

Am I the only one that noticed St. Patrick's Cross flag flying over London? You'd think Bernard Rose, an Englishman, would catch that. It was clearly in the hands of the Syfy special effects gurus at this point, so maybe the he had no hand in post-production. Or maybe there was a time England was flying the British version of the Irish flag that I don't know about? I doubt it.

Overall, this movie was not great enough to be good, and not bad enough to be great. It falls right in the middle, as most forgettable movies do.

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.

beautiful decor and costumes, nice story and flavor of atmosphere, the old Faust pact and rock star motifs mixed . the problem is that all that pieces are not really enough. because Paganini is more than a legend and that movie use, in fact, only its shadow. because the golden images, the mixture of old and pretty ingredients who can reminds Farinelli or Amadeus are only for decoration not for be roots of an authentic , convincing story. it is a beautiful movie. but only aesthetic and , unfortunately, not at whole. and for not blame the team behind it - the honest good intentions are obvious - , it is important to choose the inspired parts - the music, the presence of Helmut Berger, the work of Jared Harris to save appearances. but , with little more courage and different angle about Paganini trajectory, it could be really an interesting movie. despite the ambition of makers, it is only a promise using the shadow of a legend.

The film is good even if i ido not considered a true version of Paganini's life. I know it is not a documentary but it could have been done more.

I appreciate the effort to show real characters like Paganini's son and father but otherwise it is very fictional and there was no real need for it because his life was already a novel.

From unbridled success to accusations of a pact with the devil there was a lot to tell. In a way they tried with the figure of Urbani one of the most successful and enigmatic characters in the film but otherwise I didn't see much.

They recounted one episode of his life (the London concert) while the rest were shown in a few scenes as if they were in a hurry to finish the film.