Jusqu'au bout du monde

I have only seen the full-length 280-minute "trilogy" version of this film (at the 2001 USA Film Festival in Dallas), and I honestly cannot identify any sequences that could be cut without seriously compromising the flow of the story.

This film works so well on so many different levels -- an adventure, a love story, a question of ethics and technology, life and death, love and family, but mostly it explores the question, "how far must we travel (or how long must we sit in the theater) to find that which we seek, and what exactly is it we're seeking anyway"?

Yes, 4-1/2 hours is a long time to sit still (although, with two intermissions it's not all that bad), but for those of us who enjoy a good film that's not made from a pat formula of committee-designed ingredients in strictly regulated proportions, it's worth every minute.

I agree with the comments made earlier concerning the denouement but that's only a disappointment if you look at the movie literally instead of figuratively. As in his other movies like Paris, Texas, the backdrops become another character in the film. Just like the title entails, Wenders was challenged to get the WHOLE world into his movie. He has succeeded. At the end of "The End of The World", we finally see it as we should all see the Earth.

The characters represent different ideologies of the different countries they're from and Wenders uses this to develop the plot.

These "countries" are trying to seize control of one man's vision and a source of power. However, they soon find out that not one of them can control the outcome of the movie.

The movie is Wender's commentary on global politics and socioeconomics. He portrays the world in a flurry of action from a European car chase to a U.S.A in recession, to a dichotomized Japan, and to an isolated Australia. It is an accurate depiction of the world we are living in now because that is how the movie was filmed - out in the streets of the real world circa the end of the 20th century which enhances the theme of the movie.

If you watch this movie you will believe you are living at "The End of the World". The movie is even better NOW then when it first came out. It's been 13 years since the first showing and I'm 28. Being a teenager, the sci-fi, action, fast-pace and the heroine's romance with William Hurt held my attention but to truly appreciate the WHOLE MOVIE you have to get past the juvenile/pop culture themes.

Being a woman, I identified with the heroine and the way she acts at the end of the movie and I think you will, too. The men will relate to the narrator because they tend to distance themselves from what's really going on in this movie and "cut to the chase". Overall, the movie is good for the whole family to watch except for one nude scene.

This "summary" took me awhile to write but as I went through the process of analyzing the movie from memory it became easier and easier as the film's key scenes flashed into my head. This only proves how powerful and clear Wenders' vision is as a director.

Set in 1999, a woman (Solveig Dommartin) has a car accident with some bank robbers, who enlist her help to take the bank money to a drop in Paris. On the way she runs into another fugitive from the law (William Hurt), an American who is being chased by the CIA.

Wenders realized the film would be too long for the commercial distribution, so he kept control of the unedited film rather than surrendering it to distributors. After the film's theatrical release, Wenders worked with multiple copies and, with Sam Neill, recording additional narration, completed a 280-minute version. The longer cut, which Wenders regards as the definitive version of the film, unfolds as a trilogy and is presented in three parts (the titles appear three different times).

The version I saw was around 150 minutes. If it were any longer, it would definitely need to be broken up into parts. It is a bit confusing, and definitely strange. This is science fiction, but not your typical kind. Really more off the wall, artistically sci-fi, like "Alphaville".

At the end of 1999 the world is under threat as an Indian nuclear satellite spins out of control and slowly descends towards earth. Claire however has other problems, seeking solitude she gets mixed up with tow bank robbers and agrees to delivery the stolen money to Paris. On her journey she meets Trevor McPhee, who enlists her help to escape a man who is chasing him. Trevor steals some of Claire's money to continue his global journey. Claire pursues him across the Russia, America and Germany (with a detective and ex-boyfriend in tow) to find his quest is more emotional than it is criminal.

Wim Wenders – simply a great director, visionary in his own way. However here he bites off more than he can chew with an ambitious road movie that, like the satellite that threatens the earth, easily spins out of his control. The story starts intriguingly – Claire's journey is interesting and her globe trotting is at least entertaining. It doesn't have a great deal of humour – but it is light and it feels like Claire, Trevor and Eugene's journeys are all building to something.

However it doesn't provide. The final hour of the film is static – all in Australia, and it becomes heavy with pretention and navel-contemplation. The subjects of dreams etc are broached but it doesn't convince, despite throwing up interesting images and some intriguing ideas. It very much crawls to a conclusion and it's almost a relief when it ends.

The title suggests that there will be an element of apocalyptic dread about this. I know that's not the focus of the film, but I did feel it could have used this better. At the start it is mentioned and we see some evidence of panic etc but after that it is forgotten – in fact everywhere seems quite normal. Later in the film something happens that threatens the earth but in a desert in Australia we never know what's happening and indeed neither the characters or the director seem to care either. I don't know why they bothered with the story line at all – they certainly didn't do anything with it.

The cast are OK, but they move all over the place with the tone of the film. The best summary of the cast is that Hurt and Neil are nearly always watchable. Dommartin as Claire isn't as good as she needs to be and can't carry the `quest for love' side or the `addicted to dreams' side. They do provide some good moments but the characters are as illogical and meaningless as the film itself! Why would two bank robbers let Claire transport their money AND let her travel the earth for her lover and continually send her money to do it?!

Overall this provides several entertaining moments, but this is never as deep as it thinks it is. The second half is bogged down in a heavy plot and babble about dreams etc and by the time the ending comes you'll almost wish that the satellite had just fallen quickly and put us all out of our misery. Deeply disappointing.

The vast majority of people I know have never understood this film. Probably this is because the 2.5 hour running time of the original release is actually vastly too short for the story. The director's cut is a whopping 4.5 hours, but goes by so quickly one hardly notices. If you are bored, then you probably haven't figured out what's really going on. Some notes:

This is a story of trials, of how our relationships to each other, and to humanity and the Earth, are shaped and impeded by technology. It is a fearful story of the dangers of our world as Wenders saw them in almost 20 years ago now. The journey is central here (as it is in almost all epic works) and the story doesn't work without seeing that journey unfold first all over the earth (and no, it wasn't about sponsoring nations--the journey of Sam and Claire et al reenacts other journeys only alluded to in the film, bringing up themes of connectedness to family and place.)

To me the most important theme in this film is the power of the journey and of stories to transform us--a theme so old we may be tired of it, though it remains relevant today. Eugene (Neill) is to me the central character, and any good viewing of the movie depends on understanding how he fits in as more than a side character caught up in a great chase.

One last note: this doesn't deserve to be described as Sci-Fi. Yes, there's some science-like imagery in it, but the thrust of the movie is literary. The "science-fiction" in the movie serves only as an extension of the transformations and journeys of the characters. It turns those things inward rather than outward, and succeeds well in doing it. A truly remarkable and excellent film that got a bad first screening because no distributor had the guts to put out a 5 hour movie. (What would they say to Akira Kurosawa these days?)