Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Beng Garcia I kept on watching the movie over and over, from the movie-house till vcd till DVD. Brings you back in time. Gallantry was brought back to life. The determination, conviction and all other characteristics that make a man a man. Melanie and Michael make a perfect match in the movie. The chemistry was perfect which made me feel like a part of the movie each time I watch it.

tieman64 David Seltzer directs "Shining Through". The plot? Melanie Griffith plays Linda Voss, a young woman of Irish/German Jewish parentage who, during the Second World War, begins a job as a secretary for a New York law firm. Here she works for Ed Leland (Michael Douglas), who appears to be an attorney."Shining Through's" first half is mostly excellent. Voluptuous, melodramatic and packed with homages to 1930s and 40s spy thrillers, the film initially finds Voss and Leland locked in a battle of the sexes. She possesses keen observational skills and a fierce intelligence, he's struggling to keep secret the fact that he's working for the Office of Strategic Services. After several well written sequences, packed with combative dialogue, Leland and Voss stop feuding. Afterall, why fight with a smart woman when you can use her talents as a spy? At this point, "Shining Through" becomes junk. What was once a humble spy drama, in which Melanie Griffith perfectly channels the pouty babes of 1940s pulp fiction, becomes a 1990s "Holocaust prestige picture". Here the "brave" and "daring" Voss becomes an "amazing woman" who "enters Germany" and faces "hardships" and "dangers" and sees first hand the "horrors of Nazism". In an instant, "Shining Through" becomes Oscar-bait."I have no use for Jews," a character states, before shooting Voss in the stomach. From this point onwards, "Shining Through" lays some very specific American mythology on thick. In Seltzer's hands, the secret services of the Allied Nations aren't but the clandestine wings of yet more Imperialists, but real "humanitarians" with real "concerns" for ordinary people. And so after learning that sneaky Germans have killed her family, the dying Voss is rescued by Leland, who drags her across international borders, taking bullets in his back and so shielding her from Nazi snipers. Having saved the world from Germany, having saved Jews from the clutches of evil, having provided a safe haven for the persecuted men and women of the world, American audiences then pat themselves on the back. The film ends with the words "thank you" played over the elderly faces of Leland and Voss, national heroes whose shining lights steer a nation through the night.Ironically, in the real world, the United States did everything it could not only to ignore the plight of European Jews (in many cases it actually fuelled their plight), but to limit the number of German Jews admitted during WW2. Less than 25 percent of its already low annual quota of 26,000 Jews were allowed in. Why? Because the Roosevelt administration – President Roosevelt already being notorious for his antisemitic remarks – invented miles of red tape so as to prevent Jews being "qualified" for entry. Even then, Roosevelt was insistent that those admitted should be "spread thin" across the country.6/10 – See "Notorious".

vincentlynch-moonoi It's interesting to read through some of the IMDb reviews of this film. People either hate it or love it. I'm somewhere in the middle.The biggest criticism of this film is that the plot is improbable. Well, that's probably a fair criticism. Of course, if we dismissed all the movies Hollywood makes that are improbable...well, there wouldn't be much left. Of course, the problem here is that this is supposed to be a serious film.The second biggest criticism of this film is regarding the acting of Melanie Griffith. That's also a fair criticism. My feeling about Griffith always was that she was a limited actress that got lucky on a couple of films. And, this wasn't one of them.Michael Douglas -- the film lead -- does okay here, as far as I'm concerned. And, Liam Neeson as a German officer does fine, as well. Joely Richardson as a double agent was good, as well. The only disappointment in terms of significant supporting actors was John Gielgud, as a sympathetic German involved in spying. His part is so inconsequential that it could have been handled by an unknown actor.So, in terms of performances, some are decent, others are not, none are outstanding. One thing that the film is outstanding in is production values. Very impressive, actually.SO, from my perspective, overall, this is a decent film, and worth watching...once. And, just for the record, it was a money-maker.

farrellhehn I have NO idea why this movie has not well survived the critique process. I am an intelligent woman who finds this to be the best Nazi film I've ever seen - a great romance, a great thriller, and just a great movie all-around. In contrast to another reviewer, I found Melanie's performance here to be right on point and she was well-cast. As others mention, she's an interesting contrast, blonde and Jewish, sex appeal but survivor. Cannot believe it was selected as worst movie of 1992. My German is not as strong as the two other languages I speak, so maybe the accent is a mess, but is it really a deal-breaker for the film? Especially when it's a true story. Maybe Roger Ebert has it out for Melanie Griffith or Michael Caine, who knows, but I really encourage you to check this one out.