LouHomey From my favorite movies..

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

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.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

SnoopyStyle It's 1999. An Indian nuclear satellite is threatening to crash and party girl Claire Tourneur (Solveig Dommartin) couldn't care less. The narrator Eugene Fitzpatrick (Sam Neill) is one of many men whom she had left behind. She gets into a car crash with two guys who robbed a bank in Nice and drives them for a share of the money. On the way to delivering the cash, she picks up Trevor McPhee (William Hurt) who is on the run from an armed man. After dropping him off, she goes to stay with Eugene in Paris and discovers that Trevor had taken some of the money. She pursues him to Berlin. She hires private detective Phillip Winter. Trevor is actually Sam Farber chased by bounty hunters and governments.The story is a meandering mess. The people don't really make sense. There are motivational problems. The plot wanders around the globe. Somebody should have taken the script back for a major rewrite. Director Wim Wenders is more interested in creating a near-futurist world which isn't that visually compelling anyways. This is a multi-lingual, Euro-epic of a sci-fi thriller but it's too long and too convoluted. It's too boring to be a fun bad movie.

Voyou Nobodysbusiness I went to see that film with a Wenders' die hard fan. When we left, it was quite easy for her to recognise... That was utter rubbish.Paradoxically, she was bored all along while I was not, as I was busy laughing at loud at the innumerable ridiculous moments. The thing is, because Mr Wenders thinks he is smart, or deep, or whatever nonsense, he thinks he can make an SF oeuvre without a look at any earlier material in the genre. Of course he failed. His vision of the future is laughable in every aspect and detail.Into this conceptual and visual disaster, put a 10 minutes plot that drags on for hours. No amount of acting ability can save that recipe. Even the great Jeanne Moreau was wasted in this.The only redeeming moments, for me, came from the short parts of E. Mitchell and Chick Ortega, who for some reason seemed to really enjoy being there, and from a few beautifully filmed scenes here and there. Their worth is only by comparison to the general ineptitude, though, and in no way would justify watching this perfect specimen of turkey.

frankenbenz At a whopping 280 minutes, Wender's intended length of his sci-fi epic Until the End of the World might actually make some wish the world was ending, but for those of us willing to commit the time, the Director's cut is a rewarding experience. The 150 minute theatrical version of the film was criticized for being overly ambitious, disjointed and underdeveloped, while the Director's cut not only fills in these blanks, it fleshes out this fascinating story about how we see the world around us, the search for identity within that world and our obsessive/destructive interface with technology as a means to process reality, both conscious and unconscious. http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/

palomnik I find this film to be beyond description - in some ways it is dated - the car map system looked cool when nobody had GPS. It reflects the visions of the cyberpunk literature and cultural movements of the late '80s and early '90s, which has some relevance, but has morphed beyond recognition.In actual 1999, I found a great prophetic irony in the opening lines: "1999 was the year the Indian Nuclear Satellite went out of control. No one knew where it might land. It soared above the ozone layer like a lethal bird of prey. The whole world was alarmed..."I rewrote them to reflect the actual reality: 1999 was the year the dot com and Y2K bug hype went out of control. No one knew where it might end. It soared above our corporate servers and venture-capital-burn-rate like a lethal bird of prey. The whole world was alarmed...So there are some decently interesting science fiction aspects to this movie, but I would say that this is actually the ultimate art film as road movie. Just see "Wings Of Desire" if you don't think Wenders is an art film director. Of course I have to give it extra points just for spending extra time in one of my favorite world-class bars - the Tosca.Even though this is a cyberpunk sci-fi film, and an art film and a road film, it manages ultimately to be introspectively psychological (as do all Wenders films that I have seen so far). I cannot watch this movie without shedding at least a tear for the beautiful and talented Solveig Dommarten, whose career and life were cut far too short. I see other reviews talking about the lack of story. This movie is better watched as painting - the title or theme may be short, but it unfolds in the tasting of the experience of the images, some of which were pretty striking in 1991. I thought the theatrical release was pretty good at the time, but if you can, slow down and watch the 5 hour trilogy version (a third at a time).