Wings of Desire (1987) User Reviews

Our Town for the Cold War Generation

[bejasus · 9/10 · 22 February 2005]

If my grandchildren ever ask me what it was like back in the Cold War, I'll tell them to watch this movie. It is both frighteningly bleak and lyrically beautiful. It captures the spirit of the times (Western civilization immediately before the fall of the Berlin Wall) better than any movie I've ever seen. And it manages to be a love letter to those times while also showing the place and time in all its inescapable ugliness.

The overall plot moves forward pretty nicely for a movie where plot doesn't seem to matter all that much, and there are some beautiful vignettes, beautifully photographed, acted, and directed. I'm not sure how anyone can make it through the movie without falling in love with Bruno Ganz's angel. I think the movie's lyricism holds up well on multiple viewing -- as long as you liked it the first time. If the self-consciously art-house form bugs you, however, or you find the screenplay's "poetry" to be too facile, you'll probably find this movie grating. I, however, have never seen people reading silently in a public library without thinking of this movie . . . .

A Remarkable Achievement

[HenryHextonEsq · 9/10 · 10 November 1999]

A visually beautiful film, which boasts one of the most poetic and literary scripts ever- the dreamlike poetry of the dialogue fits seamlessly in with the overpowering visuals. The acting is of very high callibre too, with Peter Falk adding a very welcome dimension to the film and Bruno Ganz proving a master at acting via expression and nuance. The storyline is nice and simple and is given much additional poignancy and depth by the way Wenders directed, Henri Alekan photographed and the choice of music for certain scenes- the use of Nick Cave's "The Carney" is especially perfect for the scene in which it was used, as was the music during the main scene where we get to see Marion's Trapeze act- the music, visual mastery and the act itself combine to stunningly entrancing effect. That 100 people have given this film a 1/10 mark is almost beyond belief, as it is an absolute joy from start to finish. Rating:- ***** (out of *****)

A Missing Wing

[blange-64651 · 7/10 · 27 October 2018]

A movie that was confusing, different (in a good way), and pretty well played. All of these topics come to mind when thinking about the film "Wings of Desire" directed by Wim Wenders in 1997. This film was a unique fantasy drama that had a very interesting feel to it. Throughout this movie, Damiel and Cassiel had to be pretty quiet and emotionless as angels. People couldn't see them because they were angels. They would be in the skies of the city of Berlin watching over the great people in the city. The people's feelings and thoughts would draw the angels closer. The angels would try helping the hopeless people by making them feel like they weren't alone, which was actually true. The different colors of the backgrounds in this movie truly could confuse anyone. After figuring it out, the reason behind it was pretty interesting. The angels perspective created a black and white color background. The color switched to normal colors once the movie was in perspective of real life. There wasn't much of a plot in this movie, which made it interesting. The angels would just go from person to person which made it a little random from time to time, but it wasn't overwhelming. This movie was always keeping my attention. It might not be the go-to action movie, but it's definitely an interesting and well played out movie. The ending with Damiel deciding to take a dip into a real perspective going out of his angel self was a big turning point. Seeing Damiel after that just made you into it and made you wonder. Some of the scenes drug on for a longer time than they needed. Some scenes were just way too long that didn't need to be like that at all.

One of the greatest movies of the late 20th century

[HermesPan · 10/10 · 14 July 2004]

There are so many comments written about this movie, I almost don't want to write anything - but here I am anyway :)

Though everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it disturbs me to read negative comments that WOD is 'too slow' or that Wenders should have been a still life photographer. I think that some people are missing the point of this movie. Wenders filmed this after having been part of the Hollywood machine for several years, and had grown sick of the cookie cutter films that were (and still are) being made in that tradition to produce ticket sales. Yes, this movie doesn't have loads of action and car chase scenes and guns and sex. It does offer some interesting perspectives. The consistent third person view and 'objectification' of the viewer is one aspect. Watching WOD, you don't feel the typical draw into the movie as so often is the case, but rather are a bystander, looking through a window, with your own thoughts and ideas a part of the movie, not the other way around. WOD doesn't allow you to become a subjective part of the film; it 'pushes' you away from empathizing. Even the camera angles and shots motivate this sentiment. The goal and direction of the film are presented without struggle or thought; you know that Damiel wants to be with Marion. He tells Cassiel this, and the only question is - how will he achieve this goal?

WOD belies a sense of traditional film-making. Peter Falk is presented as perhaps the 'idea' of history as fans call out 'Colombo!' The angels are bound to Berlin, existing in a purgatory neither heaven or hell, unable to communicate. The trapeze artist from a traveling circus representing freedom - not only freedom from an everyday lifestyle, but also the key to Damiel's freedom. This movie contains so many interesting ideas and perspectives, that when watched with an open, curious mind, it is fascinating, mesmerizing, calming and inspirational. Filmed entirely in Berlin, the city is not a traditional definition of beautiful. But the industrial, modernist, post WW II reconstructed Berlin is stunning and diverse, providing the perfect background for this modern classic. I cannot recommend this movie enough. But please watch it with open eyes. In the same sense you cannot listen to the music of Schoenberg or Stravinsky as you would Mozart, you cannot watch Wings of Desire as you would a Spielberg movie.

human life has value

[cindy_bcr · 10/10 · 19 May 2004]

In the first scenes after the opening credits, we see an aerial view of Berlin, but this is a Berlin that doesn't exist anymore. It's a city divided, between East and West, that still bears the scars of the second World War, and can't rebuild where the Wall stands in the way. There is a vast vacant lot where the cultural center of pre-war Berlin stood, with the facade of an old station, and nearby stands a bomb-shelter and the tower of a bombed-out church.

It is from this church where an angel stands looking out over the city, and then we see the people going about their daily lives. All this is shot in black and white, and we realize that we are seeing the world through the angel's eyes, seeing the same colorless world and hearing the same thoughts of the people around. As the story goes on, we realize that this is not just one angel in Berlin, for he goes to a car showroom, and compares observations with another angel. Then we go to the library, which is filled with angels.

The first library scene is my favorite scene of the whole movie. It is here where we see many different people studying, and their thoughts reverberate around the space until they are just a murmur, which becomes music. Because there are so few distinct voices, it doesn't matter that they are in German, which I don't understand. However, there was one young man studying the creation story of Genesis in Hebrew, which ties in with a later point where the two lead angels are discussing how they witnessed creation. First they saw the glacier recede, then fish and animals appear. They laughed when they saw the first biped, someone who shared their image, but they stopped laughing when the people learned how to make war.

As idyllic as the angels' lives are, it is through the pain we humans endure that know we are fully alive. And this is what the angels miss, to see colors, to touch, to taste, to smell, the ability to love and affect others' lives. The children can see them, but the adults may at times only feel some vague presence. They lay hands on people's shoulders, to try to understand their feelings beyond mere words. This is illustrated by a scene on a rooftop, where a man is about to commit suicide; as he sits on the ledge, an angel lays a hand on him as if holding him back, and when he jumps, the angel shouts `no!' For these angels are observers, spending their time being a presence among the living, not just to primarily serve as ushers to the afterlife (where I was sorely disappointed after watching "City of Angels," the American re-make). They are not harbingers of doom, but benign symbols of a creator's concern for humans.

Don't be turned off by the fact that it's in black and white, because one thing that really makes an impact is that it's only through viewing as an angel is it in monochrome, because when humans see the world, it's in color. A poem continues throughout the movie and ties everything together, repeating "When the child was a child..." and we realize that humans are the children, the ones younger than angels, just learning and enjoying life. The music adds a lot to the movie, since this film is more visual than verbal, which means that subtitles don't get in the way. I can't say enough about this film–it's wonderful!

The most emotionally and spiritually moving film of all time

[Jaimzay · 10/10 · 30 April 2001]

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.

Beautiful, poetic, stimulating

[haddocky · 10/10 · 2 July 2004]

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.

Never really takes flight

[miss_lady_ice-853-608700 · 6/10 · 7 December 2010]

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.

Astonishing

[erik150x · 10/10 · 1 May 2004]

I just saw this film for the first time. This film is simply amazing. So subtley powerful. The climaxing scene at the bar, is like seeing the world in a grain of sand. There, just now. Did you see it? There it is again. And again, over there. You didn't see it? Watch and you'll see. This film has just made #1 on my favorite films of all time. The way they use Peter Faulk to trancend the boundry between art and life, or perhaps erase the line all together, wonderfully creative. We are guided gently in to a world full of fallen angels, and then brought full circle back home again. This is simply a must see movie. I find it hard to imagine anyone not getting something out of this movie.

Oh my aching significance sensor

[johnpmoseley · 6/10 · 20 September 2021]

'When the child was a child...' the film begins, or nearly begins, I can't remember, but it's not a bad place to start, so: when I was a kid of around 19, I saw this movie and thought, 'Naturally, very important, real art, how could you ever say anything against it? I am surely immensely edified etc.' And also, less consciously, 'I absolutely never need to see this movie again.'

As a fully fledged adult who actually has just seen it again, I look back and wonder why I couldn't just condense all that into 'boring, overblown, pretentious.' Because I hadn't seen enough that was really good, I guess. It's odd since some of that better stuff would have been by Wenders: Kings of the Road, Alice in the Cities, and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Paris, Texas. It's a bit like thinking Nick Cave is good because you've never heard his earlier, much better band, The Birthday Party.

The bands here are, in fact, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and Birthday Party alumnus Rowland S. Howard's subsequent outfit, Crime and the City Solution. Cave, in particular, at this point, had attained a level of humourless self-importance entirely appropriate to the film. However, it's really the beginning of the grandiose tendencies that eventually saw Wenders enmeshed with the much less down and dirty Bono and U2.

The aim is to let us know, in sweepingly epic terms, that human life just...matters - so much so that the really smart and feeling angels will trade their immortality to have a bit of it. Sure, there's pain, loss, longing and even, ahem, boredom, but in the end, when you scan the whole rich tapestry, it's all just so goddamned beautiful - especially when you, you know, take some time to appreciate the little things.

Too much appreciating the little things may be precisely how you make something as trite and tedious as this film, with its overlong wanderings in the Berlin everyday and its angels yearning after ordinary human experience. I am not saying anything against meditation, mindfulness, good photography, lengthened attention spans or heightened awareness in general, I'm talking about getting hung up on trivia. These things you're appreciating may be simple and small, but they're still just material things. If you want more by way of significance than enjoying your coffee and noticing minute, supposedly marvellous random oddments, well...you probably have a point - especially, one might suggest, in a city recently marked by the trauma of an apocalyptic war and now, at the time when the film was made, the embodied metaphor of the geopolitical schism traumatically dividing the world.

At any rate, it's not even a consistent message. Marion, one of the central figures, is a trapeze artist so fogged by gloom she's apt to fall off her swing and her life in sheer resignation at any moment. She is not taking any pleasure in things little or big and seems to have no other internal resources either. Well, not to worry, an angel has fallen in love with her and met her in a dream, and is giving up his wings to come rescue her from her existential black hole. When he finally finds her and is about to kiss her, she holds him off in order to deliver a poetic homily about commitment - that is, to this individual with whom she's barely exchanged a word - so long, over-elaborate and dull I almost worried for her that she was blowing the relationship. It's a paradigm example of the writers - Wenders and/or his long-term collaborator Peter Handke - letting themselves too far off the verbal leash while saying nothing much. And in general, the whole business is very teenage and not in a good way, a fantasy of the depressed person being saved by love - without dealing with or even explaining any of her issues - that, for all the floridly portentous blah blah, is actually phonier and more simplistic than many romantic fantasies purveyed by Hollywood.

Why the six stars and not the one or two all this would suggest? Because of gorgeous execution: beautiful camerawork and great actors giving strong performances. I really didn't mind watching to the end and it's only the next day that the irritation's come on strong enough to incur this review.

But If I had to divvy it up, at least two of those stars might simply be for the kids' circus scene, which is a joy.

perfection

[damiella · 10/10 · 25 June 2000]

I can never be a film-maker because of Wings of Desire. It is such a stunning work, I know I could never match it, much less exceed it. I have never seen a film that spans such great heights (pardon the pun) of the spiritual, the social, emotional, political and existential. It's the most gorgeous love story I have ever encountered and its anguish and exilaration is unparallel. But enough of the Critic-Speak. This movie shows the loneliness and wonder of being alive and if you remain unmoved by it, you must have no soul.

Stunning Expressionist Poem

[Benedict_Cumberbatch · 6 July 2007]

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.

Don't cry for me. I'm already dead.

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 7 February 2014]

Artsy foreign film about two angels that come to Earth and spend a lot of time walking around listening to people's thoughts. When I say a lot of time, I should stress over half of the film's length. Eventually one of the angels decides he wants to be human because he fell for a trapeze artist. But it takes a very long time for the film to get there. There's also a subplot about Peter Falk (playing himself) shooting a movie in Berlin. Falk's part is probably the most enjoyable part of the film. Other than the beautiful photography. Look, it's a very pretentious movie. Obviously how much you will enjoy it depends in large part upon how you feel about films like this. It's the kind of movie you feel like you should be wearing a scarf while watching it. There is some good stuff here but it also reminded me of an episode of The Simpsons from years ago where Barney Gumble made an art film called "Pukahontas" that was pointless drivel yet the film snob phonies all praised it as a masterpiece.

Disappointing

[grantss · 4/10 · 24 May 2020]

I really wanted to like this movie. I love "Paris, Texas", so realise that Wim Wenders' movies take some patience, but offer great rewards.

However, I just couldn't get into Wings of Desire. Just found it too slow-moving, and dull. Also found it visually unappealing.

A Poet re-discovers life, love and beauty

[batzi8m1 · 9/10 · 10 December 2004]

It's amazing that any non-German speakers can even appreciate this movie. True the basic story is universal and beautiful, but it's Peter Handke's poetry that makes it breathtaking. Wenders had done other Handke works in film - Alice in the Cities, The Lefthanded Woman, The Goalie's fear of the Penalty- but this one is very different.

This movie is about giving up the ethereal life of the observer and actually living it. Handke had lived as a hermit after his wife's suicide and raised their child alone for 10 years - claiming all he needs of a woman is a good prostitute every so often. This movie script marks his turn to the pure love of life that this dreary Goth never really displayed, even in his youthful writings. It's the wonder of the child within discovering life in all it's beauty -- in even the most mundane and everyday things.

************ PLOT SPOILER ALERT ***********

The job the angels that nobody seems to have noted here is this: They can exist in all times flowing through one spot (Berlin) and must record instances of Humans

expressing "Spirit".

A damned rare thing, it's true, but they must record it whenever they can.

Hollywood chose to leave that notion completely out of that horrible Nicolas Cage/Meg Ryan "Vehicle" remake.

(Worth it for the Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and Mick Harvey's Crime and the City Solution alone)

Painfully beautiful -- handle with care

[pietro_parodi · 29 December 2003]

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.

poetry in motion

[mjneu59 · 10/10 · 16 January 2011]

Compelling, ponderous, exasperating, enigmatic, demanding and beautiful: Wim Wenders' rediscovery of his native Germany from its most symbolic city is all this and more. His spellbinding portrait of Berlin, past and present, is poetry in motion: a haunting, hypnotic masterpiece that lingers in the memory long after its final image fades from the screen.

From the opening aerial shots to the last (admittedly long-winded) soliloquy, the film is a provocative look at a world that has long since lost its innocence, as witnessed by a pair of benevolent guardian angels invisibly cataloguing human daydreams and emotions, and occasionally offering mute comfort in moments of private spiritual crisis. In the divided city of Berlin what they most often overhear are poetic expressions of longing and despair, but it isn't enough to stop one empathetic angel from trading in his wings for a chance to experience all the mundane, earthbound luxuries of mortal life, from something as simple as a cup of hot coffee to something as complicated as falling in love.

In less sensitive hands the idea might never have gone beyond a simple romantic fantasy (as in the inevitable Hollywood remake, starring Nicholas Cage), but Wenders and co-writer Peter Handke are more interested in making the film a vicarious tour of the human condition, overheard in passing: an infant's first joyous observations; the final thoughts of an auto accident victim; the calm resignation of a man on the brink of suicide; and the recollections of an actor (Peter Falk, playing himself, but with a whimsical twist) on location during the making of a war movie.

Wenders' typically moody soul searches aren't always easy to sit through, but the unexpected element of fantasy lifts the film completely out of the ordinary, and the soaring imagery (shot mostly in luminous black and white) goes a long way toward balancing the occasional clutter of repetitive prose-poetry during the sometimes protracted interior monologues. Viewers may find it either exhilarating or annoying, but behind all the angst and alienation is a stubborn, almost childlike faith in the benevolence of human nature.

Wunderbar!

[wavestar · 10/10 · 10 August 2005]

Amazing! To be honest i was really really sleepy coming into class today and when i found out that we couldn't watch it in the preview theatre, i thought to myself, "Great, time to sleep". Plus when i heard that the horrible "City Of Angels" is a remake of this film, i felt that i was in store for more of "City Of Angels"' type of love, angel-ish crap.

I'm glad that i was totally wrong. Never doubt a film until you've watched it for yourself.

Wings Of Desire is a thought-provoking movie. The type that makes you stop in your normal, day-to-day routine and think of the things we rarely pause to think about. For example, the poem at the start of the film where it begins with "When a child is a child" part; i felt that it made me think about how we were the most curious when we were very young. How innocent that age was and how idyllic it would be to stay that age. Alas we all grow up. Some turn out alright. Some turn out to become Hitler.

Which brings me to the point of how this film really seems to be a commentary of Berlin and perhaps, post-World War II Germany in particular. There is a scene whereby the 2 angels are in a care and they are exchanging notes about the time of sunset and sunrise as well as what happened 10 years on that exact day. Then Cassiel is about to talk about what had happened 50 years ago, during the World War II, when Damiel cuts in and motions him to move on. It is as if Damiel is the voice of Germany and he is too ashamed to talk about the past. In fact it is suffice to say that all those flashbacks of WWII is to show the horrors that Germany had seen and endured throughout the years.

As for the how the story is shaped. I agree that it is similar to Italian Neorealism or French New Wave due to the fact that the story lacked a strong goal. Again we can say that we cannot really tell what is going to happen from one scene to the next. And while one may feel that the less-than-normal structure is too complicated. I feel that it is good that we can watch and then try to understand the many layers of storyline that is within this film. To me, it sure beats watching that dumb "City of Angels".

If there is a scene that stood out the most, i believe that the library scene is the most powerful one of all. First of all, the camera movement was breathtaking. It would dolly from one side of the second floor and then using a wire overhead, it would go to the other side. This gives us a sort of floating feel. And although one may argue that it is part of a distanciation effect. I would feel that the main purpose that Wim Wenders did that is to give us a feeling of how the angels would move around. They could walk like normal human beings but if need be, they could float as well. And then there was the thoughts that emanated from all over the library. One thought would echo and then another. In the end all of the murmurs would drown each other, as if to show the hundreds of thoughts that go on in the library. Simply said, this scene is magical.

This film has so many layers one would feel that it would not be boring to watch it more than just one time so that all the layers are uncovered one by one. Yep, better than Citizen Kane. Wings Of Desire ist nummer ein!

The perfect fusion between literature and cinema

[elartenauta · 10/10 · 2 December 1998]

really, this film is my favorite movie... his slow rhythm is perfect and the lyrism of photography... beautiful words... excellent!! I just say about this movie:I'm still think in this movie, almost 20 years later... and the images never well be erased of my mind... I see the movie seven times during this time and now (in the actual international context) the content is unbelieved, actual and powerful... If the literature is a beautiful vehicle to human expression and the cinema is the best way to show oniric dreams and conflicts of the human beans... nothing better this film Bruno Ganz is really an angel? Peter Falk too? Wenders do it possible in the film, because the ambiance y the history going together ...flowing in harmony... (sorry for my English :)

A Smorgasbord of Poetic Symbolism

[iquine · 6/10 · 14 May 2020]

(Flash Review)

If I were to look up in the encyclopedia what an artsy film with a vague narrative embodies, I'd expect to see this film as the example. While it was full of interpretative symbolism and laced with poetic dialog, I felt it was trying too hard. Maybe it is too stereotypical vs a unique film like Personas which is a more rewarding viewing of a similar tone. The story slowly revolves around a couple of angels that wander around the city listening to people's thoughts and dreams. One has the poetic desire to experience being human and feel authentic emotions as they feel. He also has the hots for an angelic trapeze artist as she floats high above also like an angel. Will the angel have his expectations met and will he be able to catch the attention of Ms. Trapeze? From the first frame and first two minutes, I knew this was going to be artsy and meaty, which I more often than not enjoy. It took over an hour to develop a tangible narrative as it lead off with a barrage incessant poetic ramblings. Lots of talk about the innocence of children who live without a care and how that changes as life passes. Will this angel tap into their carefree nature? A story line did finally take shape but was it too little too late?

Who Are The Angels?

[Liv_Pooleside · 8/10 · 29 December 2005]

Early in the movie we see what it would be like to fly above the city. We float above the autobahn and we see a block of high-rise apartment buildings. Suddenly we are in those apartments, drifting through windows and walls, seeing the people who live there, hearing their thoughts.

This makes clear one of the things that we normally take for granted about movies- that somehow we seem to be there, watching and listening. If we play dumb about this, or think like a little child, we might ask why the people in movies don't notice us watching them.

A naive answer would be because we are invisible, because we are angels. Like the angels in the movie, we are unable to affect events. We are only able to emphasize with the characters, only able to smile to each other and compare notes.

Knowing that we, the audience, are among the angels in this movie, and that they represent us, is a good place to start thinking about how and why this movie does whatever it is that it does so well.

Beautiful film/ pretentious script

[goldgreen · 7/10 · 24 October 2020]

The premise for this film is a great one. Angels hover over Berlin listening into people's thoughts, occasionally putting an arm around the most depressed to cheer them up. One of the angels decides they want to become human to interact more completely. Wim Wenders depicts this sensitively and beautifully and the ending is sweet. The use of black and white film forces us to focus on the human emotions by stripping away the distraction of colour. However, like quite a few other Wim Wenders film, the words he gives his characters is too often written in code or poetry. One can't help thinking that he has done this because he feels art-house films should always be deep and slightly incomprehensible. So, an enjoyable film but also a pretentious one.

over and over

[rwoods · 10/10 · 19 October 1999]

This is one of those rare films one can view again and again, finding something new in each viewing. I think it visually speaks the language of dreams, which is why is has such impact. The remake, "City of Angels" doesn't even touch this film in depth, imagination, or mood.

This 1987 film by Wim Wenders was intended to be a paean to Berlin.

[pontifikator · 7/10 · 15 November 2010]

This 1987 film by Wim Wenders was intended to be a paean to Berlin but ended up as a romantic expression of hope. It has a number of distinctive elements that make it transcend mere romance, though.

Bruno Ganz and Otto Sander play two guardian angels who oversee much of the actions and thoughts going on in the divided city (the film was made in 1987). These two actors are excellent. Ganz and Sander had worked together as actors for 20 years before this film was made, and their camaraderie is obvious. Much of the film was shot in black and white by Henri Alekan, who did the cinematography for Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast." Ganz's and Sander's roles in great part are merely watching and reacting to the streams of consciousness of Berliners, and they are masterful in passively listening with their hearts on their faces. The use of black and white brings their faces into subtle, shaded relief, mirroring their inner feelings.

Cinematographer Alekan (you will notice that the trapeze artist is in Circus Alekan) was born in 1909 and died in 2001. His work here reminds me of the cinematography of Kazuo Miyagawa in "Rashomon." The camera work and tracking are intricate without ever being obvious, bringing focus on the actors and their faces.

The score is by Jurgen Knieper. He wrote an angelic score without being campy or heavy handed. The music is understated and perfect. He uses strings and a choir to make spoken words into music that fits the scenes.

The frail elderly man that wanders in and out throughout the movie represents Homer, the original story teller. Homer frets about losing his touch. He's played by Curt Bois who was born in Berlin in 1901 and who had a short scene in "Casablanca." This was his final role; he died in 1991. The use of Bois is bittersweet, as he was a famous actor in Berlin in the Twenties and Thirties before he was forced by the rise of the Nazis to leave the country.

Wenders surprises with his juxtapositions. In black and white we see an old man in modern Berlin get into a classic Thirties car and drive down the street. Then we see a view from within the car looking out onto a color film of 1930s Berlin full of Nazis and red flags with black Swastikas in their hearts; a cut and we see black and white film of Berliners digging out of the rubble with rows of corpses lined up beside the street as we drive by in that car. Then we arrive at a movie location in modern Berlin with actors in Nazi uniforms and Peter Falk waiting for us, and we realize we've seen what the car has seen during its life.

We have a sad scene of Bois as Homer wandering near the modern Berlin Wall looking for Potsdamer Platz as it was in the Twenties and Thirties, when it was the heart of Berlin and the busiest intersection in Europe. In 1987, it was a desolate wasteland of refuse and weeds, and Homer collapses into a junked chair, weary from his fruitless search.

Wenders also introduces subtle tension by giving us the thoughts of characters, showing their depression or anxiety. Then Wenders puts them into positions where we have the possibility of "accidents" or intentional acts. Each scene is played out slowly, without dramatic music, realistically as we watch and wait to see the outcomes. It's very nicely done without melodrama or histrionics, but like the "lives of quiet desperation" quote we all know.

The movie seems to be best known for its soaring hope - in spite of all the wars, death, and destruction, we have guardian angels looking over us. We find that the angels envy us, and Ganz's angel crosses the river and becomes human, reveling in the human senses, seeing in color for the first time (black and white shots represent the world as seen by angels bereft of our senses), and finally finding love, the most human condition of all.

"Wings of Desire" reminds me of a few movies. As I said earlier, "Rashomon" is comparable in cinematography. If you treasure the cinematographer's art, I recommend "Wings of Desire" and of course "Beauty and the Beast." I was also reminded of Truffaut's "Fahrenheit 451" in the scenes where people learning books walk around giving lengthy quotations as snow fell - a condition existing in "Wings of Desire," as well. Finally, I have a reaction to "Wings of Desire" that I had to "Donnie Darko": I think the director left too much to the audience to fill in. There's no real story to "Wings of Desire," just a series of interior monologues, which we the audience have to string together into our own coherent whole. Some people are put off by the lack of action and plot, while others take full advantage of the opportunity to vest the movie with their own plot and feelings. "Wings of Desire" is definitely a movie for adult contemplation.

The American film "City of Angels" with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan was loosely based on "Wings of Desire." The two movies do not bear comparison; do not avoid "Wings of Desire" because you found "City of Angels" to be a sappy Hollywood romance.

Have a good flick through the quotes page before considering watching this movie

[Sammy_Sam_Sam · 5/10 · 25 June 2012]

I'd read a lot of good things about Wings of Desire, so when I finally got around to buying a copy of the film expectations were high. I know it's lame, but straight away I'm going to say that my favourite film of all time is probably Nicholas Roeg's 'Walkabout'. Why would I make that point? It's really just to make clear that I'm not automatically dismissive of films that aren't event driven, or feature long periods where nothing much happens.

In some ways Wings of Desire isn't really about all that much and I'm not even going to try to explain the few things which do happen in the film. In another sense it's a film about absolutely everything and your interpretation and feelings toward the movie are going to depend largely on your own personality, what you expect from it and various other factors, including what sort of day you've had (it's very easy to space out during this movie!). The first two thirds of the movie are spent wondering what it is you're actually watching, as there's not really much in the way of dialogue (at least not much of interest). The final third of the film gives us some sort of resolve to the film, although really by this point most viewers are likely to be bored out of their mind. If I had to pick a scene which sums the movie up then it'd have to be the one where the angels are discussing what it is they lack in their existence. It seemed to go on forever and I couldn't really have cared less by the end of it, because they cite too many examples. If you think this sounds harsh, take a look through the quotes section on this movie to get an idea of what you'll be hearing throughout.

There's no doubting that this film is well filmed and visually it's very impressive. It's an unusual film too and one which immediately grabs your attention. However, despite these qualities, the 'introduction' is just far too long and drawn out. The director could easily have covered the first hour in about 15 minutes. And I know some people would argue that this is to give us a sense of what it's like to live forever and all the rest, but it's really not necessary. In movies there are ways of conveying long periods of time. Flashbacks, a montage etc. But there's really no excuse for the way this movie starts, it takes forever to get going and the ending is totally unsatisfying.

If you like your movies arty then check it out for the visuals alone, but if you like some sort of entertainment or something which is actually going to occupy your brain in some way then I'd avoid it.