Bis ans Ende der Welt

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.

Wim Wenders over 5 hour globetrecking cyberpunk epic, is intended to be the ultimate road movie. It plays out like a miniseries, about a woman who just separated from her writer boyfriend(played by Sam Niel who serves as narrator), and crashes cars with wounded bank-robbers, they offer to give her some of the money if she will transport the cash the rest of the way to Paris for them. She agrees and uses her money to finance the trip that ensues for the rest of the movie. She immediately after meets William Hurt, a mysterious hitchhiker she becomes fascinated with. He is on the lamb, but from who, and why? After he ditches her and steals a hefty sum she becomes obsessed with finding him.

All the while a rouge Indian nuclear satellite hovers above the Earth, haywire and endangering a possible nuclear Apocalypse if it accidentally detonates. The world is closer to ending than it has ever been, which means its just a story on the news in the background, most people try to ignore.

The first segment, in this three part film, is their chase cross country and continent, "A Dance Around The World", as the book about their lives is latter called.

They begin in Italy, and go on to Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Bejing, Tokyo, San Francisco, and finally the Australlian Outback, our heroin Miriam discovers, that Hurt is wanted for a stolen piece of Government property, a device that records the experience of seeing and translates the information as images. He is recording the most beautiful places in the world, for his blind mother. He is the son of Max Von Sydow, the inventor of the device. Their cat and mouse game becomes a whirlwind romance of constant movement and escape.

By the third segment they reach Sydow's underground lab in Australlia, where they also discover that the device cannot only record seeing for the blind, but can record dreams if left on during sleep. The aboriginals who run the lab with Sydow refuse to work on his dream machine. Slowly but believably the rest of the staff, becomes obsessed with staring into the recordings of their dreams, "It got to the point where they dreamed of their dreams...and fell ever deeper into the black well of Narcissus .".

There are car crashes, planes losing power midlight, and one gorgeous locale after another. Like "Alphaville" and "The Fall" this film is completely indebted to its beautiful sights, that it finds and photographs. At five hours long, you can imagine it meanders a good deal. And it does, but for a film so dedicated to the pure spectacle and profound importance and danger of "seeing things", I didn't mind.

Future content wise, there is a clear opposition between the dual natures of the machine, helping the blind to see the world, and allowing the sightful to intrude upon their private internal world, whose appeal is magnetic and addictive. Tecnhology is a double edged sword, amazing but not without its serious ethical and philosophical dilemmas (which is the more real world the one within or without? etc), this movie doesn't delve into it conversation wise, it's lets everything play out, at five hours it gives you the credit that you can work it out for yourself.

It's really just a beautiful film to watch, that's much sweeter and gentler than most sci-fi, and more fascinating too because it doesn't shove its implications down your throat.

Wim Wenders, got people like The Talking Heads, Can, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, Elvis Costello, U2, Nick Cave, and many many more, to make original songs for the soundtrack about the new millennium. While many of the songs are very good, most are awkwardly placed as well. No doubt Wenders was really excited about all the music and just wanted to use everything.

Definitely flawed, but a richly excessive and eccentric experiments and time capsule. Despite its hefty run time, I thought Wenders was sensitive, to the changing dynamics of the future world, it's not dystopian and it's not Star Trek/Fifth Element Space Opera either, it occupies, a space, where simple good or bad, are no longer really relevant to discussion.

At one point when everyone assumes the world has ended Sam Niel's character is playing in a small band with several Aboriginal neural scientists, a few french-bank robbers, a British bounty hunter, and some random strays who wandered into the Australian compound fearful of nuclear fallout, and they play a music that sounds like Australlian Blue Grass; Didgeridoo's and pianos, harmonica's, and trumpets, blending together to create something singular and new. He notes to himself, "This entire trip has not been about helping a blind woman to see, or gazing into ourselves. But this adventure, the satellite, the machine, the crash, it all occurred, so we could be here, at this moment, to create this music which would have never otherwise existed, right at the crest of the end of the world".

Few sci-fi films are dedicated to power of music(that the characters play), words(that Sam Neil records for his novel), and images(of coming war, of the beauty of the world, and the contours of our own mind/dream/souls,etc). In Alphaville when the computer asks Lemmy Caution, "What moves the night?", Caution responds, point blank, "Poetry". Wim Wenders updates, upgrades, and extends this concept for the new millennium. Though I cant remember too much of what was said, I'm still humming along days later, with some pretty pictures circulating in my head like post cards from an alternate universe.

It's a bittersweet, love, travelogue, adventure story, for the New Millennium; "Where In The Wolrd Is Carmen San Diego?", as written by William Gibson on a sentimental day.

Director Wim Wenders crafted a majestic, multi-continent -spanning, and quite long near masterpiece here, that near the end falls somewhat short due to certain loosely connected plot outcomes. Here, I am reviewing the 'quickie' 2 hour US version, though. The cinematography , casting, sound track... are all about as good as it gets, the cat and mouse chase between the main characters is nicely done, and through it all we have the overhanging threat of a global nuclear catastrophe in the form a runaway Indian nuclear satellite, which I felt could have been more urgently presented. All the characters meld well with the script and plot, but near the end I felt that the 'end of the world' aspect- the threat of literal annihilation- should have went in a more dangerous direction. Wenders punted . Part road trip movie, and totally an early 90's hipsters favorite, everyone should see this commercial failure- turned cult classic at least once, and try to watch the extended full length version if you can, I hear it is overall more engaging, it just adds up better, than the US one, despite the length ( about 5 hours). One subplot is the two edged nature of technology- nuclear power to heat and light up our lives yet a satellite might end it all.. and then more technology might save the day...... and a mysterious invention that relates to vision and dreams, but do we really want this? Overall very good, plus Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are in it, so how can you refuse ?

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?)