User reviews

Kim Novak returned to films in this Mike Figgis film. During the shooting there was a lot of PR generated by the legendary star's return to films including an interview with Kim Novak by the Sunday New York times Movie Section, great advance PR for the film. The back story of this movie would have been a better film than what appears on screen. Ms. Novak fought bitterly with Mike Figgis who threatened to cut Kim Novak's part to shreds, and Figgis did. What resulted is a muddled film that stars Kevin Anderson a fine actor whose part must also have been edited. Ditto Bill Pullman. Liebestraum - a brilliant title- makes little sense as a film.

Liebestraum started out as a Warner Bros film but ended up as a MGM film and that once fabled studio was going thru one of its periodic slumps and financial distresses and gave this film a very very limited opening in only two cities Los Angeles and New York. The New York Times favorably reviewed Ms. Novak in its review which should have given MGM and Figgis to open the picture more widely. The mystery here is not the film's murky subject but the fact that Kim Novak a worldwide star and a very under appreciated actress was given so little to do but moan. Novak is seen basically bed ridden and moaning during the film until a shocking windup.

In a purely business observation, Kim Novak was at one time a huge box office draw with films such as Vertigo, Picnic, Bell Book and Candle, Pal Joey, Strangers When We Meet, The Mirror Crack'd et al and MGM and Figgis should have sold this as a Kim Novak return project and they would have made their money back on that. Instead, Kim Novak was ignored by Figgis who in turn ignored this film refusing to do any PR for the project upon its release and sadly this film ended the film career of Kim Novak.

Madonna was supposed to do the female lead but told her then beau Warren Beatty she did not understand the script. Beatty wisely told Madonna if she did not understand the project do not do it. Pam Gidley stepped in to replace Madonna. Wise move on Madonna's part.

The successful writer and professor of architecture Nick Kaminsky (Kevin Anderson) returns from New York to Elderstown to visit his biological mother Lillian Anderson Munnsen (Kim Novak) that is terminal. Nick does not know Lilian since he was adopted when he was a child but he pays the bill for her to stay in a private room in the hospital. While walking on the street, Nick stumbles upon his former college friend Paul Kessler (Bill Pullman), who is demolishing with his team an old department store building where a murder and a suicide happened many years ago. While talking to Paul, there is an accident and Nick saves his life. Paul invites Nick to go to the birthday party of his wife Jane Kessler (Pamela Gidley). Nick feels attracted by the building that is built in cast iron and asks Paul to visit it. Meanwhile Jane, who is a photographer, decides to take photos of the same building. They get close to each other and Nick learns that Jane was also adopted. Along the following days, Jane and Nick have a love affair and Nick discloses hidden secrets from their past.

"Liebestraum" (meaning love dream in German and title of a Franx Liszt 's composition) is a melancholic and beautiful film by Mike Figgis. The depressive story of a love affair in the 50's or 60's ended in a murder and suicide and the consequences in the present days (1991) is supported by great performances, wonderful cinematography and magnificent music score. The direction of Mike Figgis follows the style of film-noir and this film has been only released on VHS in Brazil. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Liebestraum - Atração Proibida" ("Liebestraum – Forbidden Attraction")

This film is a unique combination of film noir, an object (building) as the leading character, comedy, and horror. It works.

Except for one thing - the sound. You cannot understand most of what they say. Not to say that this was a cheap cheesy flick with bad sound - this was a decent production. Either the sound was accidentally bad, or the Brit director did what they often do over there - make films with poor sound quality. I mean, the voices are muffled (poor frequency response of the equipment or setup) and the mikes are too far from the actors. For years, I thought it was just that I could not follow the British accent, but friends with whom I have watched several British films concur. It is a national trait. It's the same with Vera Drake.

British TV productions that they show on US networks have good sound. It's British produced/directed feature films that sport bad sound.

Rent this one, but turn your hearing aid up or use the subtitles.

A movie this muddled doesn't deserve much of a review. The plot, such as it is: an architect comes to a dying city to visit his dying mother. He tries to save a dying building (where people somewhat mysteriously really died many years ago in flagrante delecto) and is dying to have sex with his buddy's wife and solve the previously referred to mystery.

This is some type of film noir I suppose, and supposedly an erotic thriller, but although it has some dirty bad language it isn't very erotic and it certainly isn't thrilling. None of the plots is particularily believable, and the question of whether they are going to tie together in the end is, yeh, but it requires such suspension of belief that the whole thing seems quite ridiculous. But don't worry, you will have lost all interest in this movie long before that. There is a "twist" at the end, which you don't see coming (until about 5 minutes before) because it doesn't make logical sense. This was tough going. Nicolas Cage was in Leaving Las Vegas by the same director, and my advice is leave Las Vegas or any other city where this movie is playing. Whoever in Hollywood approved this movie should be force to sit through it. Any other potential viewer, however, should not.

Kim Novak the biggest star at Columbia for 3 years in the late 1950's was gorgeous to the camera and as one of her Directors Billy Wilder said she "said her lines like music" . Star of Picnic, Pal Joey, Bell Book and Candle, Strangers When We Meet, and her personal favorite Middle Of The Night, Kim Novak worked with the best of Hollywood. William Holden, Rock Hudson, Roz Russell, Tyrone Power, Frank Sinatra, Judy Holiday, Jack Lemmon, Rita Hayworth,, Kirk Douglas and with James Stewart in Hitchcock's masterpiece, Vertigo. One of her last films The Mirror. Crack'd she traded hilarious barbs with her peer Elizabeth Taylor.

Mike Figgis sent Novak a copy of the script and Kim Novak agreed to star in this film. A big interview with the prestigious New York Times gave the Movie a big PR push.

Kim Novak returned to films in this movie directed by Mike Figgis . Novak and Figgis fought during the production and Figgis threatened to cut her scenes. Mike Figgis followed thru and cut Kim Novak's. Scenes to simply show her moaning and groaning; devastated the Great Star retired..

Kevin Anderson does quite fine in this film. Madonna was offered the star role but told Warren Beatty she didn't understand the movie. Mr. Beatty wisely suggested Madonna quit the film and was replaced by a young actressPamela Giddley. And the the film bounced from WB to MGM. The movie cost millions but was shown only in a handful of theaters in Los Angeles and New York,

This movie and the debacle that ensured during production is more likely a better subject for a behind the scenes book rathe than the movie itself.

We came in about 15 minutes after this started on TV. Hmmm. Interesting cast, Mike Figgis directing, liked the cast iron building set-up. Within 20 minutes we knew why we hadn't heard before about this movie. it was pretty dreadful. Clearly only about half a normal screenplay had been completed because there was no other plausible reason for those -- tedious -- pseudo-meaningful (meaningless) -- pauses. In my partner's inimtable phrasing Harold Pinter seems a laugh a minute screwball comedy writer of speedy proportions alongside this. Elephants have gestated quicker than this progressed! Everything was invested with 'meaning' to the point where, oh heavens, not ANOTHER drawn-out sex scene, one just longed for some EXPLICATION about what was going on. Yes there was some nice cinematography, and many of the cast deserved better than this. The hapless lead has disappeared almost without trace. poor boy. For a story so laden with pseudo-pyschobabble subplots and personal histories repeating I have just one question; exactly WHY is Bill Pullman's character so defiantly intent on destroying the building? MOTIVATION, MOTIVATION, MOTIVATION.

I love discovering films that completely surprise me and have me wanting to discuss them for hours with friends. Liebestraum had a very strong effect on me, and then when I found the "unrated" version I was overwhelmed all over again.

I love films like those from David Lynch, but sometimes Lynch tries too hard to make his characters as strange as possible (Wild At Heart was absolutely his worst offering). Mike Figgis' Liebestraum has the look and feel of a Lynch film, but the characters seem to be wandering through a haunting yet gorgeous dream, seemingly all sedated (something in the water?). Because this film is so well done, the slow and dreamy quality gives it a life of its own and I loved every moment of it. Which leads me back to this "unrated" business of it...

I first saw the "R" version on VHS (having missed its theatrical release), and by accident found it was available in an "unrated" director's cut that is about 9 minutes longer. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: if you possibly can, see this longer version instead of the other! The one scene that takes place at a brothel is really the most important scene in the film, bringing several points of the plot into light! It shows that the prostitutes are also the same actresses as the nurses in the hospital, and a bit more insight to a fetish of Nick (Kevin Anderson) and the importance of the scent on his fingers. Once I saw this scene, the film made so much more sense and seemed like an entirely different film altogether! Apparently MGM decided to just put the "R" version on the DVD and place the brothel scene as a separate supplement to view as a "deleted scene." I'm afraid I may just hang onto my director's cut on VHS and watch that one instead. View that scene and you'll understand why it needs to be a part of the film.

Otherwise, WOW, what an experience. Nick's devotion to trying to save an old building with a dark past, the discovery of secrets and family ties....all beautifully revealed with stunning visuals and panache. Of course I found the story fascinating as well, so all these aspects when put together are breathtaking. Kevin Anderson, Pamela Gidley, and Bill Pullman manage give their roles meaning in what must have been frustrating to try and understand what the heck this film was going to really be -- It reminds me, for instance, Jessica Harper saying when she was working on Dario Argento's film Suspiria, she was not sure what that film was actually about because it was such an unusual project. But not to worry, much of Liebestraum's secrets are carefully revealed. It has been said Kim Novak's role was wasted since she barely speaks from a hospital bed in her scenes, but what else was she supposed to do?There must have been a reason she did the part anyway, and to hear Kim Novak utter a taboo word in one scene will make your jaw drop! Even Alicia Witt's brief dream sequence appearances and her performing the title piano piece along side the end credits is impressive. Now, if only I could get the soundtrack on the 10 Records label....anyone have a clue on that one? I've tried and tried and never could obtain it.

Accepting the surreal atmosphere in this film will help you then accept the equally surreal manner the characters possess. I've always been confounded as to why personalities are so guarded and bitchy in Hitchcock films, or even in many of the Italian giallos. Liebestraum's townsfolk seem to be on guard because you never know if someone knows more than they're letting on. There are mysteries to the town and the Ralston building and you have to watch each character like a hawk, as the film has subtle and symbolic clues (like the nurse/prostitute connection).

I was very impressed by the restraint used in the sexual aspect of Liebestraum -- this is the kind of film that had all sorts of opportunites to display nudity yet it held back (I wonder how many takes it took to get that towel on Anderson just right?), and made sex more sensual actually by giving us less to see.

I could go on about many scenes that had me awestruck, but that would take up too much space here! Nick's dreams and some creepy walks through the Ralston building are just a couple of the striking ones. See it to believe it for yourself, and I cannot stress this enough, hunt down the director's cut and see that one first if you can, you won't be sorry.

This film stars Kevin Anderson as Nick...an architecture professor who wanders into town because he's learned his biological mother (Kim Novak) is in the hospital there. Soon he meets up with Paul (Bill Pullman)...an old college friend. And, as luck would have it, he saves Paul's life...so Paul invites him home for a party and soon Nick and Paul's wife are acting mighty friendly towards each other! What's next? See the film...or not.

Kevin Anderson might be a good actor. But here his character and direction just don't work. He essentially walks through the film almost like a zombie...talking very little and quite monotone. I think he's supposed to come off as brooding.... I just felt his character really lacked energy. Playing the part with more vigor and energy would have helped the film a lot. The same can be said, to a slightly lesser extent, of Pamela Gidley who stars as Paul's wife.

So despite the SLOW pace of the film and restricted affect of the stars, is the movie worth your time? I'd say probably not. If you want to see a sexy film about betrayal, there are better films out there...such as "Body Heat". If you want to see a film with realistic characters...well, there are thousands of films like that....most all of them now that I think about it.

This is a very good movie, as discussed by Janet Maslin in her NY Times review of same. It is very moody and "atmospheric" with a lot of silence between the lines, and I like that kind of film. The best part for me came at the very end when the Franz Liszt piano solo Liebestraum begins playing, and then during the credits you see the full performance (about 4 to 5 minutes long) by the pianist. I don't recall her name, but she appears to be very young, has long red hair, and plays like an absolute master. Thus I became a huge fan of Liebestrum, and its composer. Something similar happens during the credits of the movie The Pianist, where the performance of the piano music is actually a highlight of the film.

Mike Figgis wrote and directed this woefully pretentious claptrap about a young writer (Kevin Anderson, in a wholly uncompelling performance) who becomes obsessed with a landmark building about to be torn down. That impossible title refers to a piece of music which was playing in the building the night a mysterious crime took place (it was a crime of passion, yet there's no passion in the leading character, and nothing for the viewer to become involved in). Figgis gets amusingly flashy with this scenario, but it's certainly no threat to "Vertigo"--even with Kim Novak cast in a completely thankless role of a bed-ridden hospital patient. Empty all the way. * from ****

I like films that are dreamlike and fluid, floating that wanders outside of the confines of self and story. At the same time I like them to draw fresh water from the well of mysterious non- self that underpins really anything that is exuberantly receptive to the world (passionate sex, dreaming, youth, all a part of it), wipes anxiety and restores our way of seeing to the far-flung horizons teeming with possibility that youth and early lovers know.

Lynch is a natural master of this deep swimming. Ferrara tried briefly at around the same time. Further back it was Rivette. A lot of film noir works in a similar way for me.

Here we have all these things; dreamlike in the way that Lynch is, about passion that dives in and perturbs reality, and a cinematic mind-bending swim in the waters. It's nominally a thriller, but written in waters, fluid about anxiety and self.

It has the noir engine where someone sets out to investigate and finds himself embroiled in mysterious goings-on. In noir that's usually a PI, but it doesn't have to be. Here it's simply a son whose mother has been hospitalized and he arrives to the small town to care for her.

He an architectural writer, she a photographer, both coming to explore an old building that is set to be demolished, but she has a husband. They unearth a story that took place in that building long ago, about illicit lovers discovered one night. We have some obvious symbolism in the building as obliquely shared past and as wandering through his own mind that is buffeted by anxieties.

And it has the notion of persisting memory where something that happened in the past is rising up again in the present. The noir drive is that the more he succumbs to passion, the more he is pulled as a narrator into a past story about similar passion.

So they fall for each other while he's unearthing a narrative of how that shattered lives one day. By investigating further, he comes to understand that he's tied to that story via his parents; his mother has been unwell ever since. There's also another son whose life is intimately woven to events of that night, an eerie figure like out of Lynch who by driving past the building one day causes someone to die.

It's all eventually made to align during a hospital visit late at night. Another invalid mother is wheeled out, central in events of that story. A metaphysical wiring between bodies takes place, bodies entered it seems by our knowledge of the story. The fateful coupling that upset reality takes place once more inside the building; once more a vengeful spouse is waiting in the shadows with a gun. But they say that they love each other. He's eavesdropping and stays his hand.

This is worthwhile stuff.

Noir Meter: 2/4 / Neo-noir or post noir? Post

Nick (Kevin Anderson) goes back to his hometown to take care of his dying mother (Kim Novak). There he encounters an old college buddy (Bill Pullman) and his beautiful wife (Pamela Gidley). He also gets involved with a 40 year old sex murder that may have something to do with him...

I caught this in a theatre back in 1991. It was part of the Boston Film Festival and I had heard it had some incredibly beautiful cinematography. Well--it does. It just doesn't have much of a story to go with it. Also the film moves so SLOWLY--I literally fell asleep! Seeing it again 14 years later, I fell asleep AGAIN! This film is dull and slow. It's one of those art films full of strange characters who act oddly and mutter obscure dialogue (especially the police chief). Gorgeous images don't make up for the leaden pace.

Acting doesn't help. Anderson (a good actor) acts terrible here. He appears to be drugged out at all times. Gidley TRIES to give a good performance but she's given nothing to work with. Pullman is the only one who pulls off a good job. Novak is (sadly) wasted and reduced to being bed ridden and screaming for no good reason.

Also watch the part where the police chief has the longest urination sequence in cinema history. Why it's there I have no idea but at least it's somewhat funny. Otherwise this is a dull, slow-moving bore. Avoid.

"Lebestraum", a second rate noirish drama, tells of murder, infidelity, and other stuff. It includes a hair-raising ride in a police car and some prostitute diddling stuff and a big "N" falling off the top of a building almost on our hero's head and some nightmares with the old wake up screaming thing going on and, oh, yeah, and the old cat jumping out during a suspenseful moment. Betwixt and between such trite nonsense is the real story, the real nonsense, which takes itself so seriously as to be almost laughable. Don't waste your time with this loser.

Note: The audio quality of the Tivo'd version I watched was awful and there were no subtitles to help fill in the blanks. I had to watch under headphones.

I think that anyone under 30 years of age will find it hard to relate to the essence of this film...make that 40! Adoption - rootless - the symbolism of the building is so powerful. It becomes the essence of all that once was life and strength. Now it has become abandoned and derelict. Love - loss - distraction - deception - and the patterns of the past are cleverely conjured back into the present by the marvellous direction.

This is a movie that speaks about Loss - and presents this in evocative and intuitive visual terms. It's far from the MTV slickness of 2 clips a second - because it's engineered and paced to touch chords. David Lean is a genius in this.

If you watch this film and become bored, then you need to try again in the later half of your life.

It's one that I'd take if I was going to be marooned on a desert island.Along with Citizen Kane, Ghostbusters 1 and Damage.

Marvellous! Rob

This movie was strange yet intriguing. I could not quite figure out who the woman in the wheel chair was. Who was the pregnant woman? Why did the movie continually move back and forth in time? Was the woman in the hospital really his mother? What was the significance of the building and its demolition? I was totally confused by its plot. Just when I thought I had the plot figured out , another twist would take hold. I was not sure why the woman in the wheelchair's eyes appeared as they did and the purpose of the main character's lover assisting her. Was there some relevance to this particular scene. Most confusing was the two shootings. First flashback the perpetrator was a man, the second was a pregnant woman. Who really shot the mother? Confused!

I was living in the upstate NY town that this was filmed in. I wanted to see the movie as soon as it was available, mainly for that reason and I was pleasantly surprised at this unique movie. The story line is quite intriguing and really draws you in, slowly but surely. So, not only do I have in my video library a fine, interesting film, but also on film a town that I grew up in and love. A definite must see! Note: I also loved the use of the classical music.

I first saw a trailer for this on a now defunct late night TV programme back in 1991. It had me hooked from the start with stylish lighting, great music and sharp editing promising a modern noir thriller with shades of "Dead Again". Due to a limited cinema release the first chance I got to see the film was a couple of years later when I saw the box in a video store. I bought it immediately, figuring it might be interesting. I underestimated. This is a fantastic film filled with emotion and beauty. The first time I saw it it blew me away. I expected a cool little thriller and was rewarded with something much more. This is not a murder mystery or a thriller, per se, but a love story shot through a noir lens. The soundtrack (also by Figgis) is astounding and the acting is perfect. Particular kudos to the then-unknown Bill Pullman who puts in a career best performance. Also, if you actually figure out the central twist of the film (listen to the conversation in the car between Jane and Nick) you will wonder how on earth Figgis got this past a studio. Ever since I first saw it I've been trying to convert my friends to it's wonders with much success. See it now and your life may not be better, but two hours of it will have been well spent. Remember: Only you can prevent forest fires

This is a film that is thought provoking to say the least. It is romantic and also a little tastily sleazy. If you liked dead again, you should like this film. This film, however, is much better. What I don't understand is why this film is so unknown and underrated.

Mystery, intrigue, romance, regret, desire, jealousy, greed, it is all here. History unfolds to give the viewer a tapestry of cinematic beauty. Some of the film shots are in the vein of Dario Argento's Suspiria while the story and plot are much more caring and romantic.

I would say that this film is a mixture of David Lynch, Roman Polanski and Wim Wenders rolled up into one hidden classic.

I was hooked from the first minute I saw this one! All my friends to whom I recommended this film, liked it too. And they said all the same. Good, you told us to watch this movie very carefully, and keep concentrated on it, constantly, cause it will keep you guessing long after you seen it! Seldom I've seen a film, so slow, but so good! It has such a strange feel about it, it's erotic and it has thriller effects, especially each time somebody enters the building. The leads are good, Pullman exellent! Mike Figgis is a great director, but he never made something good, as this, afterwards. Very nice photography, and good soundtrack.

Peter Piessens.