User reviews

Acting was bad and the movie was just very cheesy in general. But there was good music which saved the movie. If you are bored and want to watch more low quality movie just for the fun, WATCH THIS!

This can be seen as a parable, as a story that does ring true for any artist. Being good at something might not be enough. You might need a little help to push you over a certain edge/line, to become what you always dreamt you can (or could) be. Or main character is not exactly someone we might fall in love in (not sexually that is, just liking him is proving difficult most of the time).

But there are reasons he acts (plays) the way he does. There is certain downfalls that befall a person that is easily deceived. Or had a certain tendency to be too full of themselves. Of course there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. The question is if one can reach that end of the tunnel ... A nice movie that could have tried to tell a bit more, than it actually does. As it is, it's a decent movie with fine performances.

beautiful decor and costumes, nice story and flavor of atmosphere, the old Faust pact and rock star motifs mixed . the problem is that all that pieces are not really enough. because Paganini is more than a legend and that movie use, in fact, only its shadow. because the golden images, the mixture of old and pretty ingredients who can reminds Farinelli or Amadeus are only for decoration not for be roots of an authentic , convincing story. it is a beautiful movie. but only aesthetic and , unfortunately, not at whole. and for not blame the team behind it - the honest good intentions are obvious - , it is important to choose the inspired parts - the music, the presence of Helmut Berger, the work of Jared Harris to save appearances. but , with little more courage and different angle about Paganini trajectory, it could be really an interesting movie. despite the ambition of makers, it is only a promise using the shadow of a legend.

The film is good even if i ido not considered a true version of Paganini's life. I know it is not a documentary but it could have been done more.

I appreciate the effort to show real characters like Paganini's son and father but otherwise it is very fictional and there was no real need for it because his life was already a novel.

From unbridled success to accusations of a pact with the devil there was a lot to tell. In a way they tried with the figure of Urbani one of the most successful and enigmatic characters in the film but otherwise I didn't see much.

They recounted one episode of his life (the London concert) while the rest were shown in a few scenes as if they were in a hurry to finish the film.

Niccolò Paganini (David Garrett) is a virtuoso violinist, stolen from Italian obscurity by the serpentine Urbani (Jared Harris) and brought to swinging 19th century London on the request of struggling promoter John Watson (Christian McKay). There his lascivious urges and his musical genius find equal outlet, until his heart is attuned to Charlotte (Andrea Deck), with whom he shares a harmonious partnership. Tragedy encroaches, however, as those who brought Paganini to the top conspire to cast him into the gutter once more.

What is the truth of Paganini? Bernard Rose's biopic plays fast and loose, which shouldn't matter because art strives for universal truths. Yet such striving often leads to cliché, as has happened here. As an instrument the violin lends itself well to furious solos, so the transition from classical musician to rock god is easy – throw in some long shaggy hair and stubble and sunglasses and we've basically got ourselves a Georgian Ozzy Osbourne. Not that the film is terribly anarchic. Early on we get some Dogma 95-influenced hand-held camera and hack 'n' slash editing but it soon gives way to familiar period stageyness.

Rose's film exists in the same realm as Milos Forman's Amadeus and touches on some of the same themes – genius emerging from chaos, both a creative and destructive force – but it's a relatively shallow movie, and one whose TV budget cannot be elevated by its impressively crashing classical soundtrack and its smoggy capital exteriors. Forman's film had a force-of-nature at its centre in the form of Tom Hulce. The Devil's Violinist has David Garrett, who's a wonderful violinist but no actor. Alarm bells ring when a character is meant to be thinking hard about something and actually grabs their chin.

But then, could any actor have provided a sympathetic portrayal? How charming is any man this juvenile; this unprofessional? Why should we care for a man who whinges about being "misunderstood" in one breath then dismisses his fans with the next? How do we side with someone who claims to love another and then accidentally shags a complete stranger with the same hair colour? Better writing and an actual actor might have helped us answer these questions.

Garrett isn't very well-supported, to be fair. Harris turns a scheming snake into a pantomime villain. Joely Richardson is gobsmackingly miscast as a cockney troublemaker. And while Alien Isolation fans may be pleased to see Andrea Deck in her full feature debut, I wouldn't expect the scripts to start piling on her doormat on the basis of this. But then, again, Charlotte is bafflingly written: she's genuinely repulsed by Paganini – a player and a player – only to spin on a sixpence once she hears him knock out a few notes, melody apparently trumping manners.

Rose has a firm hold of his film's darkly humorous tone, and the musical performances are, inevitably, spectacular (almost worth the rental fee alone, if for some reason an actual David Garrett Live DVD isn't available). But the decision to build a movie around a real musician backfires horribly, and with a bland and over-familiar script ("Who is the real you?" one character genuinely asks) it has to go down as a handsome, tuneful failure.

They took the work of a genius and turned it into a mediocre movie. Bad acting particularly by the Paganini character with his cringe making, bland American accent. The writing and direction were just plain awful, I have seen better 30 second advertisements. If you enjoy the music of Paganini this movie is something to avoid. Some musical moments, mostly singing appeared as rays of sunshine through an overclouded sky. The characters were entirely one dimensional and quite unbelievable with poor acting and dreadful dialogue. No surprise then that the director was also the writer, and I will avoid any work of his I come across. Needless to say, any similarity between Paganini's life and this movie is purely coincidental. Even as just entertainment this is a boring, clichéd movie-don't waste your time watching.

To cop to another reviewer's judgement of me as a "pinhead" I loved this movie because: 1. I had never heard of David Garret and became more mesmerised by his violin playing the longer the movie lasted. 2. Mr. Garrett does not deserve an Oscar for his acting abilities but he deserves my praise and much praise from others for his musical performances in the movie. 3. I was deeply moved and inspired by his abilities to make the violin sing to me. 4. I know the movie is not a definitive historical work but it paints a broad enough brush for non-experts like to enjoy a long lasting "buzz" from the dazzling violin performance of Mr. Garrett.

In fact I spent some time on YouTube enjoying several other performances of Mr. Garrett. So this "pinhead" is now a die hard fan of the movie, Mr. Garrett and his supporting cast. I appreciate all of the hard work and effort that the writers, producers, directors and performers put into this lovely work.

This "pinhead" can appreciate criticism of the movie but the bitter, vitriol and ad hominem attack upon the people who worked hard to create is way overkill. The Devil's Violinist is not perfect but it certainly is "good enough."

This is what it would be like.

It wasn't entirely unwatchable, but it was not a good movie by any means. CGI was distracting, although if you look at it as art, they did a good job, just not realistic enough to be passable.

I was surprised Bernard Rose was the writer and Director, who also did the same for Immortal Beloved. Perhaps this movie was just missing Gary Oldman? The movie seems to be confused whether Paganini is the main character or not. It is filled with sub-par, some acceptable, and some over-acted performances. I thought Andrea Deck was good. David Garrett as Paganini, well, maybe his performance was more related to the script. I did enjoy all his performance scenes (performing on the violin, you dirty minded people you).

Am I the only one that noticed St. Patrick's Cross flag flying over London? You'd think Bernard Rose, an Englishman, would catch that. It was clearly in the hands of the Syfy special effects gurus at this point, so maybe the he had no hand in post-production. Or maybe there was a time England was flying the British version of the Irish flag that I don't know about? I doubt it.

Overall, this movie was not great enough to be good, and not bad enough to be great. It falls right in the middle, as most forgettable movies do.

To be honest, I'm so astonished with the avg vote of this fabulous movie! I mean, why? Why in God's name should this movie get 6.1?? Do the voters not get it anyway? Do they know anything about Violin? Paganini ? There are always some weaknesses but 6.1?! How's that possible? David Garret might not be as expert as super stars, but ... I don't get you people ! I think the movie was awesome... The resemblance of David Garret's performance to Paganini's is the most fascinating point of the movie. Moreover, the character "charlote" sings way passionate... Therefore, I believe that there should always be some sorts of selection in voters, some people can't realize the objectives of a movie, they are only seeking for some routines, which would enthuse them...

This movie was awful! The only saving Grace was David Garrett, the violinist. He was by far, the best I have ever heard! Jared Harris, was given a sub standard role, and did his best, but the character sucked big time. It meandered around, and went no where really. I kept fast forwarding it to the music parts! And...and... The best opera voice ever, via Andrea Deck. She is amazing! She plays Charlotte. Unless you want to just skip through most to hear David play, or Andrea sing, please don't bother. You don't get much scenery other than sets, and though the clothing was great, you don't see much variety. It hinted at some seed scenes as Paganini was a great womanizer, but ... No real sexy scenes! Joely Richardsons character was incidental and from what I saw, no real reason to be in the movie. She is a great actress, and she did her best, but why this character? Some news paper woman of the times? No good.

He is a very poor actor. His acting in this film was exact the opposite of his natural talent playing with his violin, maybe the worst ever actor I've ever seen so far. This film was also doomed and suffered from a very bad screenplay at the very beginning. The only thing that was so out of the world in this film was his crazy talent with the violin. You should watch and enjoy what he did in this film with his music but not his acting which in fact, was just terrible.

I don't know anything about Paganini, but I doubt whether a single scene from this completely unconvincing script ever actually happened in real life.

It is set in 1830's London, with obviously painted outdoor sets and street scenes, and of course, because it's London, it's permanently foggy - this is a film that never misses an opportunity to throw in a cliché.

Joely Richardson has an odd role as a Times reporter - did they really have women reporters in those days? To make it even less believable, she has a modern day hair cut like she's just had a perm at Toni & Guy! A number of the other characters also have non-period coffeurs. The lead actor, David Garrett sports a three-day beard - were they fashionable amongst the middle class in those days?

Someone thought they were being clever casting violinist Garrett in the lead role,forgetting to check whether he had the primary skill an actor requires. As a violinist he is famous, but I personally don't like his populist, showy style. His playing, like his acting, lacks genuine passion and depth. A "hooked on classics" style of playing.

No wonder this dross went straight to DVD. And a good thing too as at least that gives you the advantage of being able to fast forward when you start getting bored - which will be fairly often!

Today we can't hear the performance of Paganini, there are only different interpretations. Fortunately, this virtuoso and composer has written on sheet many of his works.

I think the violin and her virtuoso are most important in this story. Everything else is just background. Yes, this background has flaws, but they are in the details. The feeling of the era is truthful and powerful. Playing and compositions of David Garrett - they are compelling. I will remember this movie primarily with the music.

Moreover - if Paganini could choose an artist to fulfill his role, he would probably prefer the same musician. David Garrett don't play himself - he has dedicated himself to Paganini in this film.

The delirium of omnipotence of the successful thirst of a character different from the real Paganini. In the nineteenth century Paganini was the supreme virtuoso who wrote the story with his genius and the contuity in the study. Paganini used to say: "If I do not study one day I can only hear it, if I do not study two days I hear the criticism, if I do not study three days everyone feels it". Paganini was a great success, but his charm was characterized not by the charm of his physical appearance, but by the charm of his talent along with the charm of a grisly, dark and skeletal figure.

Ludicrous enough to regret it's a movie, and therefore is "performed" on the screens: Better just listen to the amazing music scores! Above all is better Mr. Garret gets back to the theatres' stages to play his violins...

This movie plays with the idea of Paganini being the Devil's musician: our beloved violinist is a sexy bad boy who plays like an angel but lives fast like a demon. For some reason, everyone keeps repeating that he's indeed Italian (but derogatory). We're deeply in YA fantasy movie territory, if you know what I mean.

I waited a month for my copy and as it was not a USA region, watched on a large laptop. I am sure I did not get the full impact of the big screen and can imagine the full glory of the production. This movie title is not to be missed. It's the first of it's kind and a tribute to musical style long lost and resurrected as surely only David can provide. From my perspective as a learned musician he is the only modern living choice to play the part. While at times the movie may seem dark and perhaps entirely to brief considering the Paginini lived to be in his 50's, I think it's the correct snap shot. If you have an inclination to go back in time and witness musical history, this movie is for you.

The film is watchable, except when Garrett is on the screen. He acts so poorly it's a travesty. Some of the lines could have been written better too.

If you want a biography of Paganini, see something else.

We did not hold out much hope for this after reading the reviews. Gratefully, the reviews, as they are quite often, were, in my opinion, wrong. It is beyond me how these negative reviews make it past the smell test.

The performance of the music was as visually captivating as it was sonically beautiful. The acting was more than passable and the direction was as good as any.

Anyone with slightest knowledge of Paganini, or anyone who bothered to even look up his name on wikipedia, would understand that this movie summarized his life with artistic license. The story itself was a composite of real events, failures and triumphs.

In short, if critics loved Amadeus ( truly pitiful depiction of reality with hyperbolic acting antics throughout) and hate this movie, then I will never fathom their trade.

Only Amadeus made this point with more intrigue, curiosity and complexity than this movie could even imagine. The devil motif is somehow both too veiled and too blunt, wasting an unmotivated Jared Harris, who all but twirls his own mustache. The musical performances are quite cool, but far too rare; if you're gonna hire a real violinist, maybe ask him to do more playing and less dramatic emoting.