Watch Until the End of the World For Free

Overrated

Just perfect...

A Masterpiece!

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

How did William Hurt's gas pain ever get cast in movies? The female lead must be related to Wenders b/c she can't act, either. Sam Neill walks around in a daze and his narration is a sure sign of a failed movie. There is interesting photography here but barely a trace of a plot. It's fitting that a movie so pretentious, bloated and dull would feature a soundtrack that includes U2, R.E.M. and Depeche Mode, among others. Credit where it's due - whatsername takes her clothes off just often enough to keep things interesting. If I had paid money to see this in a theatre I would never again pay to see another Wenders movie and I'd make it my goal on social media to convince others to follow my lead. He makes Terrence Malick look like Tony Scott by comparison. I am shocked anyone would give this git five bucks to film a movie. He doesn't have a clue.

I first learned of this film after stumbling across its soundtrack. Upon learning that it's a piece of science fiction, I decided to give the film a try.Bad news first: the film is long. It runs for a good two-and-a-half hours, but incredibly, it's only the short version; the rough cut was originally eight hours long, and the director's preferred version is 280 minutes. Even at 150 minutes, this film feels long and it drags at times.That doesn't mean it's a total bore. The film is pretty evenly split in half (for the theatrical cut anyway; the director's cut is supposedly arranged as a three-part trilogy). The first half is easily the most interesting and thrilling, as it follows this woman all across Europe and Asia and everywhere else, investigating some shady people and mysterious devices and roaming around some strange post-modern futuristic settings. It comes off much like a sci-fi film noir, somewhat akin to Brazil, but nowhere near as goofy. In the film's last half, with a great catastrophe befalling the Earth, the characters wind up holing themselves up somewhere in Australia, where they bum around for the remainder of the picture. I found this part far less interesting, but it offers a few interesting ideas (including one key aspect that echoes Inception a lot). Altogether, I'd say that it's an interesting film with lots of interesting ideas and plot points, but it achieves the type of pacing that straddles the threshold of being fascinating and unfascinating.If anything in the above paragraph indicates anything, it's that the story itself is pretty sound and full of neat ideas. It's populated by interesting characters. I really don't have many complaints about the story, other than it felt like it trailed off in the end.This film looks neat, with quality photography and editing. Acting is swell: I did get a kick out of watching William Hurt, Sam Niell, and Solveig Dommartin in their roles (and Max Von Sydow makes an appearance toward the end). Writing is alright. This production does its best to use then-modern sets, props, and costumes for a futuristic look, but with mixed results. Frankly, parts of the film look cheap and cheesy, in a manner no different than Paul Verhoeven's films. Still, it gets the job done. Music is pretty cool.It's an interesting film and I'm glad I saw it. It is a shame that this film was a commercial and critical failure on its release, because it's not that bad at all.3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

I guess the question you have to ask yourself if considering taking on this film is, Do I want to spend almost 5 hours of my life on this? The conception of the film is ambitious and brilliant, it covers a huge amount of ground. It's visually stunning, and the choice of music and its melding with scenes and moods is inspired - especially Ray Davies' 'Thank You for the Days' whenever it appears. But does the film actually work? Unfortunately not. And the main reason for this, for a native English speaker, is that we have non-native speakers of English being directed by a non-native speaker of English. Although novelist Peter Carey had a hand in the writing, he obviously didn't help Wenders with the directing. So many of the lines are badly delivered, and much of the acting is wooden. Even actors of the stature of Jeanne Moreau and Max von Sydow can't deliver lines in English without good direction. Maybe it all sounded good to Wim, but sorry Wim, it doesn't work for Anglophones. Even William Hurt's and Sam Neill's lines often fall flat. If you speak German, try the German version - it sounded better to me. Otherwise, why not spend the time watching 'Wings of Desire' TWICE, or watch three of Wenders' great early films? They are much more rewarding.

Let me make this short and straight. Just avoid it, I mean it. I was somehow dragged into watching this and this was a real torture. How can you rate this as Sci-Fi. Even 50 years ago people could do much better effects. Don't tell me this is a style thing. If so, then call this as crap fiction, not science fiction. There was no story and the whole movie so boring. Even if you are forced to watch it, avoid the long version by all means for your own mental health. I don't troll movies but this one really deserves a good kick so that people that doesn't have the slightest clue about technology does not attempt to produce yet another garbage like this.