Watch The Devil's Violinist For Free

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

I think every musician would love this genre. These movies are a big help improving music history and are the most lovely genre for those who are real lover of historical music not a hot and a commercial music.

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...

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!

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.