Faraway, So Close! (In weiter Ferne, so nah!) Reviews

  • Nov 21, 2020

    A typical Wenders product, one step down from Der Himmel über Berlin: beautiful cinematography and a few brilliant moments, but the tale is full of pretensions and indigestive sentimentality and the performances are variable (although Otto Sanders is excellent).

    A typical Wenders product, one step down from Der Himmel über Berlin: beautiful cinematography and a few brilliant moments, but the tale is full of pretensions and indigestive sentimentality and the performances are variable (although Otto Sanders is excellent).

  • Feb 01, 2020

    Been a long time, but even if the plot is not good, I think that some of this film's beautiful scenes are lodged forever in my memory. Worth seeing, just like Wings of Desire, some of Tom Tywer, Haneke, and Lars von Trier.

    Been a long time, but even if the plot is not good, I think that some of this film's beautiful scenes are lodged forever in my memory. Worth seeing, just like Wings of Desire, some of Tom Tywer, Haneke, and Lars von Trier.

  • Mar 28, 2019

    Dennis Schwartz's professional review really nails the major flaws of this misshapen film that was better left unmade. I will only attempt to add what he left out. First, only Cassiel's character is (literally) fleshed out in this story line that thrashed about like a fish on land struggling for air. Peter Falk and Marion add nothing but a reminder of what is missing from the superb original. Daniel is tragi-comic as a bicycle peddling pizza joint operator. William Defoe's character is so sinister that I believed he was in league with the devil, not a supervising angel. Nastassja Kinski is still lovely (though not in her younger, stunning way), but has no other genuine presence beyond the visual "ahhhh" whenever she appears on screen. Lou Reed is a poor replacement for Nick Cave, as he seems to wander through Berlin without interest or purpose, even ruining his masterpiece concept Berlin album with an inept change in lyrics). The use of the criminal element to eventually lead to Cassie's ending is totally forced; arms dealing and pornography are mere window dressing with no sense of moral outrage leading to the final plotline. The magical shifts from black and white to color in the original are overused here to the point of distraction, losing all sense of directorial purpose. This sloppy mess is stitched together with the smoothness of Frankenstein's fiend, and its brain is just as abnormal. TO those who loved the original, I advise NOT watching this. I wish I hadn't because once viewed, it cannot be unseen.

    Dennis Schwartz's professional review really nails the major flaws of this misshapen film that was better left unmade. I will only attempt to add what he left out. First, only Cassiel's character is (literally) fleshed out in this story line that thrashed about like a fish on land struggling for air. Peter Falk and Marion add nothing but a reminder of what is missing from the superb original. Daniel is tragi-comic as a bicycle peddling pizza joint operator. William Defoe's character is so sinister that I believed he was in league with the devil, not a supervising angel. Nastassja Kinski is still lovely (though not in her younger, stunning way), but has no other genuine presence beyond the visual "ahhhh" whenever she appears on screen. Lou Reed is a poor replacement for Nick Cave, as he seems to wander through Berlin without interest or purpose, even ruining his masterpiece concept Berlin album with an inept change in lyrics). The use of the criminal element to eventually lead to Cassie's ending is totally forced; arms dealing and pornography are mere window dressing with no sense of moral outrage leading to the final plotline. The magical shifts from black and white to color in the original are overused here to the point of distraction, losing all sense of directorial purpose. This sloppy mess is stitched together with the smoothness of Frankenstein's fiend, and its brain is just as abnormal. TO those who loved the original, I advise NOT watching this. I wish I hadn't because once viewed, it cannot be unseen.

  • Apr 04, 2017

    Absolutely unnecessary sequel that totally lacks the sublimity of the original that is a work of art. This sequel only capitalizes on the themes and motives of the original to make a sort of a thriller and a blockbuster movie.

    Absolutely unnecessary sequel that totally lacks the sublimity of the original that is a work of art. This sequel only capitalizes on the themes and motives of the original to make a sort of a thriller and a blockbuster movie.

  • Dec 02, 2016

    Amazing sequel of Wings of desire...it made me think a lot about my own way of seeing people and, most of all, events of life! Also, it made clear how hard it really is to be a human being, to exist! Definetely is a must see!!

    Amazing sequel of Wings of desire...it made me think a lot about my own way of seeing people and, most of all, events of life! Also, it made clear how hard it really is to be a human being, to exist! Definetely is a must see!!

  • Dec 24, 2015

    We are all glad to see again the characters, and I understand Wim Wenders wants again to go around by the same scenario. The atmosphere is one again very good, but it does not seem to bring much more new. The best effort comes from the actors and a few pieces from the script.

    We are all glad to see again the characters, and I understand Wim Wenders wants again to go around by the same scenario. The atmosphere is one again very good, but it does not seem to bring much more new. The best effort comes from the actors and a few pieces from the script.

  • Avatar
    Sylvester K Super Reviewer
    Jun 11, 2015

    In this sequel to Wings of Desire, 2 other angels watch over the lives of the people, however this this film has changed its tone from a romantic avant garde drama to a thriller... It's still watchable but the running time was so long I almost fell asleep.

    In this sequel to Wings of Desire, 2 other angels watch over the lives of the people, however this this film has changed its tone from a romantic avant garde drama to a thriller... It's still watchable but the running time was so long I almost fell asleep.

  • Jul 06, 2014

    Not really bad, but not really so good either. ...Especially when one considers the original film. Avoid it.

    Not really bad, but not really so good either. ...Especially when one considers the original film. Avoid it.

  • Feb 12, 2014

    Quite a disappointment compared to its masterpiece prequel, Wings of Desire. The first film was very serious, full of philosophical thoughts about life, narrated by a voiceover througout entire film. Wim Wenders probably tried to make the second one not as depressing. So we hear characters thoughts as well, witness their dramas, but also have implausible elements of mafia movie, which simply don't belong here, and plot twists that make no sense. Also, Wings of Desire, ending in words "to be continued" had a more definite end than its sequel. Faraway, so Close ends as if there has to be even another sequel.

    Quite a disappointment compared to its masterpiece prequel, Wings of Desire. The first film was very serious, full of philosophical thoughts about life, narrated by a voiceover througout entire film. Wim Wenders probably tried to make the second one not as depressing. So we hear characters thoughts as well, witness their dramas, but also have implausible elements of mafia movie, which simply don't belong here, and plot twists that make no sense. Also, Wings of Desire, ending in words "to be continued" had a more definite end than its sequel. Faraway, so Close ends as if there has to be even another sequel.

  • Aug 11, 2013

    Not entirely successful sequel to the transcendent Wings of Desire, enlivened primarily by the presence of a real angel on Earth: Nastassja Kinski.

    Not entirely successful sequel to the transcendent Wings of Desire, enlivened primarily by the presence of a real angel on Earth: Nastassja Kinski.