I was thinking about renting this, but I've heard mixed reviews on it. I loved Wings of Desire (its one of my favorite films) and I'm wondering if this is as good. Also, is the style of it different (judging from the trailer it looks a whole lot different)?
Thanks!
SLIGHT SPOILERS
this film is incredibly different then wings of desire.
the story centers around Cassiel and his struggles of being human after choosing to do so accidently.
the only things similar in these films are the people. the entire story line and tone of the film is different.
if you're looking for a followup to wings of desire this will let you down.
if you're looking for a "spin off" to wings of desire (which happens to be about the misadventures of Cassiel as he enters the underworld of drugs, guns, and pornography) you might like this.
i personally didn't much care for the film.
No
I agree it is not nearly as good as wings of Desire.
That film was poetic
and unique. This movie is much more traditional and not as interesting. It was worth seeing once since I liked Wings of Desire so much.
It was good at the beginning and then less interesting later.
If you liked WOD then you surely wil like this movie. BUT as movie by itself is not half as good as Wings of Desire.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
I think it in one way, very much the same, but still different. Many of the people are the same, even the cameo by Peter Falk. But where WOD is more based on philosophic terms, FSC has a straighter story. This is also the main difference.
I must say I loved both the films. They are both very moving. The way Cassiel (Otto Sander) struggels with a almost new-bort naivity in the human world, really hit me. And the ending is really sad, with some beautiful photo and soundtrack.
I would absolutley recommend this.
**********
Hugs...
WOD is a better film overall, but I also absolutely loved this... poetic, unique, it stays with you.
"Live on, love all, and let live" - River Phoenix.
I think it's a different type of movie-- it's less focused on one particular theme and takes in a lot of different viewpoints. Cassiel is a different sort of angel, and I think that has a lot to do with it. Cassiel is not really meant to become a human being in this film, and the fact that he does become one means that he has to atone in a heroic way for his well-meant transgression in order to balance things out. Cassiel gets more involved in the fringes of human existence, so the things that happen to him are sometimes scarier and sometimes sillier than what happens to Damiel. But as far as the films themselves go, I guess it's a matter of taste; some people find "Faraway, So Close" to be too dark and chaotic, while other people find "Wings of Desire" too saccharine. I disagree with both of those viewpoints, and I like both films.
shareI see both films as being two different "breeds of animal" mainly because Wings Of Desire is more "look at how great everyday life is" (in its simplest terms) and Faraway So Close is more "look at how balls up human life can get in one easy step". Thats why it works so well as a sequel though. Both films explore everyday human life in as much detail as possible but both in different areas (that I mentioned above). Almost as if Wenders really wasn't done with Wings Of Desire, yet both films can be viewed without knowing the existence of the predecessor (but it definitely helps in both cases).
"I have always valued my lifelessness."