Touches You

People are voting emotionally.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This film was nicely staged, probably with a hefty budget, but in terms of wartime intrigue, it falls as flat as a Pfannkuchen. Melanie Griffith is inept in her role as a would-be spy in Nazi Germany. With her character's stupidity and embarrassingly unconvincing command of the German language, she would not have lasted a half-hour before being discovered by the Gestapo and sent back in a boxcar to Hollywood. Michael Douglas's performance was good during the first part of the film, but his "heroic" rescue of Linda Voss was implausible in the extreme, almost laughably so. It was a miscalculation to have Linda narrate the story in a long series of flashbacks, as we in the audience were consigned to feel no threat whatsoever to her survival. And why do the native Germans speak in (subtitled) German for much of the film but then revert to English in other parts? That strains our suspension of disbelief. Worst of all, a spy thriller should never be as boring as "Shining Through." I had trouble staying awake, which surely is not a good sign.

This movie was wonderful. I loved every minute of it ... and every minute was unique and transporting. what a great bit of romantic escapism! Melanie Griffith was perfect for the part - a bit surreal because of her voice but it gave the movie a sweet, off-center uniqueness. The austere quality of Michael Douglas contrasted perfectly with her emotional nature which set the stage for a deep, real love. I think the mixed reviews had more to do with how the movie was marketed. They tried to promote its intellectual quality as a spy mystery but in essence it was pure old-fashioned, sensitively directed, romance.. If only the promotion department wrote about THAT as the focus of the movie ... the reviews would have been better and also not all over the place. The movie is a pure romance much like the "Titanic". The critics slammed that movie when it came out, just as others have done to this one. "Shining Through" needs to be seen again ... by many. I think it is really that good. different. classy . fun.One other thing - if the name of the movie was changed, that would have helped too. Horrible silly title.

I watched the movie first and then read the book since so many people said the book was better than the movie. But after finishing the book I was on the fence. While John B was taken out of the movie, I didn't really see a need for him in the book--he was just a catalyst for Linda to get to Washington and then to spy. In fact, I found the entire relationship just icky and weird, since Linda opened the book revealing that she was in love with him, but their relationship was really just about sex. After snagging John in the sack, there was no talk or action of "love" from Linda, just lust, and the author never explained anything. For all the nagging that the movie was inept and impossible, what with Linda being able to waltz into Nazi Germany and Edward running around Europe not speaking a lick of another language outside of English, the book was exactly the same. Combine this with both movie and book versions of the traitorous Margrete of whom I never understood why the CIA/OSS so completely trusted someone so high up in the Nazi Regime (???!!!), and both book and movie were a pile of hot steaming mess. I was left waiting for the so-called Cinderella/Ugly Duckling plot all the sparkling amazon.com reviews praised, but all I saw were cardboard-flat characterizations and ickiest ending in the world (wtf? how was Linda not only in love with her husband's ex-father-in-law, but in love with a man who knew her husband was cheating with his ex-wife, Edward's daughter?) UGH. The image of the plot is nice: shy secretary in love with her boss who turns out to be a master spy, but the actual execution left much to be desired.

This is a bad movie. As if there haven't been enough movies done about WWII. The movie begins with a supposedly older woman telling her story to the BBC about her spy work during WWII. Melanie Griffith was good in Working Girl. Why? That was about an ordinary American girl. Are we supposed to believe that she is fluent in German enough to fool the Germans? Why don't they get real American actors who are fluent in German, so after two lines in German they don't revert to English? I don't think so. She is the flakiest spy ever. About the only thing that she didn't do was go up to Hitler and say I am a spy for the Americans. I think I got really tired of Griffith's character, so much so that I felt for Michael Douglas. Why was he dragged into this movie, except to play a lover that has to put up with this female version of Inspector Clouseau? About the only good thing about the movie was Liam Neeson. He played a believable German officer. Sir John Gielgud played an older man, who was naturally cranky and unhappy about the spy that he was to look out after. This movie was pretty awful.