Until the End of the World (1991) User Reviews

Seeing The World For The First And Last Time

[loganx-2 · 7/10 · 28 April 2009]

Wim Wenders over 5 hour globetrecking cyberpunk epic, is intended to be the ultimate road movie. It plays out like a miniseries, about a woman who just separated from her writer boyfriend(played by Sam Niel who serves as narrator), and crashes cars with wounded bank-robbers, they offer to give her some of the money if she will transport the cash the rest of the way to Paris for them. She agrees and uses her money to finance the trip that ensues for the rest of the movie. She immediately after meets William Hurt, a mysterious hitchhiker she becomes fascinated with. He is on the lamb, but from who, and why? After he ditches her and steals a hefty sum she becomes obsessed with finding him.

All the while a rouge Indian nuclear satellite hovers above the Earth, haywire and endangering a possible nuclear Apocalypse if it accidentally detonates. The world is closer to ending than it has ever been, which means its just a story on the news in the background, most people try to ignore.

The first segment, in this three part film, is their chase cross country and continent, "A Dance Around The World", as the book about their lives is latter called.

They begin in Italy, and go on to Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Bejing, Tokyo, San Francisco, and finally the Australlian Outback, our heroin Miriam discovers, that Hurt is wanted for a stolen piece of Government property, a device that records the experience of seeing and translates the information as images. He is recording the most beautiful places in the world, for his blind mother. He is the son of Max Von Sydow, the inventor of the device. Their cat and mouse game becomes a whirlwind romance of constant movement and escape.

By the third segment they reach Sydow's underground lab in Australlia, where they also discover that the device cannot only record seeing for the blind, but can record dreams if left on during sleep. The aboriginals who run the lab with Sydow refuse to work on his dream machine. Slowly but believably the rest of the staff, becomes obsessed with staring into the recordings of their dreams, "It got to the point where they dreamed of their dreams...and fell ever deeper into the black well of Narcissus .".

There are car crashes, planes losing power midlight, and one gorgeous locale after another. Like "Alphaville" and "The Fall" this film is completely indebted to its beautiful sights, that it finds and photographs. At five hours long, you can imagine it meanders a good deal. And it does, but for a film so dedicated to the pure spectacle and profound importance and danger of "seeing things", I didn't mind.

Future content wise, there is a clear opposition between the dual natures of the machine, helping the blind to see the world, and allowing the sightful to intrude upon their private internal world, whose appeal is magnetic and addictive. Tecnhology is a double edged sword, amazing but not without its serious ethical and philosophical dilemmas (which is the more real world the one within or without? etc), this movie doesn't delve into it conversation wise, it's lets everything play out, at five hours it gives you the credit that you can work it out for yourself.

It's really just a beautiful film to watch, that's much sweeter and gentler than most sci-fi, and more fascinating too because it doesn't shove its implications down your throat.

Wim Wenders, got people like The Talking Heads, Can, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, Elvis Costello, U2, Nick Cave, and many many more, to make original songs for the soundtrack about the new millennium. While many of the songs are very good, most are awkwardly placed as well. No doubt Wenders was really excited about all the music and just wanted to use everything.

Definitely flawed, but a richly excessive and eccentric experiments and time capsule. Despite its hefty run time, I thought Wenders was sensitive, to the changing dynamics of the future world, it's not dystopian and it's not Star Trek/Fifth Element Space Opera either, it occupies, a space, where simple good or bad, are no longer really relevant to discussion.

At one point when everyone assumes the world has ended Sam Niel's character is playing in a small band with several Aboriginal neural scientists, a few french-bank robbers, a British bounty hunter, and some random strays who wandered into the Australian compound fearful of nuclear fallout, and they play a music that sounds like Australlian Blue Grass; Didgeridoo's and pianos, harmonica's, and trumpets, blending together to create something singular and new. He notes to himself, "This entire trip has not been about helping a blind woman to see, or gazing into ourselves. But this adventure, the satellite, the machine, the crash, it all occurred, so we could be here, at this moment, to create this music which would have never otherwise existed, right at the crest of the end of the world".

Few sci-fi films are dedicated to power of music(that the characters play), words(that Sam Neil records for his novel), and images(of coming war, of the beauty of the world, and the contours of our own mind/dream/souls,etc). In Alphaville when the computer asks Lemmy Caution, "What moves the night?", Caution responds, point blank, "Poetry". Wim Wenders updates, upgrades, and extends this concept for the new millennium. Though I cant remember too much of what was said, I'm still humming along days later, with some pretty pictures circulating in my head like post cards from an alternate universe.

It's a bittersweet, love, travelogue, adventure story, for the New Millennium; "Where In The Wolrd Is Carmen San Diego?", as written by William Gibson on a sentimental day.

Bizarre Film

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 10 June 2015]

Set in 1999, a woman (Solveig Dommartin) has a car accident with some bank robbers, who enlist her help to take the bank money to a drop in Paris. On the way she runs into another fugitive from the law (William Hurt), an American who is being chased by the CIA.

Wenders realized the film would be too long for the commercial distribution, so he kept control of the unedited film rather than surrendering it to distributors. After the film's theatrical release, Wenders worked with multiple copies and, with Sam Neill, recording additional narration, completed a 280-minute version. The longer cut, which Wenders regards as the definitive version of the film, unfolds as a trilogy and is presented in three parts (the titles appear three different times).

The version I saw was around 150 minutes. If it were any longer, it would definitely need to be broken up into parts. It is a bit confusing, and definitely strange. This is science fiction, but not your typical kind. Really more off the wall, artistically sci-fi, like "Alphaville".

Magnificent yet meandering...?

[marshalskrieg · 7/10 · 29 December 2019]

Director Wim Wenders crafted a majestic, multi-continent -spanning, and quite long near masterpiece here, that near the end falls somewhat short due to certain loosely connected plot outcomes. Here, I am reviewing the 'quickie' 2 hour US version, though. The cinematography , casting, sound track... are all about as good as it gets, the cat and mouse chase between the main characters is nicely done, and through it all we have the overhanging threat of a global nuclear catastrophe in the form a runaway Indian nuclear satellite, which I felt could have been more urgently presented. All the characters meld well with the script and plot, but near the end I felt that the 'end of the world' aspect- the threat of literal annihilation- should have went in a more dangerous direction. Wenders punted . Part road trip movie, and totally an early 90's hipsters favorite, everyone should see this commercial failure- turned cult classic at least once, and try to watch the extended full length version if you can, I hear it is overall more engaging, it just adds up better, than the US one, despite the length ( about 5 hours). One subplot is the two edged nature of technology- nuclear power to heat and light up our lives yet a satellite might end it all.. and then more technology might save the day...... and a mysterious invention that relates to vision and dreams, but do we really want this? Overall very good, plus Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are in it, so how can you refuse ?

Another View

[brittandthatsall · 6 September 2003]

Wenders takes the time to take us to another place that is right beside where you are now, whether you know it or not. Beautifully shot and scored, the movie rewards those that allow it to unfold rather than showing you the plot in the first 15 minutes. With an emphasis on personal emotions rather than "screen presence", the actors reveal much about us all- no super-heroes here.

Granted it is a long film by "American" standards but who can say how long a film should be? I felt transported to the times & places Wenders takes us, to me this makes a successful film regardless of its length. The storyline is well crafted and the music editing is brilliant; when I hear the music today I think of the film and not the bands that performed it.

William Hurt has a role (finally) that suits his personality. The pairing of Jeanne Moreau and Max Van Sydow is brilliant. Definitely a movie that should be seen at least once in your lifetime.

Beautiful, lots of great moments, too long

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 23 May 2021]

There are so many things to love about this film, starting with all of the places it takes us to and how beautifully they're captured. My goodness, it's gorgeous at times. There's also a wonderful little lookahead to technology of the future; though it's only set 8 years later, in 1999, there are all sorts of advances shown that are fun to compare to how things really turned out, such as the video phones, the Russian surveillance program with the animation of a bear that informs the user "I'm searching," and what Max von Sydow is cooking up in the desert. The soundtrack is comprised of great songs from an all-star list of bands from the period, and they fit the mood of the film perfectly. The film has got an apocalyptic feeling to it, and yet the story is playful and light, because the focus is on stolen money and chase that goes all over the world in the first half. As Solveig Dommartin's character puts it, "If it was the end of the world, why shouldn't we go down laughing?"

I confess that for most of the runtime I thought this would have been better either as a drama/chase focused on the threat of nuclear Armageddon, or as a science fiction film about the technology of extracting images out of our brains, which is what we see in the second half, but not both. Aside from making the film god-awful long, it wasn't clear how these two things were really connected, that is, until the final half hour or so. Wenders seems to be saying that the threat to humanity may not actually be what everyone was worried about at the time, nuclear war (or in this case, a catastrophic nuclear accident), it may be people become addicted to technology, and having it steal their souls. It was absolutely remarkable to see the characters staring down bleary-eyed into their devices, when 30 years later we've all ended up staring down into our phones. What was a wonderfully organic community out in the Australian outback, with time for dancing and music amidst all of the research, becomes fractured, with isolated individuals caring more about their devices than others. I absolutely loved this aspect of the film.

While it had a lot going for it, so much so that I might have rated it a little higher, I also struggled with it. Four hours and 47 minutes is a lot, and the film drags at times. In the first half it suffers from escape sequences that seem hokey in their conception and then not all that well acted, and in the second half, it just lags. I've liked William Hurt elsewhere, but did not like him at all here; I thought his performance was weak from beginning to end. Solveig Dommartin is just barely passable; while she brings a certain soul to the role and is easy on the eyes to say the least, she delivers her lines with very little range. Thank goodness for Max von Sydow and Jeanne Moreau, who were such a joy to see. Maybe I'm being too hard on the film or maybe I would have liked the three hour theatrical release that Wenders dismissed as the "Reader's Digest" version better, I don't know. It's got lots of moments that are 5 star and overall it's definitely worth seeing, but I wouldn't recommend it without reservations.

It's quite good until the part where the world ends

[alafolle · 6/10 · 4 June 2002]

The cinematography is beautiful... the soundtrack is near-perfect... the director's vision is unique... for the first two-thirds of the film, I was hooked. But then it all goes wrong.

Wim Wenders creates an intriguing universe for his characters to inhabit-- a science-fictional 1999 imagined during the heady days of German reunification. It's a somewhat creepy techno-globalized and paranoid world facing an uncertain future, with an out-of-control Indian nuclear satellite looming ominously in the sky. Solveig Dommartin plays a flighty and impulsive femme fatale, who stalks a mysterious loner (William Hurt) across the bleak futuristic landscape, one step ahead of a ragtag assortment of bounty hunters, oddball bank robbers, and an ex-boyfriend (Sam Neill) who narrates. The moody, scenic, slow-building style is quintessential Wenders, and it's possibly his finest work.

But once we reach the promised "end of the world", in the Australian outback, the film takes a sharp left turn into third-rate psychodrama and ultimately comes unglued, with a long, dragging denouement that should have been cut entirely. The film clocks in at roughly three hours, but it feels more like four.

Fans of Wenders' other works should definitely check this one out, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

You don't know the half of it...

[devojane1 · 9/10 · 23 January 2001]

The first 2 times I saw this film (on video), I fell asleep before the end. I thought the beginning was great, though, so I kept at it. When I finally saw the whole thing, I still thought it was pretty good, although rather disjointed. On the whole, I would agree with many other Imdb user comments (too long, incoherent, two movies in one, excellent soundtrack, etc.) That was before I saw the _whole_ movie.

I had been watching the 158-minute American version and the 179-minute European version (almost indistinguishable) I had heard about the 280-minute "Trilogy" version 4 or 5 years ago when it was screened at the American Cinemateque (sp?) and when I read that it was to be screened again Jan 14 at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, I figured that a 5-hour (with 2 10-min. intermissions) version would be bloated and slow. I couldn't have been more wrong!

"Die Trilogie" version of "Bis ans Ende der Welt" (prepared for German released w/ no subtitles) was one of the best movies ever! The extra footage gave more room to the story, the music, and ultimately made for a much more coherent movie. The relationship between Claire and Eugene is better explained, among other things. The Indian satelite is not ignored, like in the "Reader's Digest Version" (Wim Wenders' term). Songs heard for 10 seconds originally are now presented in their full glory, including a previously deleted version of Elvis Costello's "Days" performed by Solveig Dommartin, Chick Ortega, Ernie Dingo, Charlie McMahon, and David Gulpilil.

According to the director, this version will be released on DVD in Europe in 2001, and possibly in the USA before 2002. I hope everyone can have a chance to see the complete, non-mutilated version of this wonderful movie!

"What a chase it has been. What a dance."

[Al_The_Strange · 7/10 · 3 October 2012]

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)

A difficult film at first, but so is all good literature

[marcus-175 · 9/10 · 25 December 2004]

The vast majority of people I know have never understood this film. Probably this is because the 2.5 hour running time of the original release is actually vastly too short for the story. The director's cut is a whopping 4.5 hours, but goes by so quickly one hardly notices. If you are bored, then you probably haven't figured out what's really going on. Some notes:

This is a story of trials, of how our relationships to each other, and to humanity and the Earth, are shaped and impeded by technology. It is a fearful story of the dangers of our world as Wenders saw them in almost 20 years ago now. The journey is central here (as it is in almost all epic works) and the story doesn't work without seeing that journey unfold first all over the earth (and no, it wasn't about sponsoring nations--the journey of Sam and Claire et al reenacts other journeys only alluded to in the film, bringing up themes of connectedness to family and place.)

To me the most important theme in this film is the power of the journey and of stories to transform us--a theme so old we may be tired of it, though it remains relevant today. Eugene (Neill) is to me the central character, and any good viewing of the movie depends on understanding how he fits in as more than a side character caught up in a great chase.

One last note: this doesn't deserve to be described as Sci-Fi. Yes, there's some science-like imagery in it, but the thrust of the movie is literary. The "science-fiction" in the movie serves only as an extension of the transformations and journeys of the characters. It turns those things inward rather than outward, and succeeds well in doing it. A truly remarkable and excellent film that got a bad first screening because no distributor had the guts to put out a 5 hour movie. (What would they say to Akira Kurosawa these days?)

Flawed but beautiful

[kevinwhelan-61003 · 7/10 · 24 July 2020]

I'm a big fan of Wim Wenders as a director. Paris, Texas and Wings of Desire are some of my all time favourite films. I also really like The American Friend by him. I was both excited and apprehensive before watching Until The End of the World. Mainly due to its 5 hour long length and divisive critical reception. Though now that I've watched the film. I have mixed feelings about it though overall I found it to be really interesting.

I adored the soundtrack and the way it was used. There are many standout tracks from artists such as Nick Cave, Depeche Mode, REM and Julee Cruise. The cinematography from the late Robby Muller is stunningly beautiful. There were many sequences that captivated me mainly due to the variety of worldwide locations, the visuals as well as the many different themes explored. All of the performances are very solid with Max Von Sydow, Solveig Donmartin and William Hurt being standouts.

Though I had a lot of problems with the film. I thought the narration from Sam Neill for the most part was really unnecessary and explained things that were already happening on screen. Even though I didn't find Until The End of the World boring at all. I can't help but feel the 5 hour runtime wasn't fully earned. There was a lot of scenes I felt would've benefited from being shortened and having tighter pacing particularly in the middle section of the film. Another problem I had was that the film lacked the emotional pull that Wim Wenders best films have.

In spite of my problems with it. Until The End of the World is still a compelling and beautifully shot film. That in many ways is way ahead of its time particularly in its exploration of technology and how it can overtake peoples lives. The things that work about this are highly impressive and it stands out as being an ambitious work of cinema. Though it falls short of being a masterpiece.

I don't want to argue

[ritera1 · 5/10 · 8 July 2012]

Many say that the 4.5 hour version is much better than the 2.5 hour. I guess there were even eight-hour and twenty-hour versions.

The 2.5 version hobbles along after the first hour. I can't imagine more than this. I didn't sense any great examination of the human condition. It was pretentious and self-serving. (I have a crappy job where the time crawls by and I'd gladly go there vs. another minute of this.)

Closely following that was the illogic in many elements of the story.

The bank robbers wanted the girl to carry the money to France. Why?

The good guy steals SOME of the money?

The bank robbers finally come back for their money. I GUESS they got it all. Very forgiving bank robbers.

Basically my problem is that the money was stolen and stolen and stolen and there was plenty left over.

And the film was way too forgiving of this girl. She runs all over the world to get her money back and for the love of this guy. I found it silly.

And the bank robber gladly shows up in the 2nd hour to help this girl? I guess French bank robbers are pansies.

The zapping of all the electrical devices was lifted directly from Escape from L.A.

I was surprised how short-sighted the technology of it all was for being made in '91.

Then they lost me when he met up with his parents. I didn't see the great psychological discussions that everyone else did.

And why did he travel the world with that stupid camera? If the point was to see if the mother could see with this camera, then go outside for ten minutes and film a bush. Or the house cat. But NOOOO. We have to take two years to do that? After the ten minutes and it works, then put the camera in front of the Travel Channel.

I'm sorry. My bad. Then there would be no movie and no room for bad overacting.

An grand and inspiring adventure

[BillW · 10/10 · 17 May 2001]

I have only seen the full-length 280-minute "trilogy" version of this film (at the 2001 USA Film Festival in Dallas), and I honestly cannot identify any sequences that could be cut without seriously compromising the flow of the story.

This film works so well on so many different levels -- an adventure, a love story, a question of ethics and technology, life and death, love and family, but mostly it explores the question, "how far must we travel (or how long must we sit in the theater) to find that which we seek, and what exactly is it we're seeking anyway"?

Yes, 4-1/2 hours is a long time to sit still (although, with two intermissions it's not all that bad), but for those of us who enjoy a good film that's not made from a pat formula of committee-designed ingredients in strictly regulated proportions, it's worth every minute.

Pink Panther failure with hanky-panky censorship

[farhad-rosh · 6/10 · 2 January 2021]

Beautiful cinematography, almost perfect music, and mesmerizing Solveig acting make this movie earn a 6. Wim Wenders who is one of my favorite directors was very ambitious with his idea, making a long on-going movie that never ends, placing the audience like his actors on a purposeless journey - his favorite theme: being lost in time and beautiful unknown locations. The movie is an analogy of the pink panther animation with the same kind of humor. The inspector is chasing pink panther, he never succeeds to catch him, not that much of content but it is supposed to be enjoyable. I appreciate Wim Wender's risk taking but the movie turned out to be a failure in my opinion. Also, probably the most beautiful (hanky-panky) scenes of the movie was censored in the 4:48 hrs version I've seen in Criterion in the US. Shame.

Much potential but unfocussed and interminable

[grantss · 4/10 · 24 May 2020]

Set in the near future a nuclear-powered satellite looks set to crash into the Earth, causing mass destruction. Meanwhile in France a woman accidentally becomes an accessory to a bank robbery, leaving her on the run. She meets a man who is also on the run, this time from the CIA. Together they embark on an epic journey.

The initial plot had heaps of potential: a man and woman on the run from the law set against the possible destruction of a large, unknown part of the Earth through a nuclear explosion and fallout and how people deal with the uncertainty and finality of this. Yet writer-director Wim Wenders (Paris, Texas; Wings of Desire) tries to cram in all sorts of sub-plots and random detours resulting in a bloated, random, rambling ordeal of a movie.

The longer it goes, the worse it gets. Just when you think the film has found a direction, off it goes on a tangent. There are plenty of points where I thought 'Okay, that would be a good spot to wrap it up' but, no, on it stumbled. At one such point I looked at the timer and the movie still had an hour to go!

Decent cast but even they are weighed down by Wenders's direction. William Hurt and Max von Sydow, both superb actors, come across as amateurs here. Sam Neill is okay but his character is quite passive, and observer more than a doer, and thus not one that can be screwed up too badly. If the most talented actors in the cast are unconvincing, imagine how the minor players fare. It's all pretty hammy and amateurish.

The soundtrack is rather good though, with contributions from Elvis Costello (doing a great cover of 'Days', the Kinks song famously covered by Kirsty MacColl), Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Lou Reed, REM, Nick Cave, Depeche Mode, Robbie Robertson, Elvis Presley and U2.

Disappointing.

A Movie With A Clear View of the World

[HeyAtticus · 2 November 2004]

I agree with the comments made earlier concerning the denouement but that's only a disappointment if you look at the movie literally instead of figuratively. As in his other movies like Paris, Texas, the backdrops become another character in the film. Just like the title entails, Wenders was challenged to get the WHOLE world into his movie. He has succeeded. At the end of "The End of The World", we finally see it as we should all see the Earth.

The characters represent different ideologies of the different countries they're from and Wenders uses this to develop the plot.

These "countries" are trying to seize control of one man's vision and a source of power. However, they soon find out that not one of them can control the outcome of the movie.

The movie is Wender's commentary on global politics and socioeconomics. He portrays the world in a flurry of action from a European car chase to a U.S.A in recession, to a dichotomized Japan, and to an isolated Australia. It is an accurate depiction of the world we are living in now because that is how the movie was filmed - out in the streets of the real world circa the end of the 20th century which enhances the theme of the movie.

If you watch this movie you will believe you are living at "The End of the World". The movie is even better NOW then when it first came out. It's been 13 years since the first showing and I'm 28. Being a teenager, the sci-fi, action, fast-pace and the heroine's romance with William Hurt held my attention but to truly appreciate the WHOLE MOVIE you have to get past the juvenile/pop culture themes.

Being a woman, I identified with the heroine and the way she acts at the end of the movie and I think you will, too. The men will relate to the narrator because they tend to distance themselves from what's really going on in this movie and "cut to the chase". Overall, the movie is good for the whole family to watch except for one nude scene.

This "summary" took me awhile to write but as I went through the process of analyzing the movie from memory it became easier and easier as the film's key scenes flashed into my head. This only proves how powerful and clear Wenders' vision is as a director.

The Ultimate Road Movie

[brianwatchesrarefilmsmovies · 7/10 · 3 January 2020]

Like any movie this one has it's fair share of flaws. That is not to say it's not a good movie. It is very very good. All depends on which version you watch I suppose. There are multiple versions over the years of various running times. Main version is maybe two hours long but some run up to four or five hours. Read somewhere that original version ran upward of twenty hours. My goodness! Wim Wenders set out to make the ultimate road movie and in many ways he succeeded. He is the king of the road movie and deserves to be acknowledges as such. On the road it is slow and long sometimes, so the ultimate driving movie should be slow and long too. Recommend the longer versions, otherwise it's just like reading Cliff's Notes for a book.

The Cinematic Equivalent of a Turducken

[eluhnabroad · 6/10 · 29 January 2009]

I quite enjoyed this movie, for the most part; especially the near-future, global-electronic-village touches (the Beijing memorial in the background drew a big laugh when I saw it in the theatre). Unfortunately, just as one story reaches a denouement, a subplot emerges and drags out into yet another story arc. It's like a trilogy crammed into one movie. By the third reboot, I was too tired to enjoy it much and wondered when or if the movie would ever end. It's a shame, because the characters are very likable, and each story is entertaining; but it becomes too much and too long of a good thing. For this reason, three 8s add up to a 6. You might enjoy this movie more if you split your viewing into three parts.

A rare pleasure

[haddocky · 10/10 · 3 July 2004]

In its full length version this film is a really absorbing and enjoyable piece of work. I saw it at the National Film Theatre in London years ago, expecting to find the length a serious problem but knowing that I might not get another chance.

As it turned out there were two intervals and the fact that it took a whole afternoon added to the enjoyment... the absorption drew me in.

I never saw the short version but its relative lack of success suggests that the edit wasn't wholly successful. I don't know if the long version circulates in any form these days but if the chance arises to see it take an afternoon off, make sure the cinema has a nice cafe and settle down for a unique film.

Pleasantly quirky surprise

[phadrs · 7/10 · 7 January 2003]

I happened upon this movie one cable afternoon with my aunt. You start watching and think "What the..."? It seems not to be about anything at all yet has great scenes and characters, rather like Wender's "Paris, Texas." The animated computer bear (must be seen) tipping trash cans tracking the fugitives is especially memorable. It seems long but makes for an interesting journey. Well worth seeing but not to show off your artsy sensibilities on a date. So rare, though, that the chance showing should be caught, like "Paris, Texas."

Will stay with you for years to come.

[dylan floyd · 10/10 · 5 March 2002]

I first saw this movie 10 years ago, and have seen it perhaps 50 times since then. There has never been another film that has so affected me this way... the images, dialog, and music keep coming back to me, and each time I watch it I see something new. All this, and I've only seen the edited version, not the 5-hour director's cut, which I hope someday will be released on DVD.

Wenders has a different way of working - he develops the dialog, and even the plot (so the story goes), as the film is being shot. One of the reasons it all seems so real.

The integration of the music is fantastic, and gives just as emotional weight as the stunning cinematography. Rather than slap on some pop music in post-production as most directors do, he first solicited songs from his pals U2, Nick Cave, Peter Gabriel, et al to write a song about the end of the world. He then wove the resulting music into the script.

Every 6 months or so I'm amazed by some bit of news in real life that was actually telegraphed by the film, years ago. Remember the crisis with India and Pakistan developing nuclear arms a few years back?

Solveig Dommartin is intoxicating, William Hurt is his usual self, but for me Sam Neill is the best. His narration is especially haunting.

Shot on 4 continents in 8 countries, this film is truly an epic.

Two good movies in here.

[Val68 · 6/10 · 3 July 2000]

When I saw this movie, I felt like I was at a double feature.

The first half is exciting, the second half is intriguing, and it seems to me that each could more or less stand on its own. Fused together as one, however, the movie has a forced, discomfiting intimacy, as if Wenders had spliced a set of twins together and called them conjoined. Worth seeing, however, and it also has a great soundtrack.

will make you yearn for the end of the world

[jayarava · 3/10 · 20 July 2009]

You know you are in trouble when the comments on the back of the DVD packaging say "visually stunning", because this is the inevitable comment on a film which has a rambling disjointed plot and below par acting. And so it was. Way, way too long at almost 3 hours the story is played out across the world. The characters are flat and unengaging - the two male leads being played by Sam Neil and William Hurt who specialise in alienation and distance. Neil's facial expression is the same whether he is in love, being betrayed, chasing the bad guy, being mugged, or watching his beloved in agony. Even the most emotionally charged part of the film - in the father-son relationship during the last third - is clichéd (with Max von Sydow playing to type) and stilted.

The plot twists and turns, but in the end leaves many things unexplained - it's not at all clear why Hurt is being pursued in the end or who the people were that pursued him. It all gets resolved by the supposed disaster which never materialises - a disaster movie with no disaster, an apocalypse with no horsemen. It's full of disjointed parts that don't add up to a satisfying whole. Many of the scenes are completely flat and add nothing. When Hurt wakes up between two elders, they seem to be as baffled by their appearance in the movie as I was, and he is as unreadable as ever.

The idea of hiding away in Australia with a tribe of Aboriginals is somewhat novel, but this is a white man's fantasy I think - they are a group of Man Friday's who attend to his every need, although there is a step too far and they do leave him which once again is done with minimal emotion.

The whole thing was as dry as the Aussie desert. Maybe you had to see it on the big screen, but in the end I did not believe the film was visual stunning - it used some stock shots of the Australian Outback but there was nothing very interesting in the way the film was shot.

I found myself earnestly wishing for the end of the movie, if not the world.

amazing

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 13 July 2005]

"Until the End of the World" is a movie that has never gotten the recognition that it deserves. Occurring in 1999, when the Indian nuclear satellite has gone out of control (and no one knows where it's going to land), the movie focuses on Frenchwoman Claire Tourneur (Solveig Dommartin) following American Sam Farber (William Hurt) all over the world. Sam has a most ingenious device that enables his blind mother (Jeanne Moreau) to see, and some other people are trying to get their hands on it.

I simply can't do justice to the movie by trying to describe it. You have to see it to believe it. For the soundtrack, director Wim Wenders went to several singers and had them write the songs that they were going to write at the end of the millennium. The result was beyond incredible. Few movies have ever reached this movie's greatness.

I wonder what ever became of Solveig Dommartin.

Wenders' magnum opus

[kokkinoskitrinosmple · 6/10 · 1 April 2024]

Bis ans Ende der Welt is an original and fascinating adventure with a little bit of everything: road movie, action, thriller, mystery, romance, sci-fi, even a touch of comedy. It creates a hypnotising, slightly surreal, Lynchian feel, where nothing quite makes sense but still draws the viewer in, who can't resist asking for more. Some parts are stronger than others, but it's hard to criticise anything about it, it's better to enjoy the ride alongside a parade of colourful characters. The cinematography is breathtaking, making the most of filming locations (Italy, France, Germany, Portugal, Russia, Japan, USA and Australia among others). The last part changes gears and takes a more philosophical direction, a study on various subjects such as human nature, society, technology, loss, addiction, etc.

On a final note, please do yourself a favour and watch the 287-minute director's cut.

meandering epic muddle

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 31 March 2017]

It's 1999. An Indian nuclear satellite is threatening to crash and party girl Claire Tourneur (Solveig Dommartin) couldn't care less. The narrator Eugene Fitzpatrick (Sam Neill) is one of many men whom she had left behind. She gets into a car crash with two guys who robbed a bank in Nice and drives them for a share of the money. On the way to delivering the cash, she picks up Trevor McPhee (William Hurt) who is on the run from an armed man. After dropping him off, she goes to stay with Eugene in Paris and discovers that Trevor had taken some of the money. She pursues him to Berlin. She hires private detective Phillip Winter. Trevor is actually Sam Farber chased by bounty hunters and governments.

The story is a meandering mess. The people don't really make sense. There are motivational problems. The plot wanders around the globe. Somebody should have taken the script back for a major rewrite. Director Wim Wenders is more interested in creating a near-futurist world which isn't that visually compelling anyways. This is a multi-lingual, Euro-epic of a sci-fi thriller but it's too long and too convoluted. It's too boring to be a fun bad movie.