Liebestraum (1991) User Reviews (30)

Melancholic and Beautiful

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 31 May 2017]

The successful writer and professor of architecture Nick Kaminsky (Kevin Anderson) returns from New York to Elderstown to visit his biological mother Lillian Anderson Munnsen (Kim Novak) that is terminal. Nick does not know Lilian since he was adopted when he was a child but he pays the bill for her to stay in a private room in the hospital. While walking on the street, Nick stumbles upon his former college friend Paul Kessler (Bill Pullman), who is demolishing with his team an old department store building where a murder and a suicide happened many years ago. While talking to Paul, there is an accident and Nick saves his life. Paul invites Nick to go to the birthday party of his wife Jane Kessler (Pamela Gidley). Nick feels attracted by the building that is built in cast iron and asks Paul to visit it. Meanwhile Jane, who is a photographer, decides to take photos of the same building. They get close to each other and Nick learns that Jane was also adopted. Along the following days, Jane and Nick have a love affair and Nick discloses hidden secrets from their past.

"Liebestraum" (meaning love dream in German and title of a Franx Liszt 's composition) is a melancholic and beautiful film by Mike Figgis. The depressive story of a love affair in the 50's or 60's ended in a murder and suicide and the consequences in the present days (1991) is supported by great performances, wonderful cinematography and magnificent music score. The direction of Mike Figgis follows the style of film-noir and this film has been only released on VHS in Brazil. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Liebestraum - Atração Proibida" ("Liebestraum – Forbidden Attraction")

Kim Novak in Sorrowful Mystery

[williwaw · 6/10 · 19 September 2011]

Kim Novak returned to films in this Mike Figgis film. During the shooting there was a lot of PR generated by the legendary star's return to films including an interview with Kim Novak by the Sunday New York times Movie Section, great advance PR for the film. The back story of this movie would have been a better film than what appears on screen. Ms. Novak fought bitterly with Mike Figgis who threatened to cut Kim Novak's part to shreds, and Figgis did. What resulted is a muddled film that stars Kevin Anderson a fine actor whose part must also have been edited. Ditto Bill Pullman. Liebestraum - a brilliant title- makes little sense as a film.

Liebestraum started out as a Warner Bros film but ended up as a MGM film and that once fabled studio was going thru one of its periodic slumps and financial distresses and gave this film a very very limited opening in only two cities Los Angeles and New York. The New York Times favorably reviewed Ms. Novak in its review which should have given MGM and Figgis to open the picture more widely. The mystery here is not the film's murky subject but the fact that Kim Novak a worldwide star and a very under appreciated actress was given so little to do but moan. Novak is seen basically bed ridden and moaning during the film until a shocking windup.

In a purely business observation, Kim Novak was at one time a huge box office draw with films such as Vertigo, Picnic, Bell Book and Candle, Pal Joey, Strangers When We Meet, The Mirror Crack'd et al and MGM and Figgis should have sold this as a Kim Novak return project and they would have made their money back on that. Instead, Kim Novak was ignored by Figgis who in turn ignored this film refusing to do any PR for the project upon its release and sadly this film ended the film career of Kim Novak.

Madonna was supposed to do the female lead but told her then beau Warren Beatty she did not understand the script. Beatty wisely told Madonna if she did not understand the project do not do it. Pam Gidley stepped in to replace Madonna. Wise move on Madonna's part.

A film not recommended for the impatient.

[Bill-454 · 7/10 · 26 September 2006]

I live in the small city where this was filmed, Binghamton, NY. I know 3 people who were in it. When it came out I was excited to see it, to see Lori, Alberto and Bernie in it.

The joke among us was that it was a film about men who don't wash their hands. I thought it was vile, but when the director's cut came out, I bought it, just for the local interest.

Big difference! Aside from the disquieting moments to those who are familiar with location shots (I have similar problems with THE MOLLY MAGUIRES and WITNESS -- both filmed in areas I am familiar with) it rewards those with patience.

But Kim Novak has the grossest line ever assigned to a screen legend!!! LOL

Dreamlike. Bodies entered by narrative

[chaos-rampant · 3 May 2016]

I like films that are dreamlike and fluid, floating that wanders outside of the confines of self and story. At the same time I like them to draw fresh water from the well of mysterious non- self that underpins really anything that is exuberantly receptive to the world (passionate sex, dreaming, youth, all a part of it), wipes anxiety and restores our way of seeing to the far-flung horizons teeming with possibility that youth and early lovers know.

Lynch is a natural master of this deep swimming. Ferrara tried briefly at around the same time. Further back it was Rivette. A lot of film noir works in a similar way for me.

Here we have all these things; dreamlike in the way that Lynch is, about passion that dives in and perturbs reality, and a cinematic mind-bending swim in the waters. It's nominally a thriller, but written in waters, fluid about anxiety and self.

It has the noir engine where someone sets out to investigate and finds himself embroiled in mysterious goings-on. In noir that's usually a PI, but it doesn't have to be. Here it's simply a son whose mother has been hospitalized and he arrives to the small town to care for her.

He an architectural writer, she a photographer, both coming to explore an old building that is set to be demolished, but she has a husband. They unearth a story that took place in that building long ago, about illicit lovers discovered one night. We have some obvious symbolism in the building as obliquely shared past and as wandering through his own mind that is buffeted by anxieties.

And it has the notion of persisting memory where something that happened in the past is rising up again in the present. The noir drive is that the more he succumbs to passion, the more he is pulled as a narrator into a past story about similar passion.

So they fall for each other while he's unearthing a narrative of how that shattered lives one day. By investigating further, he comes to understand that he's tied to that story via his parents; his mother has been unwell ever since. There's also another son whose life is intimately woven to events of that night, an eerie figure like out of Lynch who by driving past the building one day causes someone to die.

It's all eventually made to align during a hospital visit late at night. Another invalid mother is wheeled out, central in events of that story. A metaphysical wiring between bodies takes place, bodies entered it seems by our knowledge of the story. The fateful coupling that upset reality takes place once more inside the building; once more a vengeful spouse is waiting in the shadows with a gun. But they say that they love each other. He's eavesdropping and stays his hand.

This is worthwhile stuff.

Noir Meter: 2/4 / Neo-noir or post noir? Post

Can you hear me now?

[lurch-17 · 7/10 · 28 February 2005]

This film is a unique combination of film noir, an object (building) as the leading character, comedy, and horror. It works.

Except for one thing - the sound. You cannot understand most of what they say. Not to say that this was a cheap cheesy flick with bad sound - this was a decent production. Either the sound was accidentally bad, or the Brit director did what they often do over there - make films with poor sound quality. I mean, the voices are muffled (poor frequency response of the equipment or setup) and the mikes are too far from the actors. For years, I thought it was just that I could not follow the British accent, but friends with whom I have watched several British films concur. It is a national trait. It's the same with Vera Drake.

British TV productions that they show on US networks have good sound. It's British produced/directed feature films that sport bad sound.

Rent this one, but turn your hearing aid up or use the subtitles.

Don't you have something better to do with your time?

[douglasjgall · 4/10 · 1 July 2003]

A movie this muddled doesn't deserve much of a review. The plot, such as it is: an architect comes to a dying city to visit his dying mother. He tries to save a dying building (where people somewhat mysteriously really died many years ago in flagrante delecto) and is dying to have sex with his buddy's wife and solve the previously referred to mystery.

This is some type of film noir I suppose, and supposedly an erotic thriller, but although it has some dirty bad language it isn't very erotic and it certainly isn't thrilling. None of the plots is particularily believable, and the question of whether they are going to tie together in the end is, yeh, but it requires such suspension of belief that the whole thing seems quite ridiculous. But don't worry, you will have lost all interest in this movie long before that. There is a "twist" at the end, which you don't see coming (until about 5 minutes before) because it doesn't make logical sense. This was tough going. Nicolas Cage was in Leaving Las Vegas by the same director, and my advice is leave Las Vegas or any other city where this movie is playing. Whoever in Hollywood approved this movie should be force to sit through it. Any other potential viewer, however, should not.

Better with a second viewing but still hampered by sluggish pace and repetitive scenes in second half of the running time

[Scorpio_65 · 7/10 · 2 June 2021]

Liebestraum (Mike Figgis, 1991) is certainly one of those types of films that stays with you for hours after watching it. It is most certainly better with a second viewing after all the intricacies of the plot have been clarified, as well-illustrated by the IMDb reviewer PopeyeBarrnumb, as getting enjoyment of this film relies on acquiring an appreciation of its ambience.

The first hour of the film's running time maintains the viewer's engagement because the editing is smooth, and its pace is seamless. Nick (Kevin Anderson) does not have his driver's license due to trauma (or fear) regarding his father being killed in a car accident, and we later learn his father's cause of death to be different. We see Nick's reliance on others for transportation in his arrival to Elderstown via train, and around town via cabs and a truck, as well as a cop car. This also forces Nick to take advantage of the environment in close proximity to his downtown hotel which gives an intimacy to the film's ambience. Many of the scenes are within the hotel, the Ralston Building across the street from the hotel, and Schmidt's Bar & Café that he frequents which is slightly reminiscent in tone of the 1942 painting 'Nighthawks' by Edward Hopper. The diverse usage of these spaces, along with the Ralston Memorial Hospital and the party at Paul (Bill Pullman) and Jane's (Pamela Gidley) house, engages our interest, and all the characters are clearly introduced in these scenes.

Where the film starts to meander is at the one-hour mark, as the spark of the screenplay fades primarily with the absence of Paul as he is called away on a business trip and returns much later for only thirty seconds of screen time. This eliminates any opportunities for interesting conflicts between him, Nick, and Jane, as well as a balance of temperament which would've given the screenplay some much needed liveliness. The second half of the film also includes an overabundance of scenes of Nick and Jane re-entering the Ralston Building to walk around and take pictures, along with the constant number of scenes of Nick and Jane making out or having sex, as well as scenes involving Nick waking up from dreams. At this point, the film loses its immersive quality through the repetition of these scenes and, thus, the viewer's engagement.

Another major problem is that the majority of the characters, particularly Nick and Jane, are stone-faced throughout the entire film. Trauma appears to be a central theme of the film, which includes Jane's experience with Paul's infidelity and Jane's and Nick's family issues, and the director (Mike Figgis) may be attempting to have the actors convey their characters' trauma through stone-faced demeanours. Whichever the case, this translates onscreen as a relentlessly catatonic acting style that does not make for characters that maintain the viewer's interest or are even believable at times. The problem isn't even about a film with characters that are one-dimensional; there are no dimensions to the characters whatsoever. Whenever Nick approaches another character in the film, whether it be someone he knows or someone he's meeting for the first time, he stares at them as if he's on tranquilizers. I have seen Kevin Anderson give good performances in other films and the lack of support in coaching the actors to liven up their performances lies with the director. Another film with this type of problem where the director is so selfishly focused on making the film beautiful, to the point where it almost becomes a vanity piece with poor communication between the director and actors, is 'Mister Buddwing' (Delbert Mann, 1966). This film has beautiful cinematography and ambience and is directed by the wonderfully talented Delbert Mann but is badly hampered by a disappointing acting performance by James Garner who is a capable actor as evidenced by many of his other films. 'Liebestraum' suffers from the same issue where it appears evident to the viewer that the actors appear lost.

In addition to this, I do agree with other IMDb reviews that the second half of the film could've also given more for Lillian (Kim Novak) to do. Perhaps one of the multiple scenes where Nick goes to the Ralston Building could've been omitted for Lillian to have a flashback sequence. Kim Novak was 58-years-old at the time of this film and still a beautiful woman who could've easily passed for a younger woman in some sort of flashback sequence. Although I appreciate that she appeared in this film and her performance is fine, it is a shame that, to date, it is currently the last film of her career. She is beautiful in every film she has done, and it's unfortunate that there aren't more scenes where her character could show more dimension.

Overall, the story is unique and interesting, the cinematography and soundtrack quite beautiful, and the actors are capable. However, with more liveliness to the screenplay, and screen time afforded to supporting characters in the second half of the running time, the film could've sustained its engaging, immersive quality that's present in the first half of the running time. A film with dark tones and themes of death and trauma can still convey the effectiveness of these elements without having acting performances that translate their characters onscreen as being perpetually dead of emotion. I'm well aware this film isn't a comedy, but it doesn't need to be relentlessly and overbearingly catatonic to be dark. I still recommend seeing this film but consider seeing it twice after the full plot is understood in order to maximize the enjoyment of the elements that showcase its uniqueness and beauty.

A great idea, but SOOOOO SLOOOOOW

[lisarull · 3/10 · 17 June 2002]

We came in about 15 minutes after this started on TV. Hmmm. Interesting cast, Mike Figgis directing, liked the cast iron building set-up. Within 20 minutes we knew why we hadn't heard before about this movie. it was pretty dreadful. Clearly only about half a normal screenplay had been completed because there was no other plausible reason for those -- tedious -- pseudo-meaningful (meaningless) -- pauses. In my partner's inimtable phrasing Harold Pinter seems a laugh a minute screwball comedy writer of speedy proportions alongside this. Elephants have gestated quicker than this progressed! Everything was invested with 'meaning' to the point where, oh heavens, not ANOTHER drawn-out sex scene, one just longed for some EXPLICATION about what was going on. Yes there was some nice cinematography, and many of the cast deserved better than this. The hapless lead has disappeared almost without trace. poor boy. For a story so laden with pseudo-pyschobabble subplots and personal histories repeating I have just one question; exactly WHY is Bill Pullman's character so defiantly intent on destroying the building? MOTIVATION, MOTIVATION, MOTIVATION.

Haunting, dreamlike film best experienced in uncut version!

[hippiedj · 9/10 · 14 September 2001]

I love discovering films that completely surprise me and have me wanting to discuss them for hours with friends. Liebestraum had a very strong effect on me, and then when I found the "unrated" version I was overwhelmed all over again.

I love films like those from David Lynch, but sometimes Lynch tries too hard to make his characters as strange as possible (Wild At Heart was absolutely his worst offering). Mike Figgis' Liebestraum has the look and feel of a Lynch film, but the characters seem to be wandering through a haunting yet gorgeous dream, seemingly all sedated (something in the water?). Because this film is so well done, the slow and dreamy quality gives it a life of its own and I loved every moment of it. Which leads me back to this "unrated" business of it...

I first saw the "R" version on VHS (having missed its theatrical release), and by accident found it was available in an "unrated" director's cut that is about 9 minutes longer. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: if you possibly can, see this longer version instead of the other! The one scene that takes place at a brothel is really the most important scene in the film, bringing several points of the plot into light! It shows that the prostitutes are also the same actresses as the nurses in the hospital, and a bit more insight to a fetish of Nick (Kevin Anderson) and the importance of the scent on his fingers. Once I saw this scene, the film made so much more sense and seemed like an entirely different film altogether! Apparently MGM decided to just put the "R" version on the DVD and place the brothel scene as a separate supplement to view as a "deleted scene." I'm afraid I may just hang onto my director's cut on VHS and watch that one instead. View that scene and you'll understand why it needs to be a part of the film.

Otherwise, WOW, what an experience. Nick's devotion to trying to save an old building with a dark past, the discovery of secrets and family ties....all beautifully revealed with stunning visuals and panache. Of course I found the story fascinating as well, so all these aspects when put together are breathtaking. Kevin Anderson, Pamela Gidley, and Bill Pullman manage give their roles meaning in what must have been frustrating to try and understand what the heck this film was going to really be -- It reminds me, for instance, Jessica Harper saying when she was working on Dario Argento's film Suspiria, she was not sure what that film was actually about because it was such an unusual project. But not to worry, much of Liebestraum's secrets are carefully revealed. It has been said Kim Novak's role was wasted since she barely speaks from a hospital bed in her scenes, but what else was she supposed to do?There must have been a reason she did the part anyway, and to hear Kim Novak utter a taboo word in one scene will make your jaw drop! Even Alicia Witt's brief dream sequence appearances and her performing the title piano piece along side the end credits is impressive. Now, if only I could get the soundtrack on the 10 Records label....anyone have a clue on that one? I've tried and tried and never could obtain it.

Accepting the surreal atmosphere in this film will help you then accept the equally surreal manner the characters possess. I've always been confounded as to why personalities are so guarded and bitchy in Hitchcock films, or even in many of the Italian giallos. Liebestraum's townsfolk seem to be on guard because you never know if someone knows more than they're letting on. There are mysteries to the town and the Ralston building and you have to watch each character like a hawk, as the film has subtle and symbolic clues (like the nurse/prostitute connection).

I was very impressed by the restraint used in the sexual aspect of Liebestraum -- this is the kind of film that had all sorts of opportunites to display nudity yet it held back (I wonder how many takes it took to get that towel on Anderson just right?), and made sex more sensual actually by giving us less to see.

I could go on about many scenes that had me awestruck, but that would take up too much space here! Nick's dreams and some creepy walks through the Ralston building are just a couple of the striking ones. See it to believe it for yourself, and I cannot stress this enough, hunt down the director's cut and see that one first if you can, you won't be sorry.

Kim Novak's Final Film

[adventure-21903 · 7/10 · 17 July 2020]

Kim Novak the biggest star at Columbia for 3 years in the late 1950's was gorgeous to the camera and as one of her Directors Billy Wilder said she "said her lines like music" . Star of Picnic, Pal Joey, Bell Book and Candle, Strangers When We Meet, and her personal favorite Middle Of The Night, Kim Novak worked with the best of Hollywood. William Holden, Rock Hudson, Roz Russell, Tyrone Power, Frank Sinatra, Judy Holiday, Jack Lemmon, Rita Hayworth,, Kirk Douglas and with James Stewart in Hitchcock's masterpiece, Vertigo. One of her last films The Mirror. Crack'd she traded hilarious barbs with her peer Elizabeth Taylor.

Mike Figgis sent Novak a copy of the script and Kim Novak agreed to star in this film. A big interview with the prestigious New York Times gave the Movie a big PR push.

Kim Novak returned to films in this movie directed by Mike Figgis . Novak and Figgis fought during the production and Figgis threatened to cut her scenes. Mike Figgis followed thru and cut Kim Novak's. Scenes to simply show her moaning and groaning; devastated the Great Star retired..

Kevin Anderson does quite fine in this film. Madonna was offered the star role but told Warren Beatty she didn't understand the movie. Mr. Beatty wisely suggested Madonna quit the film and was replaced by a young actressPamela Giddley. And the the film bounced from WB to MGM. The movie cost millions but was shown only in a handful of theaters in Los Angeles and New York,

This movie and the debacle that ensured during production is more likely a better subject for a behind the scenes book rathe than the movie itself.

Utterly deranged...

[moonspinner55 · 1/10 · 6 February 2008]

Mike Figgis wrote and directed this woefully pretentious claptrap about a young writer (Kevin Anderson, in a wholly uncompelling performance) who becomes obsessed with a landmark building about to be torn down. That impossible title refers to a piece of music which was playing in the building the night a mysterious crime took place (it was a crime of passion, yet there's no passion in the leading character, and nothing for the viewer to become involved in). Figgis gets amusingly flashy with this scenario, but it's certainly no threat to "Vertigo"--even with Kim Novak cast in a completely thankless role of a bed-ridden hospital patient. Empty all the way. * from ****

Excellent movie; great music

[bob-694 · 8/10 · 13 December 2006]

This is a very good movie, as discussed by Janet Maslin in her NY Times review of same. It is very moody and "atmospheric" with a lot of silence between the lines, and I like that kind of film. The best part for me came at the very end when the Franz Liszt piano solo Liebestraum begins playing, and then during the credits you see the full performance (about 4 to 5 minutes long) by the pianist. I don't recall her name, but she appears to be very young, has long red hair, and plays like an absolute master. Thus I became a huge fan of Liebestrum, and its composer. Something similar happens during the credits of the movie The Pianist, where the performance of the piano music is actually a highlight of the film.

Not As Good As Advertised

[cheshire551225800 · 7/10 · 16 February 2009]

Based on some recommendations, I bought this film and made sure to get the director's cut because everyone says there is necessary info in it.

But skip this one and go straight to Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson in Dead Again if you want an overall better movie.

This plot was okay, but highly predictable in almost all respects EXCEPT I'll stipulate that there was at least one really gross moment (involves a tongue), one really freaky/scary moment (involves a wheelchair), and I didn't guess correctly who was the killer. Which elevates it above a lot of movies.

I still liked Dead Again better. Pamela Gidley was okay, but I couldn't get past her being the robot in Cherry 2000, the hero was okay but I think he is that same guy with Julia Roberts in Sleeping With the Enemy (kind of the poor movie's Brad Pitt) and the usually reliable Bill Pullman was kinda wasted here.

P.S. Okay, I'm going to go in-depth a bit here about why the hospital wheelchair scene was so freaky to me. This movie is about something very intense that happened in the past working itself out again in the present through mostly reincarnated people. However, some of the people in the present were alive when the original events happened and have a stake in seeing that the past remains covered up or perhaps still feel tremendous jealousy/rage etc. at the reincarnated characters although they don't know why.

The Store manager in the past was reincarnated as Nick (the store manager was in fact Nick's biological father and his soul apparently still felt a tremendous pull towards his pregnant wife even though (or perhaps because) they had a problematic relationship of infidelity and intense jealous rage) and the Blonde Rich woman was reincarnated as Jane.

Ah, but some of you may disagree because the blonde woman didn't die in the past, she only became completely brain dead in the higher functions although able to live with constant care and no need for a respirator due to no damage to her brain stem where the autonomic bodily funtions reside (breathing, regulation of heart rate, blood pressure etc.)

And that is why I found the scene where the brain dead blonde woman is in close proximity with Jane so disturbing. If her soul left her when her consciousness died (although her body lived on) and was reincarnated as Jane, then you have a soul-less brain dead body violently reacting involuntarily due to being near the soul it once had. I found that just freaky as all get out and something I had never seen in a reincarnation type movie before or since.

Prententious, pretentious, pretentious

[preppy-3 · 4/10 · 22 August 2005]

Nick (Kevin Anderson) goes back to his hometown to take care of his dying mother (Kim Novak). There he encounters an old college buddy (Bill Pullman) and his beautiful wife (Pamela Gidley). He also gets involved with a 40 year old sex murder that may have something to do with him...

I caught this in a theatre back in 1991. It was part of the Boston Film Festival and I had heard it had some incredibly beautiful cinematography. Well--it does. It just doesn't have much of a story to go with it. Also the film moves so SLOWLY--I literally fell asleep! Seeing it again 14 years later, I fell asleep AGAIN! This film is dull and slow. It's one of those art films full of strange characters who act oddly and mutter obscure dialogue (especially the police chief). Gorgeous images don't make up for the leaden pace.

Acting doesn't help. Anderson (a good actor) acts terrible here. He appears to be drugged out at all times. Gidley TRIES to give a good performance but she's given nothing to work with. Pullman is the only one who pulls off a good job. Novak is (sadly) wasted and reduced to being bed ridden and screaming for no good reason.

Also watch the part where the police chief has the longest urination sequence in cinema history. Why it's there I have no idea but at least it's somewhat funny. Otherwise this is a dull, slow-moving bore. Avoid.

Warning! Spoiler Alert (potentially)

[PopeyeBarrnumb · 18 June 2004]

As far as I can see, pretty much everyone has gotten the "plot twist" of this film wrong, from IMDb commenters to all of the "pro" reviewers. Although my comments/"review" are effectively a spoiler, I think people just might enjoy the film more if you knew this information beforehand. Or just come back here and check to see if you got it right afterward. If you even see this, since I am so far down. Anyway, I'll give you a hint first, and then get into the spoiler. (and "review")

Hint: Keep a VERY close eye on the TRUE relationship between the two main characters: Nick and Jane. What are you missing? (if you are)

And now for the rest of the story. But first, let me say that, although the film is beautifully shot, and very nourish, and the acting is pretty good, considering, the film eventually fails I think because most people will not "get it", and end up irritated and frustrated.

So here's the spoiler: Nick and Jane were blood-related. Stop now and watch the movie if you want to "figure it out for yourself". Otherwise, continue on and follow closely.

The man and woman who were having sex "years ago" and were shot (by a (pregnant) WOMAN, NOT! a man! -- work with me here, people -- at least pay attention), they were related to the current time people as follows. The man who was shot was Nick's father. (notice the resemblance in the police report photos, like Nick does) Who was (obviously?) married to Nick's dieing mother. Nick's father was having an affair with a BLONDE woman who we end up finding out was a Ralston (IF you are really paying attention), possibly the wife of the man who owned the building, or maybe just a rich daughter -- whatever. So, the WOMAN who shot them was Nick's mother, who was pregnant (big belly) with Nick at the time. She went whacko, as was mentioned, and so Nick had to be adopted out, because he lost his mother and his father.

And now for Jane. At the end of the movie, she "freaks out" when she sees the (BLONDE!) woman in the wheelchair. See where I'm going with this? That woman was her mother. Remember, she was adopted, too, and didn't know her parents, either. So, the woman was shot in the head (they kind of made a point of showing the scar), and didn't die. Only Nick's father died. This is also the reason Nick's mother freaked out when Jane went into her hospital room. She either knew who she was, or, was near-dieing confused and thought she was the blonde woman she shot. Again, what-ev-er.

(also, remember Nick's mother freaking out when she found out she was back in the town? -- it sure would have been nice if all of this was more evident, which is why the film really fails)

Now, what I'm thinking is this, and it needs some stretching and "guessing" and both deductive and inductive logic. (this is why I always make a point of stating that film, TV, whatever, should always be watched "intelligently" -- even if it's only watched for entertainment -- you will (and do, regardless) get things out of it that you won't even recognize or understand or know about, until MAYBE later -- although much of it is subconscious -- regardless, it's ALL good -- people who don't watch film and TV and such tend to be almost as bad as people who don't read books -- somewhat (or a lot) shallow; lacking in wisdom; common sense escapes them; not as able to deal with and solve life's problems; and a host of other unfortunate traits -- it is AS BAD as someone who is uneducated or under-educated -- but I digress)

Anyway, I think Nick's father impregnated the blonde Ralston woman, who was Jane's mother, which make Nick and Jane step brother and sister. THAT is the real (final and major) "plot twist" of the film. Did they figure it out, and know, and have sex anyway? I don't know.

As for why Jane's husband was acting the way he was, maybe he knew who Jane really was, and some other stuff, or maybe he was just a jealous husband and land developer on a tight schedule who was having marital problems with his wife. What do you think? I think I got a HELL of a lot closer than anyone else. Anyway, the film is better if you know what I've written about here. No irritation and frustration at the end. I hate when that happens. (sorry this is so long)

Second rate nonsense

[=G= · 5/10 · 4 March 2002]

"Lebestraum", a second rate noirish drama, tells of murder, infidelity, and other stuff. It includes a hair-raising ride in a police car and some prostitute diddling stuff and a big "N" falling off the top of a building almost on our hero's head and some nightmares with the old wake up screaming thing going on and, oh, yeah, and the old cat jumping out during a suspenseful moment. Betwixt and between such trite nonsense is the real story, the real nonsense, which takes itself so seriously as to be almost laughable. Don't waste your time with this loser.

Note: The audio quality of the Tivo'd version I watched was awful and there were no subtitles to help fill in the blanks. I had to watch under headphones.

Somewhat of a mystery.

[aout22 · 5/10 · 29 June 2006]

This movie was strange yet intriguing. I could not quite figure out who the woman in the wheel chair was. Who was the pregnant woman? Why did the movie continually move back and forth in time? Was the woman in the hospital really his mother? What was the significance of the building and its demolition? I was totally confused by its plot. Just when I thought I had the plot figured out , another twist would take hold. I was not sure why the woman in the wheelchair's eyes appeared as they did and the purpose of the main character's lover assisting her. Was there some relevance to this particular scene. Most confusing was the two shootings. First flashback the perpetrator was a man, the second was a pregnant woman. Who really shot the mother? Confused!

One to study!

[tropicalrobbie · 10/10 · 21 December 2006]

I think that anyone under 30 years of age will find it hard to relate to the essence of this film...make that 40! Adoption - rootless - the symbolism of the building is so powerful. It becomes the essence of all that once was life and strength. Now it has become abandoned and derelict. Love - loss - distraction - deception - and the patterns of the past are cleverely conjured back into the present by the marvellous direction.

This is a movie that speaks about Loss - and presents this in evocative and intuitive visual terms. It's far from the MTV slickness of 2 clips a second - because it's engineered and paced to touch chords. David Lean is a genius in this.

If you watch this film and become bored, then you need to try again in the later half of your life.

It's one that I'd take if I was going to be marooned on a desert island.Along with Citizen Kane, Ghostbusters 1 and Damage.

Marvellous! Rob

Shadows Of The Past

[seymourblack-1 · 8/10 · 17 November 2014]

Shadows of the past hang heavily over the present in Mike Figgis' haunting tale of an adulterous affair that seems to be driven by the hand of fate. The chilling connection between the present-day affair and another one, three decades earlier, creates an uneasy atmosphere that's beautifully complemented by the Franz Liszt composition that gives this movie its title.

Nick Kaminsky (Kevin Anderson) is a professor of architecture in upstate New York who visits the small Illinois town of Elderstown to visit his dying mother who gave him up for adoption at a very young age and now wants to tell him a secret from the past. When he looks out of his hotel window, Nick immediately becomes fascinated by The Ralston Building, a cast-iron structure that used to be a department store until it was closed over thirty years earlier following an incident in which an adulterous couple were apparently shot by the woman's jealous husband who subsequently turned the gun on himself.

When he goes to take a closer look at the building, Nick's surprised to meet Paul Kessler (Bill Pullman) an old college friend who's been hired to supervise its demolition. Nick saves Paul's life when he quickly pushes him out of the path of a large metal object that falls to the ground from the roof of the tall building and Paul shows his appreciation by inviting Nick to a party at his place. At the party, Nick meets Paul's wife Jane (Pamela Gidley) who'd previously enjoyed reading some of Nick's books and shares his appreciation of the architectural beauty and significance of the building that's now due for demolition.

Due to the seriousness of her condition, Nick's mother isn't coherent and so after being granted permission to study the interior of The Ralston Building, he spends a good deal of his time there with Jane who's a photographer. It transpires that Paul and Jane's relationship is a dysfunctional one and gradually Nick and Jane are drawn to each other with the same passion and inevitability that drew them to the building that they would both prefer to see saved from the developers who intend to replace it with a shopping mall. Through his own investigations, Nick gradually learns more about his biological mother, the dramatic events that took place over thirty years ago and eventually, some disturbing information that has a direct bearing on his relationship with Jane.

"Liebestraum" (Dream Of Love) is well-directed, visually stunning and fascinatingly mysterious. Its story unfolds in a style that's dreamy and creepy and not everything is as it initially appears to be. These qualities and its glacial pace combine effectively to create a rather hypnotic mood that's enhanced by a style of acting in which thoughts and feelings are so often, clearly felt without necessarily being expressed verbally. Kevin Anderson is particularly laconic and Pamela Gidley is also more reined-in than is initially apparent in this stylish tale in which lust, betrayal and jealousy all play important roles.

A forgotten masterpiece

[Francoesque-1 · 11 February 2002]

I first saw a trailer for this on a now defunct late night TV programme back in 1991. It had me hooked from the start with stylish lighting, great music and sharp editing promising a modern noir thriller with shades of "Dead Again". Due to a limited cinema release the first chance I got to see the film was a couple of years later when I saw the box in a video store. I bought it immediately, figuring it might be interesting. I underestimated. This is a fantastic film filled with emotion and beauty. The first time I saw it it blew me away. I expected a cool little thriller and was rewarded with something much more. This is not a murder mystery or a thriller, per se, but a love story shot through a noir lens. The soundtrack (also by Figgis) is astounding and the acting is perfect. Particular kudos to the then-unknown Bill Pullman who puts in a career best performance. Also, if you actually figure out the central twist of the film (listen to the conversation in the car between Jane and Nick) you will wonder how on earth Figgis got this past a studio. Ever since I first saw it I've been trying to convert my friends to it's wonders with much success. See it now and your life may not be better, but two hours of it will have been well spent. Remember: Only you can prevent forest fires

During the filming of this movie

[jackijoe · 8/10 · 5 October 2003]

I was living in the upstate NY town that this was filmed in. I wanted to see the movie as soon as it was available, mainly for that reason and I was pleasantly surprised at this unique movie. The story line is quite intriguing and really draws you in, slowly but surely. So, not only do I have in my video library a fine, interesting film, but also on film a town that I grew up in and love. A definite must see! Note: I also loved the use of the classical music.

sensual, artistic and one of the best films in over a decade!

[roberthults · 8/10 · 26 December 2004]

This is a film that is thought provoking to say the least. It is romantic and also a little tastily sleazy. If you liked dead again, you should like this film. This film, however, is much better. What I don't understand is why this film is so unknown and underrated.

Mystery, intrigue, romance, regret, desire, jealousy, greed, it is all here. History unfolds to give the viewer a tapestry of cinematic beauty. Some of the film shots are in the vein of Dario Argento's Suspiria while the story and plot are much more caring and romantic.

I would say that this film is a mixture of David Lynch, Roman Polanski and Wim Wenders rolled up into one hidden classic.

a small classic

[crucialp · 5 December 2002]

I was hooked from the first minute I saw this one! All my friends to whom I recommended this film, liked it too. And they said all the same. Good, you told us to watch this movie very carefully, and keep concentrated on it, constantly, cause it will keep you guessing long after you seen it! Seldom I've seen a film, so slow, but so good! It has such a strange feel about it, it's erotic and it has thriller effects, especially each time somebody enters the building. The leads are good, Pullman exellent! Mike Figgis is a great director, but he never made something good, as this, afterwards. Very nice photography, and good soundtrack.

Peter Piessens.

Hypnotic mood piece

[gridoon2024 · 8/10 · 15 December 2016]

If you go into "Liebestraum" expecting to see a conventional, tight thriller, you're outta luck: you'll find it too long and slow. But if you surrender yourself to its unique mood, you may find it thoroughly entrancing - like I did. To use the famous Alfred Hitchcock quote, Mike Figgis, the writer-director (who also did the hypnotic music score), plays the audience like a piano. Even the plot, which seems secondary and overall predictable much of the time (especially if you've seen the same year's "Dead Again"), turns out to have some real surprises in store. Every piece of the puzzle eventually falls into place. A remarkably underrated and under-appreciated movie. ***1/2 out of 4.

Better than the comments give it credit for

[tom_korff · 31 January 2004]

Some of the comments here on this movie seem to point in the direction that people simply don't seem to be able to grasp the subtle implications of this movie. The movie consists of two intertwined stories, one in the past and one in the present, and until the very end, the story of the present is a direct repetition of the story of the past, only in a different setting. And some of the people from the story of the past are still alive and present in the story of the present.

Most importantly, Bill Pullmans character, Paul Kessler, plays the repetition-role of the angry husband, who one generation ago killed his wife and her lover. Only Paul Kessler doesn't (yet) have an adulterous wife to kill, so his hate and anger is pointed at the building, in which the past act of hatred took place. Paul Kessler is the engine that drives the repetition-pattern in the present of past events, and the two main characters, Nick Kaminsky and Pauls wife Jane, can't help but to play their part in repeating history.

The love- and the hate-stories of the past and the present and their repetitive nature are the drives and motivators of this movie, and everything else evolves and is motivated from this pattern.

The movie really isn't that subtle, it simply can't be explained by mere deductive logic. It's a love- and hate- and crime- and almost a ghoststory and if you absolutely have to have an explanation for everything in this movie, the explanation would have to be found in the explanation of the present through the past and in the illogical event of the almost complete repetition of the past in the present.