I am a huge spy/war film fan and am especially interested in ones made since the 1970s.
I could talk about the many historical errors in this but what would be the point.
This is a beautiful looking spy/war film with good acting from the 2 leads.
Michael Douglas and Melanie Griffiths play an American spy chief and his secretary.
Liam Neeson plays a nazi general,as usual he spends most of the film with his shirt off.
If I have to be critical I have to say the script is a rather poor.
The plot charges along and is unrealistic but every war film is I think.
Other reviewers on here say this is Hollywood rubbish but while it is an American backed production it was filmed at Pinewood in the UK and in Berlin.
Some of the negative comments focus on the amateur style of American intelligence shown in the film.
But in the real world the USA were learners in the intelligence sphere and learned from the British
Add a Review
-
Though I never read the book, personally I feel that this is an overly criticized and highly under rated movie. It's been awhile since I saw it so forget all the plot intricacies, but do recall enjoying this wartime romance at the time. As others have noted, it is definitely more a love story than a spy thriller. Also, I was sufficiently impressed with the performances by all three leads but especially Liam Leeson.
The plot revolves around an American spy master, Ed Leland, who reluctantly sends his secretary, Linda Voss, on a dangerous mission to Berlin, refusing to admit to himself that he has feelings for her personally. Voss is sent to spy on a high level German army officer named Dietrich, being deemed suitable for the task because she speaks fluent German. This secretary is half Jewish herself, and part of her motivation is actually to find some of her relatives who are in hiding. She thus goes undercover into Nazi Germany as a secretary turned spy, with little training in survival or espionage. However, she is a great fan of old spy movies and has gleaned a few tips! Perhaps the plot is not that plausible, but the same charge could be laid against any number of other movies. This is mainly a romance and a highly entertaining one.
Melanie Griffith is charming here in the role of Linda Voss. She is not a dumb blonde bimbo, nor does she even appear to be. Quite the contrary. Some have complained about her German, but I was interested in the story, and no expert on her accent. Michael Douglas competently portrays the American spy, Leland. Whether or not it is believable that someone in his position cannot speak a word of German, he has a very credible chemistry with Griffith. Liam Neeson is especially excellent, playing with dignity and charisma the complex role of the sensitive but potentially ruthless Nazi officer and devoted family man. Sir John Gielgud, the ultimate professional, is masterful as always and commands any scene in which he appears.
I confess that I'm a sucker for wartime romances, love the drama of that era as well as the 1940's styles, so would lap up just about any representative of the genre. While this one may not be a classic, it is a good love story with some gripping action, tension, and suspense. As another also noted, though it may indeed be highly improbable, it is nevertheless highly watchable. -
rmax30482316 July 2008Melanie Griffith is am ambitious, quick-witted, German-speaking, young secretary at the Office of Strategic Services who is enlisted by her boss, Michael Douglas, and sent to Berlin to work for high-ranking Germans and uncover secrets concerning their V-2 rockets now being built at Penemunde. She winds up as a nanny in the employ of the sympatico Liam Neeson. She doesn't fall in love with Neeson, though the usual dramatic trajectory might seem to call for it, because her heart already belongs to Michael Douglas. He's too dumb to realize it. Berlin is full of agents and double agents. One of the latter plugs Griffith. She's rescued by Douglas and carried in his arms across the Swiss border with the details of the V-2 program concealed in her glove. Douglas and Griffith marry and live happily ever after.
None of the principals gives a bad performance but Neeson is perhaps the most interesting of the characters. His devotion to the party is suspected of being lukewarm and he's under suspicion by the Gestapo. Alas, he isn't on screen much and disappears completely as the climax approaches.
Most impressive is the evocation of the early years of the war. The make-up strikes us as garish. Berlin seems dark and ominous. The fashions and accouterments seem appropriate.
Griffith isn't bad. At least she's not embarrassing. Except for "Mulholland Falls," it may be her best performance. She's supposed to have learned German at her Jewish father's knee and have the accent of "a butcher's daughter," but she doesn't. She has an accent, but it's strictly an American accent. Speer's name comes out at "Shpear" instead of "Shpair." Diverting at first viewing, but not really worth seeking out. -
dawilliams403 July 2008This will be a short review. I have seen a lot of pro and con on this movie, but almost all of the con's talk of the unbelievable plot. I will give you that the plot has some problems, and if this was a serious spy movie, then I'd be there with you, but that is not what this film is. This film is a total romance with some action thrown in. If you watch it and see how two people will risk all they have for each other because they are in love then you will enjoy this film. Sure there are holes in the plot...but not in the romance. Melanie is very likable in this movie and I think there is great chemistry! If you don't scrutinize the plot so much you may even find yourself routing for them as they cross the Swiss border.
-
Hjernekrigen23 June 2022This has to be the best film ever to "win" a Razzie for Worst Picture of the Year. It may be flawed but it remains a good old-fashioned piece of romantic spy entertainment with many great sequences and impressive work by all departments of the production.
-
I don't know how I missed this movie when it came out: I love the Susan Isaacs book which I've read several times. I'm glad I saw it, I like Melanie Griffith's voice and I think she makes a good job out of a rather awkward script. The plot is substantially modified in rapport to the book; Linda's first marriage disappears, Ed Leland is not such a complex or endearing character. But the thing which really annoys me is that Isaacs took great pains in the book to describe the class differences between Linda and her employers (she would NEVER have been so impertinent) and the training she undergoes before going into Berlin; which, harsh as it is, she underlines makes her little more than an amateur. Plus the language difficulties and the fact that Linda in Berlin would never have told anybody she was 1) American 2) a Jew. Also a cook in a large household with several kitchen maids under her does NOT serve at table herself. In short, inconsistencies all over the place: if the Americans had been that sloppy, they would never have won the war.
-
blanche-223 June 2002This good looking film harkens back to the old-fashioned movies of the late '30s and '40s. Though predictable and not believable, it manages to be very entertaining and keeps one's interest. It would have been a little more believable for me if the Melanie Griffith character hadn't had to drag Liam Neeson's kids around with her everywhere. They most certainly would have told their father of their adventures.
-
mecong-378-2927017 July 2021Yeah, we had a little post-production house in Berlin, called ForFilm. Because we were the first, and only post-production house in Germany featuring Acmade and Moviola equipment, we got the movie. On a side note, the first fax we ever received in our office, fax was very new then you know, was the ok from CentFox. You cannot imagine how it feels, when the first thing you see coming out of the fax machine is the famous logo. I was shaking, and my business partner Klaus Zimmermann and I got drunk that night!
So I came to meet the one and only Craig McKay. One of the greatest editors I have ever met - and I have met many - who taught me the way of transition and scene drama. I learned more from Craig in those 8 months working together than anywhere else. And David Seltzer, who also wrote The Omen, was an inspiration as well.
Oh my, there are so many stories that I could tell, like how I ran over MD, he was standing right behind me, and I did not see him, he is not very tall you see. So when I turned I bumped into him and he fell. I almost got fired for that, but because I belonged to ForFilm, he couldn't. MD, what a guy really. He wanted a goddamn Pullman 600 Mercedes as his car. So we had to look everywhere to find one. When we found one, and we brought it back to Berlin, he did not accept it, because it was dark blue and not black. Well, that's him.
Another memory is when I watched the shooting of Hitler's parade. In Potsdam 1990, the wall had just come down and this part of Potsdam still looked like 1939. All we had to do was to take off the TV antennas, and there we were. All the extras, hundreds and hundreds of them, 1930ies police on horses, Hitler youth, the roar of the engine of his original car, the flags and the hysteria of the people going bonkers when seeing Hitler, you could really feel it. Still gives me goosebumps. It felt like the devil had come alive.
Or one afternoon with Melanie Griffith, I walked with her while she was crying. Don Johnson just called to tell her that Stefano Casiraghi had died. She is actually a very kind person.
Unfortunately, the movie is not good. But the memories are very strong and I won't miss them. -
lindajordan2919 May 2004I loved this movie. I saw it for the first time when I was 21, and I've watched it several times a year ever since. Melanie Griffith gives one of the best performances of her career, and Michael Douglas is, of course, wonderful. Although this movie is presented as a action/drama set in WWII, the romantic story is what makes this movie so powerful. Griffith and Douglas have great, believable chemistry. The set decoration and cinematography are a throwback to the old 40's movies, which is ironic because those movies are mentioned throughout the film (Griffith's character is a huge fan of war movies that were shown at that time.) If you like great romantic stories with just enough action thrown in, watch this one. You will not be disappointed.
-
lee_eisenberg12 February 2011When David Seltzer's "Shining Through" first came out it was a critical and commercial failure. I thought that it was at least worth seeing, if not any kind of masterpiece. I suspect that a lot of the antipathy towards the movie is because of Melanie Griffith's American-sounding German speech. Griffith plays a secretary in a law firm who gets sent into Nazi Germany to try and find secret information.
Aside from the German spoken in a monotone American accent, I found it a little odd that when she first arrives in Germany she does have to speak German to everyone, but then they start speaking English. But for the most part, I did like the movie. Aside from Griffith, Michael Douglas plays her boss whose whereabouts she doesn't know half the time, and Liam Neeson plays a Nazi officer. Joely Richardson and John Gielgud also star. Above all, Melanie Griffith looked a lot better before she had her face done.
Like I said, not any kind of masterpiece, but still worth seeing. -
secondtake27 October 2012Shining Through (1992)
Wow, this had sooooo much potential. A great story, epic and funny and dramatic and complex and romantic. And some excellent talent, not only the leading role played by Melanie Griffith and the somewhat leading male role played by Michael Douglas, but the smaller role by Liam Neeson and an even smaller but critical one by the great John Gielgud. Even Joely Richardson as a sidekick of sorts to Griffith in the Germany might have gone somewhere chilling and wonderful.
But it doesn't work. The entire time you want it to take off, to cash in on the high stakes that are laid out in plain view. But the director single handedly drags this down into a disappointing, slow mess. So much potential.
It's WWII in America, and we start by loving the sassy, highly intelligent Linda Voss (Griffith) as she gets a job in a respected office in New York. The unapproachable boss Ed Leland (Douglas) likes her sharp wit and her unwillingness to be a female object to him. She wants to prove her worth. Great. We're on board. It's edited too slowly by far but the characters makes sense, especially Voss. (Douglas never quite shines in the movie for some reason.)
Eventually we end up in Germany where Voss, herself half-Jewish, goes undercover for a couple reasons, one of them to find some relatives in hiding. And this is where the movie should soar with every possible intrigue and emotion. Richardson is a charming ally we are slightly suspicious about, and Neeson is a Nazi we are not quite as suspicious of as we should be (he's a young handsome fellow here in a role one year before playing the leading German in "Shindler's List").
And there is Griffith's Voss, now suddenly a demure and downright stupid woman. She bumbles, she can't think on her feet, she is slow to move and slow to react. It makes no sense, and it's no fun to watch. We know it should be incredible high stakes fictional movie-making, but it isn't, which only makes it worse. The script is there, the actors are there. But director David Seltzer drags it down in every way, even making the worst of competent Dutch cinematographer Jan de Bont ("Die Hard"). He has a short resume and that's probably a good thing.
If you watch it be warned, you may end up watching the whole thing, all two and half hours. And as one bad choice follows another you'll probably end up agreeing that you might have picked another movie. -
Andrew Hopper1 December 2001What a truly gripping film and storyline!! Melanie Griffith played her role as a spy beautifully, and Michael Douglas added his own special touch to the film.The late John Gielgud and Joely Richardson were also stars who made the film that little bit more eye catching!! In some parts it was emotional too, showing how Germany was like in the 1940's era. A very moving and successful film, which deserved every bit of its 10/10!!
-
paulinewainwright18 February 2006Having read the IMDb reviews about this film beforehand, I was not sure what to expect but, despite all the implausibilities, I was still hooked until the very end. OK, so there are many criticisms you could make about the accuracy and detail etc, but it was still an exciting film. Somehow too much was crammed into the film so that it did not allow the characters to develop fully - Douglas' character remains an enigma (except that he did at least survive to marry Linda), Melanie Griffiths' character smacks of 'dumb blonde who hasn't a clue what she is doing'which is a bit unfair really but that is how she came over - and who knows what Joely Richardson's character was really up to? And Liam Neeson's part could almost have been played by an extra! This film could have been much better if it had had more depth - the actual story had so much more potential which the film failed to reach. And yet it was still very watchable - and I would happily see it again - because at least I know now that they made it over the white line into Switzerland!
-
moonspinner5512 March 2006They had to be kidding: Susan Isaacs' book about an American secretary turning spy during WWII, posing as a nanny in Berlin and moving into the home of a powerful German family, turned into a movie vehicle for "Working Girl"'s Melanie Griffith? Woebegone picture given curiously old-fashioned, melodramatic treatment, like a wartime rerun from the late show. Distinctly modern performers Griffith and Michael Douglas look terribly out of place; Melanie, who professes to be fluent in German (!), just gives us an extension of her golly-gee, "Working Girl" aesthetic, while Douglas brings absolutely nothing to an admittedly thankless role as Griffith's stolid boss. Musty, hokey, empty nonsense did zero for the careers of all involved. How it came to be made in 1992 is anyone's guess. *1/2 from ****
-
steffie5059 April 2002I saw this movie on BRAVO and absolutely loved it. So what if it is unrealistic? It is a movie, after all. If you want reality, rent a documentary or watch the History Channel. It reminds me of an old black and white film from the 40's like "Notorious", "Saboteur", or something of that nature.(Probably one of the reasons I liked it so much.)The suspense was wonderful, as was the romance between Linda and Ed. My eyes were glued to the television from beginning to end, and it left me in a happy state of shock. Even reading the book--which was quite different--didn't change my mind about loving the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a two hour escape from the real world... especially someone looking for a good romance. I still get palpitations thinking about the closing scene. Sigh.
-
vincentlynch-moonoi26 October 2013It's interesting to read through some of the IMDb reviews of this film. People either hate it or love it. I'm somewhere in the middle.
The biggest criticism of this film is that the plot is improbable. Well, that's probably a fair criticism. Of course, if we dismissed all the movies Hollywood makes that are improbable...well, there wouldn't be much left. Of course, the problem here is that this is supposed to be a serious film.
The second biggest criticism of this film is regarding the acting of Melanie Griffith. That's also a fair criticism. My feeling about Griffith always was that she was a limited actress that got lucky on a couple of films. And, this wasn't one of them.
Michael Douglas -- the film lead -- does okay here, as far as I'm concerned. And, Liam Neeson as a German officer does fine, as well. Joely Richardson as a double agent was good, as well. The only disappointment in terms of significant supporting actors was John Gielgud, as a sympathetic German involved in spying. His part is so inconsequential that it could have been handled by an unknown actor.
So, in terms of performances, some are decent, others are not, none are outstanding. One thing that the film is outstanding in is production values. Very impressive, actually.
SO, from my perspective, overall, this is a decent film, and worth watching...once. And, just for the record, it was a money-maker. -
I have a low tolerance for Melanie Griffith; her voice usually gets on my nerves. But here, she's not bad as a strong-willed half-Jewish secretary who falls in love with her boss, a WWII American spy,(Michael Douglas) and persuades him to let her spy as well. Nothing here is overly impressive, and there are some major mistakes, including the fact that Douglas' character doesn't speak any German! Still, a light, enjoyable film.
Vote: 7 -
sabrinambayi-114 June 2010I have watched this film like 100 times I know every word and every part of the film.the story of the film is great the music the decoration and the fact the ending is a happy ending it just makes me love the film even more.Michael Douglas, Liam Neeson are great they did a wonderful job but boy Melanie Griffith not so great her acting job is just terrible oh my god and the sound of that voice its like a cat or a bird or something I can't stand it.
and every time when I have to watch this film I have to watch in French because I just can't stand the sound of her voice.no wonder why she was nominated for a grazzie award.
This is why I have reviewed it 7 out of 10 -
robert-temple-116 December 2008This is a terrible film, ruined by the catastrophic miscasting of the two leads. As the male lead, Michael Douglas gives one of the worst screen performances of the twentieth century. He manages to go all the way through the film without showing the slightest trace of any emotion whatever, despite the fact that the story contains much romance. It would be wrong to say that Douglas is wooden, as that is an insult to wood. Even stone is too good for him. Low-grade concrete would be more like it, the kind that crumbles and gives way. What is wrong with him? He has the eyes of a dead fish floating downstream, several days later. To say that there is no chemistry between him and the hapless Melanie Griffith is such an understatement that there is no point: how can you have chemistry with a corpse who kisses you? Melanie Griffith struggles valiantly to show emotion, and often succeeds, but she is walking in molasses. The situation is not helped by the fact that she was desperately miscast and is not at all well directed. Her soft voice is tragically wrong for the part, her quiet manner totally off beam. The underlying story seems to have been good, and Susan Isaacs's novel must have been interesting. In the second half, the film even becomes exciting despite itself, through the sheer power of the story, though the plot and details are all wrong in the film. The one splendid performance in the film, which is truly dazzling, is by Joely Richardson. She would have been a far, far better choice for the female lead. And Liam Neeson, who also does well, could have been the male lead. Why relegate those two fine actors to supporting roles? This whole film is simply a disaster. But if done properly, it could perhaps have been marvellous.
-
cableaddict16 January 2004This will be a very short review. As i write this, "Shining Through" only has 5.8 stars, and I am just flabberghasted. This is a very sad statement on the typical movie-goer, I guess.
I just watched this movie for the third or fourth time. It's clearly Melanie Griffiths finest performance, and just a perfect movie overall. It delivers the goods on many levels, is never boring, and always believable.
So, just to bump it up a hair, I give it TEN stars. (Realistically I'd give it an 8.5, but the rating badly needs to go up!) -
dickklip31 January 2015This is a tale of war, love and espionage. Set in the present (1992, when it was made) but focused on the past (WWII) . Melanie Griffith plays an Irish/Jewish 1st generation immigrant, with relatives still in Germany, who takes a job as a secretary for a mysterious government worker (Michael Douglas). What ensues despite it's "goofs" and "plot holes" is a good thriller, whose intensity builds as it goes, with a definite film noir, and 40's melodrama feel to it. It also has a "Hitchcock" feel to it during the last hour. If you can suspend your disbelief on the flaws and overlook Melanie Griffith's horrible acting and sing song, unemotional, child-like voice. (any other dramatic female star of the time would have been better),this is still a good movie. Not great, but good enough to watch and enjoy.
-
sharlenescott12 April 2013I had never seen this WWII spy flick prior till tonight. I tuned in because I saw Liam Neeson's name in the credits. I found this movie barely watchable. Melanie Griffith's narration in her dizzy girl voice drove me to distraction. The plot and dialogue were ridiculous (secretaries got to chime in during top secret briefings in the 40's and volunteer johnny-on- the -spot to be a spy)Michael Douglas seemed wooden and bored. The two leads Griffith and Douglas had no chemistry whatsoever. My favorite part was when Mel's newly minted secret spy bag's hidden compartment popped open in front of the SS guy and he barely blinks. He looks at her papers then leaves. Basically everyone else had to look dumber than Melanie, the dumbest spy the Allies ever unleashed on Germany. Another implausible moment was when the character has the bright idea of taking the kiddies of SS officer Liam Neeson to a Jewish ghetto to find her relatives . As soon as they got home, the kids tells dad all about their little adventure and he doesn't seem curious or angry that they were put in serious danger! So much of this was bad or poorly executed. Don't waste your time waiting for any shining moments in "Shining Through."
-
ccthemovieman-118 January 2007I acquired this mainly because it is a beautifully-filmed period piece centered around World War II. There are several train station scenes that I think about when recalling this film. They are a couple of the highlights of the fine cinematography and set designs in here. Overall, the movie had nice 1940s feel to it with the cars, dress, hairstyles and colors. It also is good to see this on widescreen DVD.
The story also is interesting but not exactly plausible in one major regard: Melanie Griffith as a spy. sorry, but the bimbo-like quality of Melanie's voice, doesn't lead credence to playing this kind of character. I just can't picture her as some super-intelligent spy, but maybe she's a lot smarter than the roles she usually plays.
Otherwise, this is a well-done, involving suspense film that I enjoy from start to finish. -
jzappa23 June 2009Shining Through is a 1992 romantic thriller with a WWII espionage edge that attracts our ceaseless interest in that time in history. It tries even harder nevertheless to appeal to an even wider audience by adopting the tone and style of Mervyn LeRoy movies, that swift, superficially efficient gib shot festival approach and capricious indulgence in the flashback and dream sequence formats. Indeed, the movie is told in flashbacks, to no necessary end, with an aged, awkwardly demure Melanie Griffith recalling her story for a BBC interviewer. This would have worked better if Griffith had found a way to add mileage on her speaking voice, which stays in her common asthmatic, good-little-girl pattern. It was said in this film's era of release that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Hollywood would have to double back to the Nazi generation for their villains. Thankfully, they cooked up some smarter Nazis for subsequent films. Maybe Susan Isaacs' initial material stands a better chance of preventing certain elements from straying too far into the clouds.
Nevertheless, the main turning point of the story is what makes the least sense: No intelligence agency, no matter how hard up, especially in a world war, would send a secretary behind enemy lines with no training, or a senior officer who doesn't even know the freakin' language. Also, if you, a secretary with no combat experience, can hide a microfilm in your glove right before winding up incoherent in a laundry basket and not wearing any gloves, being discovered scantily clad overall, more power to you, but the movie gives us no plausible reason why Griffith should be boasting of this in her interview, or why a journalist for a network as prestigious as the BBC would buy it.
But since it is what it is, we have Michael Douglas, playing a Colonel in the OSS, covering as a lawyer. Purposeful, sophisticated. Melanie Griffith's character reacts to him as if he is humorless. Nonetheless, quiet or loud, he always seems powerful and determined. And Griffith, all things considered, empowers her character with a noble bearing.
The subject matter offers a great mine of fascination, intensity and entertainment, not to mention suspense. The Resistance during WWII had a profound effect on its partisans. There are many films, before this one and after, that more portray the sensory, tangled reality of the experience and less trivialize it in romanticized escapism. Nonetheless, can one fault a film for having been entertained by it? -
l_enterprise28 December 2007This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot was so full of holes (both under the historical and logical points of view) that you really got to wonder if the screen writer had the faintest idea of what life was like in war time Europe... Just some examples: the chances of somebody running around in a night dress in the dead of the night in Berlin without being stopped by the police would have been zero; there were no phone boots around the city in those days; the Gestapo cars sure did not have contemporary north-American type sirens; if the blond lady friend of M Griffith was indeed a Nazi, why was the old guy working for the Americans still at large until the very end; and the list could go on and on... It is sad to see that Hollywood can do such a lousy job on such an important topic; what's more, it is frightening to see that many viewers thought this was a realistic movie!