User reviews

"Faraway, So Close!" is a very confusing movie if one has either not seen its predecessor, "Wings of Desire," or knows something about that movie. I was in that state when I first viewed "Faraway, So Close!" and could only think that I was watching an artsy movie. Fortunately, the movie is now available on DVD in a widescreen anamorphic version with the director's commentary of Wim Wenders. The movie began in black and white and seemed to morph every now and then into color that had me wondering whether or not I had a defective DVD. Eventually, I figured out, as the movie was running, that this was intentional with the black and white sequences depicting the angel(s) observing humans. In the meantime, I managed to miss much of the subtlties of the movie that were only revealed from the lips of Wim Wenders in his running audio commentary. With a backdrop of Berlin, the movie was filmed in German. Fortunately, there are English subtitles and it is sometimes odd when the dialog actually breaks into English. As Wenders points out, this was his third movie with Nastassja Kinski that began with her very first movie in 1975, "The Wrong Movement," and was followed by the 1984 "Paris, Texas." Spaced approximately 10 years apart and with "Faraway, So Close" in 1993, Wenders mentioned that it is now time to do a fourth picture with Nastassja. One can only hope that it materializes.

The basic story has to do with the protagonist as Cassiel, the actor Otto Sander, taking human form from his previous angelic state in which he can only observe and sympathize. An event propels his wishful transformation into the human dilemma. Wim Wenders said that this film was a continuation of "Wings of Desire" and not a sequel. It is probably splitting hairs because I do not readily understand the difference, if any. Nastassja Kinski has the major supporting role of Raphaela and is always shown in black and white. Raphaela becomes Cassiel's, always present, angel. It is a very difficult role to pull off because Nastassja only has her voice (in German), her facial expressions, her hands, and her body movements to bring her character to life. Her on screen presence appears natural and effortless. It is nothing less than a superb performance of a first rate actress. But it is up to Otto Sander to carry the movie. The supporting cast is first rate.

My third viewing of the film was an experience. 146 minutes passes relatively quickly. The film is dripping with intensity and is larger than life. Wim Wenders' vision and its execution is astonishing and will reverberate through time because it captures the essence of life and death. It is a movie director's awesome tour de force.

This film is about passion. A flicker on the eyes of an angel, our brief lives are as unique and intense as they are ephemeral, and time itself is the fire that burn our passions and desires. Complex and multicultural, the film is disturbingly deep as it is light, a contrast of innocence and evil, showing how the Faust compromise can be present and right/wrong can become difficult to define. Also, the participation of Lou Reed and Peter Falk as themselves bring Faust to reality, as a mirror to ourselves. The deeply german Wenders pay a compliment to Gorbatchev for the fall of the Wall, maybe telling us the duality of time, that can be good and evil like the faces of a coin. Wonderful piece of art.

It's difficult to make a sequel as good as the original. If it's done in the same style, it becomes a poor shadow. Here, Wim Wenders has made something different than in "Wings of Desire:" what I consider a comedy of a misfit ex-angel, to counter the desire of an angel to become human in the other film.

Near the end of the other movie, we saw one of the angels, Damiel, become human for the love of a beautiful trapeze artist. In this film, we see the other angel, Cassiel, become human by accident as he wanted to help people. As much as he wanted to fit in with our world, the more he tried to do good, the worse trouble actually made of things. He often quotes the Lou Reed song he heard: "Why can't I be good, make something of this life?"

There is a cameo appearance of a world leader, when Mikhail Gorbachev (filmed the summer after resigning as Soviet president) ponders the age-old question about the meaning and purpose of life; or two leaders if counting that the guard dog's name is Khadafy. There are jokes about getting lost between East and West, since the Wall no longer was there as a landmark. But there is the serious side at the beginning, of the war and the Nazi past, which is a little hard to follow. I almost forgot about it as I got caught up in the humor of the fallen angel, but even that had the darker side of an evil angel who was leading him astray. Yet the ending tied everything together nicely.

Like "Wings of Desire," there are nice transitions between black and white, which is how the angels see the world, and color, for how humans see things. There is also a poem started at the beginning, about humans being everything to the angels, when Cassiel looks down from the statue to "you whom we love." The angels are just the "messengers who bring light to those in darkness." The poem is repeated at the ending, adding that the message is love.

The angels lament that humans can only believe what they can see and touch. The Wall fell, the tangible symbol of the division between East and West, yet still one driver whose thoughts we heard couldn't see what the difference was between the two areas; freedom can't be seen or touched. Love, the angels message, can be neither seen nor touched, yet that, and not "blood and steel" (as said the Russian poet and diplomat that Gorbachev quotes), is what is needed for there to be peace.

This movie is exceptional. It never fails to make me cry. It is a contemporary Epic Poem about an Angel who enters time and becomes human in order to become more skillful at his eternal task. It is long (nearly 2.5 hours) and probably a little challenging for short attention spans. The cinematography is stunning. The script is incredibly complicated with hidden messages and multiple levels of symbolism. It won the Prix du Jury at Cannes (1993). It doesn't suck.

I can say this movie is one of the best movies I have ever watched (and I watched a lot of them). The roles were very well interpreted by good actors. Even when they are no actors at all, as Mikhail Gorbachyov who appears in a scene. Many things make this movie special. In it five languages are being spoken. Nevertheless it doesn't really matter. The protagonists can understand what is being said as though language difference is not that relevant for humans to understand each other. The pictures are the usual great Wim Wenders pictures. Black and white pictures indicate the coolness of the world of angels while colors indicate how colorful the world could be for humans (if they can see it!). It is an analysis of the relationship of man with the world around. Humans think that they are controlling the world, but the world is controlling their lives in fact. It shows how blind we can be in contemplating the beauty of the world around us. In this matter one could mention the movie called "The awakenings" (1990) although the two movies are in most aspects different. It is a movie about an angel who wants to become human in order to be able to understand humans, and how he gets into a complicated life. It helps a lot to see "The wings of desire" where the story between angels and humans started. Some things are hard to understand when you don't know the first movie. This movie is also an analysis of time. Emit Flesti (read backward Time itself) is a very interesting character that can communicate with both angels and humans, and who speaks about almost always about time and its meaning. For me he was also a mix of Lucifer and the death angel as well. The background of the whole story is Berlin after the fall of the wall, whereas "The wings of desire" took place before the end of the cold war.

This movie makes a genius use of fantasy to analyze our lives. Its main message is : "We (the angels) are not the message. We are the messengers and the message is love".

"Faraway, So Close!" is filmmaker Wim Wenders' follow-up to his well-regarded "Wings of Desire". Once again, an angel (Otto Sander as Cassiel) chooses to descend from the heavens and live among humans. Cassiel reunites with old friend Damiel (Bruno Ganz), getting involved in the lives of Damiel & his family and assorted others. Human life, he finds, is full of all sorts of ups and downs, and is notable for its unpredictability.

With Wenders making philosophical musings on the nature of time itself, he creates a rich gallery of engaging characters, all acted to perfection by a stunning international cast (Peter Falk, Lou Reed (playing themselves), Willem Dafoe, Horst Buchholz, Nastassja Kinski, Heinz Ruhmann, Rudiger Vogler, etc.). Even world leader Mikhail Gorbachev turns up in a quick cameo to ponder the meaning of it all. The script is very literate and heartfelt, and this viewer couldn't help but be moved by the ever-twisting tale, right up to the ending.

Granted, such a film isn't for everyone, especially since "Faraway, So Close!" runs close to two and a half hours. It's beautifully made, however, with seamless transitions from black & white (the way that the angels see the world) to colour and then back again. And the score is wonderful, with soundtrack contributions by Reed (who appears in concert), U2, and Johnny Cash. The story may not always be completely absorbing: this viewer enjoyed the tale more in the early going, as Cassiel adjusts to living as a human, before the plot gets bogged down in an effort to foil master criminal Buchholz.

Even with its imperfections, this IS fairly powerful stuff, and a worthy viewing for lovers of European cinema.

Seven out of 10.

Wim Wenders may not be taken seriously by Hollywood (or critics) anymore, but he seems able to pull in actors and musicians at will. Great soundtrack.

Great cast as well. Check out Horst Bucholz (sp?) here and in the 1962 comedy "One, Two, Three" with James Cagney. All the "mortals", especially Bruno Ganz, seem almost gleeful. Only Willem Dafoe appears to be in a "serious German movie".

I may not be qualified to comment on the real value of this movie because "Wings of Desire" is in my permanent top 5. It probably benefits from the glow of it's precursor more than any other sequel, because I really wanted to catch up with these characters. I smiled every time I saw a familiar face.

That said, it takes about an hour to settle in but finally gets sort of serious. Watching this and "Until the End of The World" (also ripped by critics) I get the feeling Wenders was either being lazy or just freestyling to avoid boredom. Looks like fun from here.

A group of angels in the German capital look longingly upon the life of humans.

I think generally people consider "Wings of Desire" to be the better film between that one and this. And there is good reason for that. One, it was first, so it has a bit of an edge on originality. And two, it was remade into "City of Angels", so it got some attention from Hollywood. The average American film-goer probably has no idea there was a German version 9or a sequel).

But I think this film has its own charm. Peter Falk is amusing, and you wonder if he really draws and why he would be in Berlin. Willem Dafoe (who does not play himself) was still relatively unknown at this point (though this is post-Last Temptation) and it is nice to see him in a European film. To this day (2016), he never shies away from controversial films, even if he is kind of a jerk in real life.

Although it has received mixed reviews by critics, this follow-up to "Der Himmel über Berlin" (1987) is a deeply moving and beautiful film. Wenders explores the polarities which exist in a newly unified Berlin and in so doing examines some of the polarities which exist in life itself. As "Cassiel," Otto Sander has given us another endearing Wenders protagonist who learns all too quickly about what life (and time) can present upon an individual. Laurent Petitgand's stunning musical score enhances the sublime images photographed by Jürgen Jürges. Although "Der Himmel über Berlin" (1987), is an almost mandatory pre-requisite, "In weiter Ferne, so nah!" (1993) is a vastly different film which proves itself in its own right.

Cinema has produced many wonderful films over the past century or so, but when looking at the various elements of film combined here, there is no other movie which touches me quite so positively, quite as deeply as this one.

I could be wrong, maybe I just did not get it but this film was such a horrible sequel to "Wings of Desire" that I could only watch the film in total astonishment at how horrific and poorly executed the film was. The title song by U2 is great. The trapeze scenes were totally stupid and out of place but hey, some one out there greenlighted the film. I'm just glad I didn't.

To enjoy this movie, view it as a poem. It relies on the language of the heart and asks its viewers to see it as it truly is, through the same myopic eyes to try and understand a dream. There is the duality of existence we all face, mirrored through the experience of an angel who falls to earth, who falls precisely because he can no longer contain himself within the restrictions of his identity. The central metaphor of this movie is about the passion, truth and love we are all promised, should we choose to live life as we were meant. There are the difficulties of trying to live out our singular purpose, the disappointments of relation, the trials of being part of something greater than self. In all these, there is also the beauty inherent, and ultimate understanding. The triumph of beautiful release, when we realise that all that has gone before is both behind us and a part of what we are, and the relief of becoming an individual, and understanding and embracing aspirations gained and lost.

Faraway, so close (1993)

In this lesser follow up to great classic Wings of Desire (Der Himmel uber Berlin) the second Angel, Cassiel (Otto Sander) decides to sacrifice his immortality.

Movie is heavily flawed. Overlong for its content, inconclusively mixing various genres and losing central point. Meditation on Time, Life and its true values is much less revealing and Cassiel's path fuzzy, with hard-to-buy elements. His transitions from ''zero point'' down and back are dramatically and emotionally uncovered. Sander is not nearly good in this role as Bruno Ganz was.

Unnecessary Williem Dafoe's character adds much to the dispersion of the film and the touches of banality. You'll get a very few clever and ''to think'' observations in 2 and a half hours of mostly uninspiring, less ethereal and much less original ''version of'' its predecessor. Pay attention to Henri Alekan, brilliant cinematographer from Wings of Desire in the role of the Captain of the ship.

I've seen this film days ago, and I am still touched by it very deeply - I'm still thinking about it, its implications, the actors (especially Otto Sander), and the warmth and tenderness it conveys. Intellectual cinema highly recommended to everyone who wants to be moved and touched on a very deep level. This is THE film!

Every so often, I come upon a film that I can't really describe as either GOOD or BAD--they just seem to transcend words and explanation. What you think of this movie will depend a lot upon whether or not you pay strict attention and try to make sense of the movie or just turn off your brain and watch the beauty of this movie. If you are one of those who want it to make sense, then you will sadly disappointed, as the movie abounds with plot holes and inconsistencies. But, if you just turn off your brain, you will be amply rewarded. I think I fall more in the first group, as at times I got awfully bogged down by the MANY problems with the plot (naming all of them would take pages, believe me). But, I gotta respect the makers of this film to taking risks and trying to produce something unique!

One final word. This is the sequel to Wings of Desire and the original is a much more satisfying movie overall. If you only see one, see Wings of Desire.

I watched this movie the first time about 10 years ago and I was deeply touched. It's a celebration of all that is good about us human beings in a world that fails to choose what is good out of fear and because of past disappointments.

The fact that an angel returns to earth to continue to grow is a symbolism of an ennobling idea that humanity never ends, not even after death, and that progression doesn't end, even after death.

If nothing else, this movie should be a motivating factor to look at what's good. At best, it encourages us to be and do good because of the potential rewards that transcend this life.

This is my favorite movie of all time. I saw it at its time of release and now own it on DVD. It brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it. The movie really portrays the complexities of us human beings, so wonderful and yet so frail. Cassiel discovers that life as a human is much harder than he thought, but despite the despair and temptations, there is hope and tenderness... I haven't seen the Wings of Desire -only its very bad Hollywood remake, City of Angels- but I don't think you have to see that other movie, so called prequel, to appreciate this beautiful film. Cassiel becomes a human for his love of all human kind, not one particular person... that's a great definition of unconditional love.

OK -- so maybe I was generous. But it really hit the spot, intellectually and visually.

Like I said, don't listen to the "not as good as the original". This not only does better than most sequels, but "scores" as a logical and emotional continuation.

I haven't seen "City of Angels" (you know, the American remake), yet, "In weiter Ferne .." seems closer to "Angels" than "Wings".

This is classic Wenders -- slow developing, ponderous, yet emotive. Great cinematography, editing, screen writing.

And yes, Peter Falk is great in his in-and-out appearances.

This review may not be a "10", but like the shrugs you've heard about this film -- don't let it prevent you from a memorable evening.

I LOVED Wings of Desire more than I can express and was looking forward to the sequel. It was so long in coming that I thought perhaps the "To Be Continued..." at the end of Wings was a comment about life continuing. I went into Far Away, So Close with high hopes that were utterly dashed. It was convoluted, busy, and stupid. I instantly wished I had never seen it and had kept my memory of Wings untainted with such drivel. I am stunned to see that so many people liked it. They must not have seen Wings. The scene where the circus performers and Peter Falk rob the porn warehouse is particularly cringe inducing. Someone please burn the negative.

I recommend this film to all the jaded and cynical people of the world. It will touch the core of your heart and give you a spiritual yearning for that which we cannot see. When Cassiel falls to earth he can finally touch, feel, hear and experience the feelings of loneliness and joy. He finds his existence on earth in Berlin difficult and finds it hard to comprehend the swift passing of time and the limited outlook of the individual who can only see their own reality in how it affects them. Natassja Kinski who plays Angel Raphaela is on hand to offer comfort and solace to Cassiel when he begins to despair. The sweeping contrasts between black & white and colour add profound depth to this movie, as do the real people who play themselves : Gorbachev, Lou Reed and Peter Falk. Wim Wenders who directed this movie is a foresighted genius of compassion and ethereal visions.

Depth. Colorful black and white despair and hope. Density and purity.

11 words. Too many, to less.