Such a frustrating disappointment

Simply A Masterpiece

Redundant and unnecessary.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

I just wanted to express how much I enjoyed this film. I watched the almost 5 hour directors cut of this film for the first time on August 2017. I enjoyed the film so much that I lost track of time and was totally surprised that 280 min. had passed (4 hrs 40 min). I had never heard of Director Wim Wenders and I must say that I am now a fan. I am looking forward to viewing more of his films! For those of you that have read bad reviews for this film, ignore them. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Great Music, Characters, Acting and Story. Definitely one of my new favorites!

...said the voice over in the trailer and to be honest neither did TheoI made a point of watching this sometime in the early 1990s due to the hype involving U2 contributing to the soundtrack . This was before the internet era so it was kind of difficult for a layman to check facts and film critic Kim Newman in a review suggested that Bono and the boys had more than a little input in to the soundtrack . The title of the film does of course come from a track from their 1991 masterwork album Achtung Baby so you can understand where I'm coming from . On top of that Newman suggested this was road movie meets the apocalypse and I do love speculative fiction and being vaguely aware of Wim Wenders who did a strange twist on the serial killer thriller genre THE GOALKEEPERS FEAR OF THE PENALTY . On top of that it does contain several well known names in the shape of Hurt , Neill and Von Sydow. It surely can't have been a bad film in that case? An Indian nuclear satellite spins out of orbit and threatens to destroy the world so what does everyone do ? They stand around discussing their lives and the human condition . Is this logical ? Probably not . Is it compelling in any way ? Definitely not . This is really tedious stuff with the plot aimlessly wandering about . If you think there's a subtext to this where the plot line is mirroring the characters in the film I suggest you stop taking university film courses and try and find something more productive in life . I'm not being cruel just pointing out that this is the type of film that only gets produced to appeal to students and film snobs . I'm not defending the rubbish that Michael Bay and the rest of Hollywood churn out but there comes a point where the average audience member has had enough of slow moving brooding introspection and hope the film ends before the world does Apart from having a severe lack of anything to hold the interest of the audience there's a painfully unrealistic depiction of the very near future . In the 1991 depiction of 1999 nearly everyone wears a hat . In the real world of 1999 the only people wearing hats were chavs sporting baseball caps so the film has got that minor detail wrong and a major detail about having a machine that can capture dreams . Perhaps the worst mistake with hindsight is Wenders claiming the soundtrack reflects the type of music the featured artists would be performing in 1999 . This patently unlikely especially where U2 were concerned . In 1999 they were working on All You Can't Leave Behind which was a departure from their 1990s material so I'm afraid Wenders got that one wrong same as he seems to have misjudged everything else about the film

'Until the End of the World' is a disassembled mess that lays a lot of plot points on the table but never bothers to put them all together. It is directed by Wim Wenders, a specialist in movies that start out with mysterious strangers and gradually involves us in their plight.This very long movie starts off rather well: A nuclear satellite has been knocked out of earth's orbit and his heading for earth. A young woman (Solveig Dommartin) is on her way to be with a man who is not her boyfriend. Along the way she meets a man (William Hurt) who is being chased by some rather tough characters.From there the movie is a long series of travels from on continent to another picking up things that we think will be important to the story. Eventually we end up in Australia where Hurt's father (Max Von Sydow) is working on a cure for the blind. Ho-hum. What does it all matter when the end of the world hangs over their heads.I just saw "Last Night" another movie the about approaching apocalypse. That movie was about real characters and asks what they would do in this situation. This too long with too much plot.I like Wenders style of taking characters and having the patience to develop their story rather then tell us everything them play it out. This movie does that but it means nothing. It is all a confused jigsaw puzzle seemingly containing pieces it can't use.

This is my favourite film but it will not be to everyone's taste. The mix of whimsy and melancholy will puzzle some, who may ask how seriously they are meant to take it? Its length and occasional problems with continuity will put others off. Added to this, what is intended to be the central romantic relationship never quite convinces. But the film as a whole is redeemed by its sheer ambition and, most importantly, the humanity and the generosity of its vision.It's 1999 - that's seven years into the future - and the world is threatened by an orbiting satellite that carries a powerful nuclear device. Meanwhile, Henry Farber has stolen a camera of his own invention from the American government, not trusting the uses to which they might put it. He sends his son, Sam, around the world, collecting images with this device. These images are to be electronically projected into the brain of Henry's blind wife, Edith. On his travels, Sam picks up a stalker, Claire Tourneur, who is on the rebound from a broken relationship with the writer, Gene FitzPatrick. Sam collects images for his mother. Claire chases Sam. Gene chases Claire. The investigator, Philip Winter, who appeared in Wenders' previous film, 'Alice in the Cities,' chases all of them. Eventually, everyone ends up at Henry's lab in the Australian outback, the satellite having exploded and, with all communication cut off, no-one being sure whether the world is still alive. Here, the precious images are projected into Edith's head and, in the single most moving scene in any film (IMHO), she sees a picture of her San Francisco dwelling daughter Elsa, for the first time, but with no idea whether Elsa herself is still alive.And there's more to it than that. Much more.As Sam, William Hurt delivers a convincing and sympathetic performance throughout. Sam Neill is likable as Gene. Rudiger Vogler as Winter is stratospherically cool. Max von Sydow, as Henry, is intensely flawed yet utterly sympathetic and, appearing on screen only about half way through, comes close to making the second half of the movie his own. Jeanne Moreau as Edith is, at some points, heartbreakingly moving. Special mention must go to Solveig Dommartin, who played Claire and who conceived some of the story. It was clearly a labour of love for her - for example, finding that they couldn't film in China, she snuck in with a video camera and taped a few lo-fi sequences single-handed. The film's lack of immediate success must have upset her deeply, and her premature death has robbed her of the chance to witness the recognition that this lovely, warm-hearted story is, little by little, beginning to get, now that the four-hour version is available on DVD. Not to everyone's taste then, but those of us who like it, love it.