If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Finn, the successful photographer, is an artist of this medium. As the story begins, he is involved with several important projects. One that is close to his heart, is a shoot with a pregnant Milla Jovovich. As far as the work goes, he is not satisfied, and neither is the actress. He suggests a change of locales. While examining some portfolio, he decides to finish the work in Palermo, Sicily.Just before leaving, Finn has an unnerving experience. One night driving his convertible, listening to a loud soundtrack, he almost collides with another car driven by a mysterious figure, he does not quite get to see. Finn seems to be a man searching for more than what he now possesses. In spite of his fame he is not a fulfilled man. One day, Finn, who has climbed a tree that overlooks a placid meadow near the Rhine, meets another mysterious man dressed in a plastic raincoat who is tending to a flock of sheep. After the shoot with Milla Jovovich is over, Finn decides to stay in Palermom for a while. The end result of his work is excellent, although for the finished product showing a nude Milla, he could have done it in his home base in Germany. The city has an intriguing allure to Finn. While admiring the area of the Quattro Canti, he falls asleep by the side of one of the buildings he has been admiring. He is awakened by the mysterious hooded figure who is wielding a bow and arrow aiming at him. He feels wounded, but there is no sign of having been hit at all.Walking through the old streets of Palermo taking pictures with his camera, Finn discovers a museum. The door is open and he takes a chance going in. The only people in the place are two women that are restoring a giant painting from an obscure Sicilian artist. Flavia, who comes down to talk to Finn, tells him about the picture. In the center there is an animal-like figure that represents death. He is surprised to see a couple of clerics that appear to be dead stabbed by arrows. Through his walks in the city, Finn comes face to face with death symbols that, in a way, give him an uneasy feeling. Flavia shows a reluctance to getting involved with Finn, but he wants to continue seeing her. She takes him to the port giving him a chance to see the magnificent views of Palermo. Finn takes picture with his prized camera. While photographing an interesting angle, he discovers a figure aiming at him. Trying to avoid the arrow, Finn breaks the camera and falls in the water.As a surprise, Flavia decides to take Finn to her late grandmother's home in a hill town. The old house has a mystery about it that plays into the surreal antique setting. One night, Finn is awakened by a noise. He steps into the old library where he is chased by a man bathed in a white light that makes him appear as a ghost. Finn comes face to face with the man, who proclaims he is death. The ghost-like figure points out to Finn's brush with death. It all makes sense to him. Figuring he is about to die, he has yet, another surprise coming to him.Wim Wender's "Palermo Shooting" was shown recently on a cable channel. The film does not seem to have been commercially released in the United States, but seen in festivals. It is a shame because although the director is not aiming for a broad audience, it pays off for serious fans of his work. Mr. Wenders work in this film is almost a continuation of some of his past work, more to the point, "Wings of Desire". The film is dedicated to two influential masters in Mr. Wender's life, Michelangelo Antonioni and Igmar Bergman. One can see how "Blowup" might have impressed him. Campino, appearing as Finn, does an amazing job for the director. Dennis Hopper gets reunited with Mr. Wenders in a small, but pivotal role. The gorgeous Giovanna Mezzogiorno is perfect as Flavia. There are some familiar faces in the film doing cameos for the director, notably, Lou Reed and Milla Jovovich. The film owes a lot to the editing of two men, Oli Weiss and Peter Przygodda. The cinematography by Franz Lustig captures images that add the aura of mystery and suspense. The musical score by Irmin Schmidt blends well with the popular songs being played. Although most people thought this film to be flawed and pretentious, it will be enjoyed by fans of Wim Wenders.

image - still and moving - digital - film - panorama - window - painting. how is the world described in photographic/image capture? who sees? framing. who is seeing? what is seen? what is shown? dreams. i am a camera. this is maybe an over extension of the metaphor, but clearly states the idea of the seer seeing. audience. and the seer showing. story through experience, not always linear or real. and always - great views of the city. great mix of language & languages. vision. so much feeling, showing and not telling. faces, moments, real, unreal... "I watch it for a little while = I love to watch things on TV" this was interesting to see in las vegas, of all the places in the world.

"It's a Wim Wenders film. It is either going to be brilliant or a complete joke. You have to go." This was the first thing I heard about the film Palermo Shooting, and seeing how Matt Noller was usually right about his critiques of film, I decided to go.Not a full minute into the film, Matt and I simultaneously look at each other under the glow of the screen in the Grand Lumiere Theater and say, unanimously, "Uh-oh." To say that watching the film was an excruciating experience would be an understatement of its atrocities. Normally, when someone offends me deeply, I write a letter to try to sort out exactly what went wrong.Here is my open letter to the film Palermo Shooting, entitled: You Stole Two Hours of My Life and I Would Like Them Back, Please! Dear Palermo Shooting, Why are you here in Cannes this year? You seemed so terribly out of place last night. This really, really wasn't your year. In fact, I'm kind of offended that you showed up. I am wondering if you were embarrassed by yourself last night, because you should be. You were acting ridiculous, and in the Grand Lumiere Theater and everything! I felt bad for you, really I did. Sometimes, when you were being particularly annoying, I tried to close my eyes and fall asleep, just to avoid second-hand embarrassment. But then your loud, bludgeoning German voice wouldn't allow for that. So, thanks, for starters.But let's talk about this. I mean… I'm sure you didn't do it on purpose. It was a satire, right? Right? You know, like a joke? Like, "Oh, here's another film about the meaning of life and seizing the day and don't waste time… aren't I funny and witty, ha ha?" Right? You didn't honestly believe you were being original with all that "death is just the absence of love" junk, did you? …You did.Well, in that case, I feel even worse for you. Most of the movie I felt like I was trapped in a living Myspace page, complete with melancholy music, out of kilter stares and a tattoo-clad German man that I never once cared about. OK, almost once, but then the whirring violin music made me think of a bad Italian soap opera and I forgot to care.In fact, that music made me feel the opposite of compassion. There were times when I really hoped that hooded figure (you know, the one that shoots invisible arrows from the future) would kill that guy Finn and the movie would be over just so I didn't have to hear any more music.Now I do have a few questions for you, just for my own peace of mind. Did that scene in Death's Library, the one between Finn and Frank (AKA Death), did that really happen? Or did I make that up? I am hoping that it was a figment of my sick imagination… my own selfish, masochistic ways that wanted the movie to be even worse than it already was. In all of the terrible scenes in all of the terrible movies, this one takes the cake. Not only was the dialog completely laughable (Finn: Not now! I love my life! Frank: It didn't look that way to me. And I looked very carefully. Finn: Maybe I was too busy! Frank: No, that's not it. You did not honor life, Finn Gilbert!), but the lighting, the scenery, the costumes… everything in this scene was terrible. Dennis Hopper has definitely run out of options if he agreed, unforced and non-drugged, to do that scene.You did give us something, though. You did give us a fun game to play after the film, a game called "Would You Rather" consisting of all the things we would rather do besides watching your movie ever again. It went a little something like this: Would you rather watch an entire season of Dharma and Greg, or watch Palermo Shooting? While the choice was always easy, it gave us a break from repeating "that was just so bad!" over and over. You provided us hours of entertainment for after the movie, which I'm not sure was the point.The only way your movie could have been worse was if Keanu Reeves had been the lead role. Actually, Keanu might have made it better! It is too hard to say at this point. (Which, is to say, that movie was really awful.) So I've been a little harsh, I'm sorry. But you should be sorry, too. Your movie took the spot of some other director's film that could have had its big break at Cannes. The script, the production, the financing, the editing… it all had to go through so many people that I'm not sure exactly how this film got made. Just think of all of the people that looked at this and said "Yes! Let's do it!" It's disturbing. However it happened, it was a waste. For a movie that was so blatant about "not wasting life"… you sure wasted everyone's time and money.Maybe take your own mantra of "death is just the absence of love" and realize that you should spend more time living yourself and less time making movies. Not only would your life be better, but ours would, too.Such is life, I suppose… Morgan

I watched the film in Cannes with anticipation, and great 'trepidation' at the same time( given the director's previous flop) but came out nicely surprised, as did other people that I had the opportunity to exchange views with afterwards. There was an obvious feeling that Wenders has delivered us a very special film, and one that is predominantly visionary in every way. But of course, this is not the opinion of many, who have been for a while unforgiving of Wenders and are still waiting for the next "Wings of Desire"...well folks, that 'aint gonna happen' simply because Wenders is one of those rare directors that never looks back. Maybe someone would care to notice that "Palermo Shooting" is probably Wenders' most personal and cathartic work since "Kings of The Road", and that the portrayal of a slightly impassive well known photographer( just as in the mentioned classic), who has come to a crossroads in is life falls beyond just being a coincidence, or a gimmick, but it is deliberate and mirrors more often than not Wenders himself. In Palermo, we feel to our bones the confusion and loneliness that Campino( for whom Wenders wrote this script)experiences, through the powerful and beautifully composed shots and music that follow him as he comes to grip with Palermo and his own ghosts. Wenders presents us with incredibly varied and well chosen music and introduces the very 'of the moment' use of the ipod to deliver the tracks to coincide with the central character own moves. This concept on its own is not just a clever device but a subtle social comment, at which Wender's has always been good. It says an awful lot about modern man at the cutting edge enjoying a successful professional life, surrounded by every possible gadget which help him and control him at the same time. All the props that define Campino's character are desirable, from the 360 degree rotating camera to the beautiful classic car. So, even the way he wanders through Palermo's old streets make the film ultra modern, and breathtaking. Here Wenders is in top form in the composition of his scenes and juxtaposition of cultures and ideas.One of my favourite scenes in the film is when the photographer walks into a derelict old theatre following some screaming voices. After walking through the empty corridors he arrives at the source of the screams: a heated play is being rehearsed and a man appears to be shouting to a chair that he holds at face level. The lines being shouted are not subtitled for stronger effect, and Campino takes a sit on a back bench and just soaks in(as does the audience) the entire scene: the derelict theatre, semi open to the elements, the passionate play that he cannot understand and it is so alien to his controlled self and culture....unable to tare himself away he stays until he falls asleep. The entire film is full of subtle and poignant moments and the cohesive and straight story is blended to great effect with the surreal and supernatural. The use of special effect is unprecedented in Wenders' work and here he achieves a very different type of film with the help of these, permeating the psyche of his lead and pushing him into further confusion, to the point were he cannot tell the difference between dream and reality, and were the surreal takes centre stage as the film reaches it's climax. Which points at the sheer metaphor that life is. How often do we find ourselves in situations which seem surreal and that go beyond 'coincidence'? I for one could tell a few. The story of a self centred and successful man who, after having had a near death experience,goes through a live changing crisis is is indeed not new and has been tackled successfully before, BUT Wenders goes a step forward and in a original,and comic too, way makes his character and DEATH( played to perfection by a wise old Dennis Hopper)confront each other once more, keeping his lead, and us, always on the edges of reality, in a way that is reminiscent of "Wings of Desire" indeed. He also blatantly turns death into a 'good guy' who is there to advise as much as to scare...two concepts that are just a thread apart. Death makes the photographer question his intentions, even down to the presumptuous use of his camera. So, when the man says" you shot me!"( referring to a moment when Death shoots at him with a bow and arrow from a balcony in Palermo, where the photographer is taking pictures), Death answers:" you shot me first! no one takes a picture of me!" Death's speech to the mortal is as relevant here as that which Wenders gave us in "Kings of the Road" from a frustrated son to an ageing and regretful father inside the newspaper printing workshop. I won't deny that I would've liked the film to end not too long after this point, and that I felt that we didn't really need to know about the female character's own ghosts. It could've been a leaner picture with a neater ending without this. I 'd also mention that the beginning dragged a little as Campino's trendy life in Düsseldorf is presented to us a bit too long. These are a bit annoying but can be forgiven of Wim Wenders as, nevertheless he has given us a striking, original and beautiful film.and he proves himself a true visionary once more. In time, I'm sure this will become another one of his classics. With Palermo Wenders is, as usual, on the pulse of things, he has always been a very different type of storyteller who can say as much with a few words, than without, and here he achieves both beautifully. The fabulous and original use of music combined with astonishing cinematography and pace takes us on a remarkable 'voyage'. Thank you Mr. Wenders