Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Powerful

Absolutely Fantastic

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

I 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."

Shining 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.

I have NO idea why this movie has not well survived the critique process. I am an intelligent woman who finds this to be the best Nazi film I've ever seen - a great romance, a great thriller, and just a great movie all-around. In contrast to another reviewer, I found Melanie's performance here to be right on point and she was well-cast. As others mention, she's an interesting contrast, blonde and Jewish, sex appeal but survivor. Cannot believe it was selected as worst movie of 1992. My German is not as strong as the two other languages I speak, so maybe the accent is a mess, but is it really a deal-breaker for the film? Especially when it's a true story. Maybe Roger Ebert has it out for Melanie Griffith or Michael Caine, who knows, but I really encourage you to check this one out.

Can someone explain to me how Linda Voss (Melanie Griffith) discovers that her employer Ed Leland (Michael Douglas) is an officer in the OSS immediately after Pearl Harbor? You do the math: Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941.The OSS wasn't established until June 13, 1942.Peace time military promotion was notoriously slow in peace time (pre World War II) America. To illustrate, Dwight Eisenhower was only a Brigadier General at the outbreak of hostilities. Are we supposed to accept a (relatively) young Michael Douglas as a full bird colonel? The movie is like a rotten onion. You can easily pull apart each scene as improbable, oozing with both bad acting and comical absurdity. The performances of Griffith and Douglas were insincere and affected, as it seemed like they were trying to imitate the bad acting that was omnipresent in the 1950s war movie genre.