t_atzmueller This is not an easy film to watch and, unless you're a fan of Klaus Kinsk, Independent film and/or the music and story of Nicolai Paganini be warned: this film definitely isn't for everybody.I have watched almost every movie Kinski has ever starred in: from the early Edgar Wallace films, to the Spaghetti Westerns, the many, many B- and C-grade quickies he appeared in, and still consider his works with director Werner Herzog among my favourite films. The last 'new' movie with Kinski I saw was "Paganini", his final film. Not an easy film to find or to watch and, to one level, the (often) devastating reviews being true: a mess of a movie, almost unwatchable due to the natural light, Kinskis refusal of filming a straight storyline, the odd editing, (seemingly) random, un-simulated sex-scenes, etc.We've seen Kinski perform "Paganini" before; not the actual role, but the character which the actor bestows upon the violinist: there have been traces of Paganini in "Fruits of Passion", where he plays a character that is similarly haunted by his own satyr-like sexuality. The last time was in "Cobra Verde", Kinskis second-to-last film. "Cobra Verde" had complained that Kinski had turned the character of Cobra Verde into something that was more Paganini.Speaking of Werner Herzog: in the documentary "My Best Fiend", the director commented, that, during the filming of "Cobra Verde", he felt that Kinski was at the end of his road and that Kinski himself had remarked: "I no longer exist". Even though his performance in "Paganini" carries all the trademarks of a Kinski-performance – manic, passionate, filling the screen with his presence – it is sad to say, that Herzog was probably correct. We cannot help but feel that we're watching a dying man; not just because Paganini himself is on the brink of death, but because Kinski had already spent most of his life-force.Well, first off, Klaus Kinski, the director, is no Werner Herzog, but to say that Kinskis is as bad a director as Herzog is an actor, would be a little unfair. Kinski had worked with the best and Kinski had learned from the best, but his unwillingness to compromise his vision of the film, makes "Paganini" one man's piece of art – not an artful movie.It makes one wonder, what this film could have looked like, had it been directed by a "professional": Werner Herzog (who was offered the directors seat but refused), or Stanley Kubrick, for example. As it remains, it's an interesting, even though deeply flawed film.I wish I could give this film at least 8 points out of 10 – but no, that would be pseudo-intellectual and more befitting a Klaus Kinski fanboy, so I'll have to give it, what it deserves: five points is all I can give.

rzajac I watched Paganini for the first time, then ran to watch bits of Fitzcarraldo again. I just realized why: It was the armchair cineaste's equivalent of taking a shower to rinse the muck off after watching Paganini.I needed to watch Fitzcarraldo to remind myself that, yes, Kinski was a great actor. And he was.I never thought I'd actually find a genuine-article case of this, but in Paganini you have Kinski finally using film--and his fans--as a full-tilt surrogate for his fading fantasy that he's the rooster in the barnyard.It really is shameless. People thought that Woody Allen used film like this way long after he shoulda. Well, guess what? Allen is a piker.If you're curious to see a great film star at his lowest ebb in this particular regard, watch Paganini.Now, people in these comments extol the natural lighting, Kinski's raw magnetism, the unstudied editing, the artful inattention to technique in general, genuinely moving scenes of familial love, etc., etc. Yes, all those things are arguably there. I'm not just being conciliatory for rhetorical effect. But there comes a time when you have to admit the evidence of what you're seeing before your very eyes, and the conclusion is inescapable: Kinski is jerking off at our expense. He's not just exercising an eccentric degree of artistic license. He's lost in unfiltered, unsublimated sexual self-aggrandizement.

acousticroom Paganini the film by Klaus Kinski is a true work of Art... I think the reviewer before me just flat don't get it, it is far beyond their understanding.... First off Kinski really did capture the personality of the greatest Musician in history Nicolo Paganini... I also think the music in this film is wonderful, the acting is great, the directing is great.. I think one thing that may throw Hollywood fans, is that the film is done for Art reasons not for the all mighty dollar, greed, which is the number one killer of true ART... This film is about MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC.... and I think Kinski did a wonderful job with every angle, Hollyweird has tried their hands at making films about Composers and I think they should leave the Art to the Artist, and the ARTIST here is the passion of Klaus Kinski and the music of Nicolo Paganini.. this is now and will always be one of my favorite films.. if you like true ART and the some of the most amazing music ever written, then get this film you will not be sorry. Bravo for Kinski Paganini.... Curt

water-5 In this movie, Kinski gives his last great performance as the 19th century italian violin virtuoso Nicolo Paganini. People even say that Kinski is his reincarnation. At least, what we can say is that Kinski adopted the violin player's lifestyle. Paganini, in his time, was considered the first "rock star" even though rock wasn't even invented yet because he lived a life saturated with late parties, orgies and sexcapades of all kinds. No moral law, Carpe Diem all the way! Kinski was working on this project since the early 1970s. It was his little baby. And even though its narration is without any narration, with no genuinelike biographical anecdotes, its incoherent editing illustrates with wit, passion and violence what the murky worlds of Paganini and Kinski were all about. But beware, sensible people should pass this one.