JohnLeeT Melanie Griffith gives the performance of a lifetime in this majestic film, putting to bed the idea that "they don't make them like they used to." While technologically superior, Shining Through is similar to the motion pictures they made in the 1930's, with style, lavishness, and true star power. The tension is overwhelming throughout but it is the closing scenes that will have you on the edge of your seat. However, the characterizations are superb and as the thrills build one upon the other until that shattering climax, you feel you know all these people intimately and have a stake in their ultimate fate. The director does a magnificent job, working from a script that ranks with one of the greatest ever adaptations produced in Hollywood. The epic scope, realism, and stunning chemistry between Michael Douglas and the lovely Melanie Griffith lights up the screen. In fact, this is Hollywood at its finest, with the creative artists doing outstanding work, cinematography that is blinding in its beauty, and the overall recreation of time and place leaving one with a true sense of historical truth. Certainly an artistic triumph, the thrilling set piece scenes are incorporated with the drama perfectly and the romance is an integral part of the story. The gravitas of the era, when Nazi evil challenged the very foundations of Western Civilization, is treated with respect and reflects the courageous actions of those who opposed that evil in a way that makes this motion picture a fitting tribute to all who risked their lives to preserve human decency and civilization from the bloody clutches of the Reich's monstrous savagery. This a story that demanded to be told and the framing device of the veteran spies on a television talk show is emotionally overwhelming and deeply moving. A truly magnificent motion picture, intimately powerful and yet tremendous in historical scope, it will leave you breathless.

secondtake 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.

bessiesmith-1 This was in many ways an enjoyable film, but the many historical inaccuracies and the lack of attention to details is inexcusable. I lived through WWII, but that experience was hardly needed in order to spot this script's many eminently avoidable historical flaws. Writer/director David Seltzer must bear the blame here. This was not a low budget film, so hiring an historical adviser would surely have been a justifiable added cost. As it is, Shining Through comes close to being as implausible as any Star Trek film. That said, this movie had enough positive aspects to make it worthy of such criticism as I have leveled, but it could so easily have been a film to taken seriously.

grant-graham 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.