User reviews

Though I never read the book, personally I feel that this is an overly criticized and highly under rated movie. It's been awhile since I saw it so forget all the plot intricacies, but do recall enjoying this wartime romance at the time. As others have noted, it is definitely more a love story than a spy thriller. Also, I was sufficiently impressed with the performances by all three leads but especially Liam Leeson.

The plot revolves around an American spy master, Ed Leland, who reluctantly sends his secretary, Linda Voss, on a dangerous mission to Berlin, refusing to admit to himself that he has feelings for her personally. Voss is sent to spy on a high level German army officer named Dietrich, being deemed suitable for the task because she speaks fluent German. This secretary is half Jewish herself, and part of her motivation is actually to find some of her relatives who are in hiding. She thus goes undercover into Nazi Germany as a secretary turned spy, with little training in survival or espionage. However, she is a great fan of old spy movies and has gleaned a few tips! Perhaps the plot is not that plausible, but the same charge could be laid against any number of other movies. This is mainly a romance and a highly entertaining one.

Melanie Griffith is charming here in the role of Linda Voss. She is not a dumb blonde bimbo, nor does she even appear to be. Quite the contrary. Some have complained about her German, but I was interested in the story, and no expert on her accent. Michael Douglas competently portrays the American spy, Leland. Whether or not it is believable that someone in his position cannot speak a word of German, he has a very credible chemistry with Griffith. Liam Neeson is especially excellent, playing with dignity and charisma the complex role of the sensitive but potentially ruthless Nazi officer and devoted family man. Sir John Gielgud, the ultimate professional, is masterful as always and commands any scene in which he appears.

I confess that I'm a sucker for wartime romances, love the drama of that era as well as the 1940's styles, so would lap up just about any representative of the genre. While this one may not be a classic, it is a good love story with some gripping action, tension, and suspense. As another also noted, though it may indeed be highly improbable, it is nevertheless highly watchable.

This has to be the best film ever to "win" a Razzie for Worst Picture of the Year. It may be flawed but it remains a good old-fashioned piece of romantic spy entertainment with many great sequences and impressive work by all departments of the production.

This will be a short review. I have seen a lot of pro and con on this movie, but almost all of the con's talk of the unbelievable plot. I will give you that the plot has some problems, and if this was a serious spy movie, then I'd be there with you, but that is not what this film is. This film is a total romance with some action thrown in. If you watch it and see how two people will risk all they have for each other because they are in love then you will enjoy this film. Sure there are holes in the plot...but not in the romance. Melanie is very likable in this movie and I think there is great chemistry! If you don't scrutinize the plot so much you may even find yourself routing for them as they cross the Swiss border.

This good looking film harkens back to the old-fashioned movies of the late '30s and '40s. Though predictable and not believable, it manages to be very entertaining and keeps one's interest. It would have been a little more believable for me if the Melanie Griffith character hadn't had to drag Liam Neeson's kids around with her everywhere. They most certainly would have told their father of their adventures.

I loved this movie. I saw it for the first time when I was 21, and I've watched it several times a year ever since. Melanie Griffith gives one of the best performances of her career, and Michael Douglas is, of course, wonderful. Although this movie is presented as a action/drama set in WWII, the romantic story is what makes this movie so powerful. Griffith and Douglas have great, believable chemistry. The set decoration and cinematography are a throwback to the old 40's movies, which is ironic because those movies are mentioned throughout the film (Griffith's character is a huge fan of war movies that were shown at that time.) If you like great romantic stories with just enough action thrown in, watch this one. You will not be disappointed.

When David Seltzer's "Shining Through" first came out it was a critical and commercial failure. I thought that it was at least worth seeing, if not any kind of masterpiece. I suspect that a lot of the antipathy towards the movie is because of Melanie Griffith's American-sounding German speech. Griffith plays a secretary in a law firm who gets sent into Nazi Germany to try and find secret information.

Aside from the German spoken in a monotone American accent, I found it a little odd that when she first arrives in Germany she does have to speak German to everyone, but then they start speaking English. But for the most part, I did like the movie. Aside from Griffith, Michael Douglas plays her boss whose whereabouts she doesn't know half the time, and Liam Neeson plays a Nazi officer. Joely Richardson and John Gielgud also star. Above all, Melanie Griffith looked a lot better before she had her face done.

Like I said, not any kind of masterpiece, but still worth seeing.

Yeah, we had a little post-production house in Berlin, called ForFilm. Because we were the first, and only post-production house in Germany featuring Acmade and Moviola equipment, we got the movie. On a side note, the first fax we ever received in our office, fax was very new then you know, was the ok from CentFox. You cannot imagine how it feels, when the first thing you see coming out of the fax machine is the famous logo. I was shaking, and my business partner Klaus Zimmermann and I got drunk that night!

So I came to meet the one and only Craig McKay. One of the greatest editors I have ever met - and I have met many - who taught me the way of transition and scene drama. I learned more from Craig in those 8 months working together than anywhere else. And David Seltzer, who also wrote The Omen, was an inspiration as well.

Oh my, there are so many stories that I could tell, like how I ran over MD, he was standing right behind me, and I did not see him, he is not very tall you see. So when I turned I bumped into him and he fell. I almost got fired for that, but because I belonged to ForFilm, he couldn't. MD, what a guy really. He wanted a goddamn Pullman 600 Mercedes as his car. So we had to look everywhere to find one. When we found one, and we brought it back to Berlin, he did not accept it, because it was dark blue and not black. Well, that's him.

Another memory is when I watched the shooting of Hitler's parade. In Potsdam 1990, the wall had just come down and this part of Potsdam still looked like 1939. All we had to do was to take off the TV antennas, and there we were. All the extras, hundreds and hundreds of them, 1930ies police on horses, Hitler youth, the roar of the engine of his original car, the flags and the hysteria of the people going bonkers when seeing Hitler, you could really feel it. Still gives me goosebumps. It felt like the devil had come alive.

Or one afternoon with Melanie Griffith, I walked with her while she was crying. Don Johnson just called to tell her that Stefano Casiraghi had died. She is actually a very kind person.

Unfortunately, the movie is not good. But the memories are very strong and I won't miss them.

What a truly gripping film and storyline!! Melanie Griffith played her role as a spy beautifully, and Michael Douglas added his own special touch to the film.The late John Gielgud and Joely Richardson were also stars who made the film that little bit more eye catching!! In some parts it was emotional too, showing how Germany was like in the 1940's era. A very moving and successful film, which deserved every bit of its 10/10!!

The film has garnered mixed reviews, often criticized for its implausible plot and certain technical inconsistencies, yet it stands out as a highly engaging piece of romantic spy entertainment.

One of the most notable aspects of the film is its evocation of 1940s cinema aesthetics. The cinematography and production design meticulously recreate the era, capturing the dramatic flair and stylistic nuances of wartime Europe. The attention to detail in the set design, costumes, and props immerses the audience in the period, providing a visually compelling backdrop to the narrative.

The performances are another highlight. Melanie Griffith, despite some criticism of her German accent, delivers a charming and earnest portrayal of Linda Voss. Her character's transformation from a secretary to an undercover spy in Nazi Germany is rendered with a blend of vulnerability and determination that anchors the emotional core of the film. Michael Douglas, playing the American spy Ed Leland, brings a credible chemistry with Griffith, adding depth to their romantic storyline. Liam Neeson stands out with a dignified and charismatic performance as a complex Nazi officer, balancing sensitivity and ruthlessness. Sir John Gielgud, as always, commands the screen with his presence, adding a layer of gravitas to the scenes he inhabits.

From a technical perspective, the film's pacing and direction often hark back to the old-fashioned thrillers of the 1930s and 1940s. While some plot elements may stretch credibility-such as the notion of sending an untrained secretary on a critical espionage mission-the film compensates with its suspenseful and engaging narrative. The tension is maintained through well-executed action sequences and moments of dramatic peril that keep the viewer invested.

The music and score complement the film's tone, enhancing the emotional beats and the suspenseful undercurrents. The sound design and editing are competently handled, contributing to the film's overall immersive experience.

Despite its flaws, "Shining Through" remains a captivating watch, especially for those who appreciate wartime romances. The film's blend of espionage, romance, and historical drama offers a nostalgic return to a bygone cinematic style, making it a worthwhile experience for fans of the genre. While it may not achieve classic status, it is an entertaining film that succeeds in its primary aim: to tell a gripping and heartfelt story set against the tumultuous backdrop of World War II.

I saw this movie on BRAVO and absolutely loved it. So what if it is unrealistic? It is a movie, after all. If you want reality, rent a documentary or watch the History Channel. It reminds me of an old black and white film from the 40's like "Notorious", "Saboteur", or something of that nature.(Probably one of the reasons I liked it so much.)The suspense was wonderful, as was the romance between Linda and Ed. My eyes were glued to the television from beginning to end, and it left me in a happy state of shock. Even reading the book--which was quite different--didn't change my mind about loving the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a two hour escape from the real world... especially someone looking for a good romance. I still get palpitations thinking about the closing scene. Sigh.

Shining Through is a 1992 romantic thriller with a WWII espionage edge that attracts our ceaseless interest in that time in history. It tries even harder nevertheless to appeal to an even wider audience by adopting the tone and style of Mervyn LeRoy movies, that swift, superficially efficient gib shot festival approach and capricious indulgence in the flashback and dream sequence formats. Indeed, the movie is told in flashbacks, to no necessary end, with an aged, awkwardly demure Melanie Griffith recalling her story for a BBC interviewer. This would have worked better if Griffith had found a way to add mileage on her speaking voice, which stays in her common asthmatic, good-little-girl pattern. It was said in this film's era of release that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Hollywood would have to double back to the Nazi generation for their villains. Thankfully, they cooked up some smarter Nazis for subsequent films. Maybe Susan Isaacs' initial material stands a better chance of preventing certain elements from straying too far into the clouds.

Nevertheless, the main turning point of the story is what makes the least sense: No intelligence agency, no matter how hard up, especially in a world war, would send a secretary behind enemy lines with no training, or a senior officer who doesn't even know the freakin' language. Also, if you, a secretary with no combat experience, can hide a microfilm in your glove right before winding up incoherent in a laundry basket and not wearing any gloves, being discovered scantily clad overall, more power to you, but the movie gives us no plausible reason why Griffith should be boasting of this in her interview, or why a journalist for a network as prestigious as the BBC would buy it.

But since it is what it is, we have Michael Douglas, playing a Colonel in the OSS, covering as a lawyer. Purposeful, sophisticated. Melanie Griffith's character reacts to him as if he is humorless. Nonetheless, quiet or loud, he always seems powerful and determined. And Griffith, all things considered, empowers her character with a noble bearing.

The subject matter offers a great mine of fascination, intensity and entertainment, not to mention suspense. The Resistance during WWII had a profound effect on its partisans. There are many films, before this one and after, that more portray the sensory, tangled reality of the experience and less trivialize it in romanticized escapism. Nonetheless, can one fault a film for having been entertained by it?

Many reviewers here state that this film is far below the book in which it was based on. The fact is that pictures don't usually match the books they come from (I think "The Exorcist" could be one of the few exceptions). But films and books are very different things: books deal a lot with each's one imagination while movies are about images you actually see; in books we draw the story in our minds with no limits and our own premises, but in films the story is showed to us according to someone else's imagination.

The point is that I didn't read the book here; I only saw "Shining Through"'s film version and I must say I found it a simple and very entertaining espionage film that "catches" your attention all along, acceptably acted and dealing with romance, intrigue, treason and action in Berlin's War World II.

It has its weaknesses too; for instance, it's hard to swallow that Griffith could remain laying unseen for a couple of days in the basement of a house where a notorious Nazi woman that told the Gestapo about her has been violently killed; I think the Gestapo would have turned the house upside down in search for evidence or clues.

But all in all this is a decent and interesting espionage product according to director David Seltzer's imagination of what the story in the book would be in images. I liked it.

Just for the record: in Argentina "Shining Through" was renamed as "Un Destello en la Oscuridad" (something like "A Flash in the Darkness").

This will be a very short review. As i write this, "Shining Through" only has 5.8 stars, and I am just flabberghasted. This is a very sad statement on the typical movie-goer, I guess.

I just watched this movie for the third or fourth time. It's clearly Melanie Griffiths finest performance, and just a perfect movie overall. It delivers the goods on many levels, is never boring, and always believable.

So, just to bump it up a hair, I give it TEN stars. (Realistically I'd give it an 8.5, but the rating badly needs to go up!)

I have a low tolerance for Melanie Griffith; her voice usually gets on my nerves. But here, she's not bad as a strong-willed half-Jewish secretary who falls in love with her boss, a WWII American spy,(Michael Douglas) and persuades him to let her spy as well. Nothing here is overly impressive, and there are some major mistakes, including the fact that Douglas' character doesn't speak any German! Still, a light, enjoyable film.

Vote: 7

This is a terrible film, ruined by the catastrophic miscasting of the two leads. As the male lead, Michael Douglas gives one of the worst screen performances of the twentieth century. He manages to go all the way through the film without showing the slightest trace of any emotion whatever, despite the fact that the story contains much romance. It would be wrong to say that Douglas is wooden, as that is an insult to wood. Even stone is too good for him. Low-grade concrete would be more like it, the kind that crumbles and gives way. What is wrong with him? He has the eyes of a dead fish floating downstream, several days later. To say that there is no chemistry between him and the hapless Melanie Griffith is such an understatement that there is no point: how can you have chemistry with a corpse who kisses you? Melanie Griffith struggles valiantly to show emotion, and often succeeds, but she is walking in molasses. The situation is not helped by the fact that she was desperately miscast and is not at all well directed. Her soft voice is tragically wrong for the part, her quiet manner totally off beam. The underlying story seems to have been good, and Susan Isaacs's novel must have been interesting. In the second half, the film even becomes exciting despite itself, through the sheer power of the story, though the plot and details are all wrong in the film. The one splendid performance in the film, which is truly dazzling, is by Joely Richardson. She would have been a far, far better choice for the female lead. And Liam Neeson, who also does well, could have been the male lead. Why relegate those two fine actors to supporting roles? This whole film is simply a disaster. But if done properly, it could perhaps have been marvellous.

I acquired this mainly because it is a beautifully-filmed period piece centered around World War II. There are several train station scenes that I think about when recalling this film. They are a couple of the highlights of the fine cinematography and set designs in here. Overall, the movie had nice 1940s feel to it with the cars, dress, hairstyles and colors. It also is good to see this on widescreen DVD.

The story also is interesting but not exactly plausible in one major regard: Melanie Griffith as a spy. sorry, but the bimbo-like quality of Melanie's voice, doesn't lead credence to playing this kind of character. I just can't picture her as some super-intelligent spy, but maybe she's a lot smarter than the roles she usually plays.

Otherwise, this is a well-done, involving suspense film that I enjoy from start to finish.

I have watched this film like 100 times I know every word and every part of the film.the story of the film is great the music the decoration and the fact the ending is a happy ending it just makes me love the film even more.Michael Douglas, Liam Neeson are great they did a wonderful job but boy Melanie Griffith not so great her acting job is just terrible oh my god and the sound of that voice its like a cat or a bird or something I can't stand it.

and every time when I have to watch this film I have to watch in French because I just can't stand the sound of her voice.no wonder why she was nominated for a grazzie award.

This is why I have reviewed it 7 out of 10

They had to be kidding: Susan Isaacs' book about an American secretary turning spy during WWII, posing as a nanny in Berlin and moving into the home of a powerful German family, turned into a movie vehicle for "Working Girl"'s Melanie Griffith? Woebegone picture given curiously old-fashioned, melodramatic treatment, like a wartime rerun from the late show. Distinctly modern performers Griffith and Michael Douglas look terribly out of place; Melanie, who professes to be fluent in German (!), just gives us an extension of her golly-gee, "Working Girl" aesthetic, while Douglas brings absolutely nothing to an admittedly thankless role as Griffith's stolid boss. Musty, hokey, empty nonsense did zero for the careers of all involved. How it came to be made in 1992 is anyone's guess. *1/2 from ****