Shining Through (1992)

This is a tale of war, love and espionage. Set in the present (1992, when it was made) but focused on the past (WWII) . Melanie Griffith plays an Irish/Jewish 1st generation immigrant, with relatives still in Germany, who takes a job as a secretary for a mysterious government worker (Michael Douglas). What ensues despite it's "goofs" and "plot holes" is a good thriller, whose intensity builds as it goes, with a definite film noir, and 40's melodrama feel to it. It also has a "Hitchcock" feel to it during the last hour. If you can suspend your disbelief on the flaws and overlook Melanie Griffith's horrible acting and sing song, unemotional, child-like voice. (any other dramatic female star of the time would have been better),this is still a good movie. Not great, but good enough to watch and enjoy.

OK, it had technical errors. The dress blue uniform. Didn't come along for several years after the time of the movie. But the movie was excellent. The story line, the plot, the whole deal went together well. If I were qualified to judge Melanie Griffith in this role, I would judge it her best. It seems her voice does add something to this particular part. Remember I didn't judge this movie on its technical accuracy. Nor its historical accuracy, but how well I enjoy watching the movie. The movie accomplished its goal, it entertained. Douglas was great in his part. But then again, isn't Douglas always great. A very young Liam Nesson is also present in this movie as a bad guy.

This is a bad movie. As if there haven't been enough movies done about WWII. The movie begins with a supposedly older woman telling her story to the BBC about her spy work during WWII. Melanie Griffith was good in Working Girl. Why? That was about an ordinary American girl. Are we supposed to believe that she is fluent in German enough to fool the Germans? Why don't they get real American actors who are fluent in German, so after two lines in German they don't revert to English? I don't think so. She is the flakiest spy ever. About the only thing that she didn't do was go up to Hitler and say I am a spy for the Americans. I think I got really tired of Griffith's character, so much so that I felt for Michael Douglas. Why was he dragged into this movie, except to play a lover that has to put up with this female version of Inspector Clouseau? About the only good thing about the movie was Liam Neeson. He played a believable German officer. Sir John Gielgud played an older man, who was naturally cranky and unhappy about the spy that he was to look out after. This movie was pretty awful.

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.