Shining Through (1992)

Powerful

Absolutely the worst movie.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I kept on watching the movie over and over, from the movie-house till vcd till DVD. Brings you back in time. Gallantry was brought back to life. The determination, conviction and all other characteristics that make a man a man. Melanie and Michael make a perfect match in the movie. The chemistry was perfect which made me feel like a part of the movie each time I watch it.

If you are -like me- one that thinks movie are a non-descriptive, but evocative form of art, well then go and see this one.I could not care if the the plot has holes or if historically there is something wrong or not. I never analyzed that, I say that just because it is mentioned so many times in previous posts.This movie evocate love, friendship, strength, focus... you name it. Melanie and M. Douglas play at their best, and I could not see another movie where they play at the same level. A perfect romantic movie, in a fantastic historical plot.The plot flows smoothly, it is a sweet story of love and human feelings. Go and see it.

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.

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.