This film was nicely staged, probably with a hefty budget, but in terms of wartime intrigue, it falls as flat as a Pfannkuchen. Melanie Griffith is inept in her role as a would-be spy in Nazi Germany. With her character's stupidity and embarrassingly unconvincing command of the German language, she would not have lasted a half-hour before being discovered by the Gestapo and sent back in a boxcar to Hollywood. Michael Douglas's performance was good during the first part of the film, but his "heroic" rescue of Linda Voss was implausible in the extreme, almost laughably so. It was a miscalculation to have Linda narrate the story in a long series of flashbacks, as we in the audience were consigned to feel no threat whatsoever to her survival. And why do the native Germans speak in (subtitled) German for much of the film but then revert to English in other parts? That strains our suspension of disbelief. Worst of all, a spy thriller should never be as boring as "Shining Through." I had trouble staying awake, which surely is not a good sign.

It's interesting to read through some of the IMDb reviews of this film. People either hate it or love it. I'm somewhere in the middle.The biggest criticism of this film is that the plot is improbable. Well, that's probably a fair criticism. Of course, if we dismissed all the movies Hollywood makes that are improbable...well, there wouldn't be much left. Of course, the problem here is that this is supposed to be a serious film.The second biggest criticism of this film is regarding the acting of Melanie Griffith. That's also a fair criticism. My feeling about Griffith always was that she was a limited actress that got lucky on a couple of films. And, this wasn't one of them.Michael Douglas -- the film lead -- does okay here, as far as I'm concerned. And, Liam Neeson as a German officer does fine, as well. Joely Richardson as a double agent was good, as well. The only disappointment in terms of significant supporting actors was John Gielgud, as a sympathetic German involved in spying. His part is so inconsequential that it could have been handled by an unknown actor.So, in terms of performances, some are decent, others are not, none are outstanding. One thing that the film is outstanding in is production values. Very impressive, actually.SO, from my perspective, overall, this is a decent film, and worth watching...once. And, just for the record, it was a money-maker.

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.

Melanie Griffith is am ambitious, quick-witted, German-speaking, young secretary at the Office of Strategic Services who is enlisted by her boss, Michael Douglas, and sent to Berlin to work for high-ranking Germans and uncover secrets concerning their V-2 rockets now being built at Penemunde. She winds up as a nanny in the employ of the sympatico Liam Neeson. She doesn't fall in love with Neeson, though the usual dramatic trajectory might seem to call for it, because her heart already belongs to Michael Douglas. He's too dumb to realize it. Berlin is full of agents and double agents. One of the latter plugs Griffith. She's rescued by Douglas and carried in his arms across the Swiss border with the details of the V-2 program concealed in her glove. Douglas and Griffith marry and live happily ever after.None of the principals gives a bad performance but Neeson is perhaps the most interesting of the characters. His devotion to the party is suspected of being lukewarm and he's under suspicion by the Gestapo. Alas, he isn't on screen much and disappears completely as the climax approaches.Most impressive is the evocation of the early years of the war. The make-up strikes us as garish. Berlin seems dark and ominous. The fashions and accouterments seem appropriate.Griffith isn't bad. At least she's not embarrassing. Except for "Mulholland Falls," it may be her best performance. She's supposed to have learned German at her Jewish father's knee and have the accent of "a butcher's daughter," but she doesn't. She has an accent, but it's strictly an American accent. Speer's name comes out at "Shpear" instead of "Shpair." Diverting at first viewing, but not really worth seeking out.