I wanted to like this film, but it depressed the hell out of me. I notice that several reviews follow the pattern "a fascinating insight into Kinski's mind", but it seems to me (having read his autobiography) that his mind wasn't very interesting. His egomania wasn't matched by competence as a filmmaker, and by the time of this film his acting was reduced to going through the motions - and the motions are often extremely hysterical, but in irritating slow motion! His insistence on using natural lighting doesn't make him a Kubrick - just inept. As a musician, I see no trace of any insight into Paganini here, and the latter was indeed a fascinating human being. I suspect that part of the problem is that Kinski was surrounded by hangers-on, worshippers, arse-lickers (probably literally, in slow motion), sycophants, who either didn't notice that he was producing tripe or were afraid to tell him. The sad, sad thing is that he wasted so much of his life trying to put this farrago together, and that the frustrations of it may have hastened his death. Kinski will be remembered for Woyzeck, for Aguirre, for Fitzcarraldo. His stage performances were extraordinary - the very last one was filmed, and I saw it recently - just an unadorned recitation of the Sermon on the Mount. However, here too his egomania and lack of self-criticism distorted the whole thing: accused of hypocrisy by an audience member, all he can do is throw the microphone stand (not the microphone!) into the audience and storm off. Nearly 30 years later, Paganini has replaced Jesus, but the delusions of grandeur are the same.

Hmmm. First half is pornographic sh*t. The second is better. What I liked was Kinski walking and playing violin, and his son grieving in the end. I think he (Kinski) had some kind of an idea about this film that he failed to bring to a good film. Contrast between music and macabre footage on the screen? Independent unchained life and art of Paganini? The time line was interesting, no real plot line, Fragments. It was made for those who already know the Paganini-story, so the plot isn't really necessary, but only the hectic feeling matters. This was really simple movie, it had some really powerful and good scenes, but the rest is just really bad. The symbolism (lamb) makes me laugh. This was quite embarrassing for a Kinski fan. Beware!Censureship sucks!

The tagline is not referring to the (too) many flairs in this film. This is not a film, but a myriad. Not unlike Tarkovsky's 'Mirror', the storyline is labyrinthic. In 'Paganini' we are plunged into the flow of life as seen just before dying, and within the flashbacks there are memories.Son Achille, superbly played by son Nikolai Kinksi (without any hint of the lingual barriers that he must have experienced while shooting this demanding role; check out his role in 'Tortilla Soup', the Ang Lee goes Latin comedy where he plays very nicely a ... Brazilian.) watches the struggle of his father, adding his own reminiscence to the story.Fragmented though it may be, this is a romantic tale, grand & tragic, told with passion and devotion. It took Klaus Kinski 20 years to create his heart's desire. So, I reckon, there are not many "mistakes", "loose ends", "murkiness" or "shabby editing" here. My guess is that all we see is well thought of (referring to the 'version originale' of Kinski himself, as to be seen on the German double disc DVD -with Italian, English & German dubs-, which shows besides loads of exciting extras both the Maestro's version as the producer's vulgarity). It is too easy to criticize. Who understood 'The Mirror' after a few viewings only ?Kinski of course is no Tarkovsky. He is Maestro Klaus, and very probable the reincarnation of Paganini. But his Magnus Epos is not just an homage. It is even more than his life quest. Although Papa Klaus is omnipresent & inescapable, the torch is held by his son. Which makes KK a link between past & future. And that is truly amazing. Mr. Kinski, miracle-man.PS:The story within the story of this story has not finished yet. Maybe one day someone close to the heart and mind of Klaus Kinski will dare and cut a 2hour-version of 'Paganini'. Maybe Mr. Nikolai ?

Filmed entirely using natural lighting, the film Paganini is an honest attempt by writer/director/actor Klaus Kinski to portray the life of the legendary violinist. Some of the scenes filmed indoors, particularly in the theater have an eerie surreal feel to it, much to Kinski's foresight to film it without any electrical lighting and often using only candle light for illumination. I've read Kinski's autobiography. The parallels between the two (Kinski and Paganini) are eerie and more than coincidental. Both obsessed over young girls; the younger the better. Both were and are considered to be geniuses in their respective fields. Both gave impassioned performances to the point of being referred to as being "demonic" in nature. Both made enormous sums of money, but inevitably squandered it away. And both had young sons late in life whom they absolutely and without doubt, worshipped. Originally Klaus had presented this film as a very long 3 hour plus movie. It would have been interesting to see exactly what he had in mind if this version had ever been released, but alas, producers only allowed a very sparse 82 minute cut version of what Klaus Kinski described to be the work of his life. It really is too bad that the original longer version isn't available. After viewing this film one is left with a very unfulfilled and empty feeling. Too often, there is little character development within Nicolo Paganini's aquaintances and conquests. In particular an affair with a member of a royal family. While this film outwardly appears to be little more than a tawdry, lewd effort on Kinski's part, it more importantly portrays Paganini as a suffering shell of a human being; never satisfied with anything and all too often left unsatiated, unfulfilled, and all too often, spiritually dead The film has a remarkable soundtrack thanks to the efforts of virtuoso violinist Salvatore Accardo. It also features performances by Kinski's lolita wife, Deborah Caprioglio Kinski and his son Nikolai "Nanhoi" Kinski, who both perform their roles admirably. This is a definite "must see" movie, regardless of whether or not you are a fan of Klaus Kinski. Sadly, it is the last film he ever made.