ThiefHott Too much of everything

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

JonathanWalford Although this film starts off with a profoundly interesting voice-over about the nature of inspiration, art, and creativity. The film quickly mires in its own self importance and becomes tiresome. Yohji Yamamoto becomes increasingly incoherent both figuratively, with rambling thoughts about fashion, creativity, and gender, and literally, as his thick accent becomes incomprehensible due to the poor sound quality. Wim Wenders tests several film techniques including split screens, extreme close-ups, and seemingly irrelevant repetitive imagery, which may have been original and interesting in 1989, but are no longer. Worst of all is Wim's monotone voice-overs that become less interesting as the movie progresses. By the end of the hour it becomes difficult to keep your ears and eyelids open. This could have been a fascinating documentary but it's not.

mrweird Wim Wenders follows Japanese fashion designer Yohji Yamamoto as he puts together a fashion show. In truth, the subject matter is tedious, Yohji Yamamoto has little of interest to say, and he says it excruciatingly slowly. Wenders tries his best to convince us that the designer is a great Artist, by covering the creative process, the little changes in the cut of the cloth to achieve what is the perfect shirt or dress. The close-knit coterie of disciples eager to translate the Artist's vision to the cloth. It's almost convincing, but the film fails to persuade me that fashion industry is anything more than superficial. By implying that fashion design is potentially as profound and mysterious as other arguably more 'worthy' art-forms (such as cinema), the documentary teeters on pretension.However, the film is certainly worth watching. There are some interesting meditations on the nature of cities and identity (it's filmed in both Tokyo and Paris). It's most impressive aspect is the exploration of digital video technology (quite appropriate given the documentary subject matter). When filmed (1989), this would have been cutting edge, and it's likely that Wenders experiments here benefited subsequent films most notably the dream sequences in Until The End of the World. The pixelated texture and more lurid colour palette of video contrast nicely with the celluloid sequences, and there are some effective (albeit now primitive) sequences with talking-heads video playback against celluloid footage in the background. The overall effect is meditative and other-worldly.In summary, a flawed, dated but still interesting film.

carll-2 Wenders have succeeded in turning an assignment he got by the Pompidou centre into a work that's actually rather fascinating. It's a really fresh essay film. It doesn't tell so much about it's subject the fashion designer, but reflects on more abstract issues like art and fashion, and time and timelessness, and subjectivity and objectivity.Although I felt it was very beautiful and fascinating, I thought that it maybe lacked in urgency somewhat - the fashion designer and all the persons in the film remained really distant. But at the same time I found it fresher and not so over-elaborated as some of Wenders movies. For friends of essay-movies and the late movies of Godard it's highly recommended.

Firas I can't say much about the movie. It is principally interesting because it shows the similarity of the creativity of two artists (a fashion designer and a film director) with the emphasis on the first one. It is in fact a creative documentary about the two of them. There was also an attempt to define fashion and identity in our modern world. It is a typical Wim Wenders movie. The photography is marked by his style. This movie or documentary becomes sometimes boring. The emphasis on the differences between the movie camera and the video camera was interesting but it was often tiring