Review: ‘Victoria,’ a Nonstop Flight Through the Streets of Berlin

What a bizarre review. I usually appreciate Stephen Holden's thoughts but it was almost as if he'd been watching the film while online shopping, or read a poorly rendered summary of the film and tried to piece together a review despite not having seen the film. The chronology of the piece is off, as are various details and his characterizations of the actor's intentions (Victoria takes Sonne to her workplace long before Boxer receives the call about the heist... this happens offscreen if I remember correctly.... Victoria is not 'more than happy to volunteer' to carry out the bank heist; no one knows what the gangster intends for them, she seems hesitant nonetheless and Sonne plans to drive her back to the cafe right after meeting with the gangster.... She doesn't decide to be their driver until one of the men almost suffers a heart attack... I'm almost positive that Victoria's description of a lost piano competition does not happen in the film at all (?) and so on and so on). I'm so confused. Did Stephen Holden turn into a glitchy review algorithm?

The film, however, was fantastic. Unlike Birdman, the one-take didn't feel gimmicky or seem to be about demonstrating technical prowess. You almost could miss the lack of cuts because of clever (subtly and expertly transitioning) shifts in perspective, camera distance and tone. Fabulous acting, especially by Laia Costa. I'm surprised that people thought it was excruciating. I found it spellbinding from beginning to end.

Excruciating...painfully slow pace, repetitive action, Victoria's very bad decisions just keep getting worse, lacks insight as to motivation (dashed hopes for piano career seemed implausible as motivation). I stopped caring and walked out. Run Lola Run is a much better film.

One of the worst movies I have seen. I don't know where he gets Nonstop, I feel asleep during it. If it was on TV I would have changed the channel, but then someone would say I missed the best part (I did not) At the very end there was some suspense without special effects, but it was too little too late.

If you want to see a portrait of dumb criminals (many are) then this is your movie. The only thing that I found interesting was trying to figure out why Victoria joined in. Her acting at the very end was moving and convincing, even if in retrospect it doesn't make that much sense, considering it wasn't even a one night stand.

So where's the review? This article is a plot summary. I expected more from the NYT.

As to the movie, I saw it Sunday in Los Angeles and thought it was pointless. The NYT summary is more fun than the film but 2 hours 14 minutes shorter. Unlike Birdman with it's "soaring" cinematography, this movie looks like hand-held, unlit amateur footage - only the accurate focus and occasional focus shifts suggest a professional behind the camera.

The story feels a lot longer than 2hrs 18mins (4 or 5 hours perhaps), not just because the movie is so drawn out and boring, but also because, this is a lot to happen in such a short time.

Yes, the film is reminiscent of Run Lola Run... but where that film progressed at breakneck speed, this film hardly seems to move at all. 22 locations in one take? Yes that would be amazing, if it worked. It doesn't.

The headline says review, but it's hardly that. A summary at best with some rather poor choice of characterizations of certain individuals - it is almost as if the author has little ability to understand the experience illustrated in this film so instead he will make poorly analyzed comments on some of the actors.

Nevertheless, this film was amazing. To be able to capture the story, emotions, in the way this film did, in one take, is simply ...wow. Definitely one to see. Excellent, excellent, excellent

I think the sixth paragraph is actually supposed to be the fourth.

Good movie. Holden is right to flag some of its improbable aspects, though -- among which I'd include the unlikelihood of German police officers shooting fleeing criminals in the back. Laia Costa and the rest of the cast do excellent work, though.

Granted, I haven't seen this movie yet. But like Birman it confuses me. One of the great powers of cinema is the cut. You're at a restaurant on Sixth Avenue and then - bam! - you're climbing K2. If you work in theater you so envy the filmmaker's ability to cut. Properly placed, the cut can be as powerful as the scenes which surround it - it can make the scenes that surround it. For me Birdman's use of the "single take" upstaged its great acting. I and many of my friends were distracted looking where the cuts really were and how they were hidden. Tell a story. If the audience doesn't want to know what happens next there's no movie. Does this device help tell the story or is it a full-length gimmick? Maybe. Maybe not.