myrahindley I don't know anything about Paganini, but I doubt whether a single scene from this completely unconvincing script ever actually happened in real life.It is set in 1830's London, with obviously painted outdoor sets and street scenes, and of course, because it's London, it's permanently foggy - this is a film that never misses an opportunity to throw in a cliché.Joely Richardson has an odd role as a Times reporter - did they really have women reporters in those days? To make it even less believable, she has a modern day hair cut like she's just had a perm at Toni & Guy! A number of the other characters also have non-period coffeurs. The lead actor, David Garrett sports a three-day beard - were they fashionable amongst the middle class in those days? Someone thought they were being clever casting violinist Garrett in the lead role,forgetting to check whether he had the primary skill an actor requires. As a violinist he is famous, but I personally don't like his populist, showy style. His playing, like his acting, lacks genuine passion and depth. A "hooked on classics" style of playing.No wonder this dross went straight to DVD. And a good thing too as at least that gives you the advantage of being able to fast forward when you start getting bored - which will be fairly often!

whitesalamander To cop to another reviewer's judgement of me as a "pinhead" I loved this movie because: 1. I had never heard of David Garret and became more mesmerised by his violin playing the longer the movie lasted. 2. Mr. Garrett does not deserve an Oscar for his acting abilities but he deserves my praise and much praise from others for his musical performances in the movie. 3. I was deeply moved and inspired by his abilities to make the violin sing to me. 4. I know the movie is not a definitive historical work but it paints a broad enough brush for non-experts like to enjoy a long lasting "buzz" from the dazzling violin performance of Mr. Garrett.In fact I spent some time on YouTube enjoying several other performances of Mr. Garrett. So this "pinhead" is now a die hard fan of the movie, Mr. Garrett and his supporting cast. I appreciate all of the hard work and effort that the writers, producers, directors and performers put into this lovely work. This "pinhead" can appreciate criticism of the movie but the bitter, vitriol and ad hominem attack upon the people who worked hard to create is way overkill. The Devil's Violinist is not perfect but it certainly is "good enough."

kosmasp This can be seen as a parable, as a story that does ring true for any artist. Being good at something might not be enough. You might need a little help to push you over a certain edge/line, to become what you always dreamt you can (or could) be. Or main character is not exactly someone we might fall in love in (not sexually that is, just liking him is proving difficult most of the time).But there are reasons he acts (plays) the way he does. There is certain downfalls that befall a person that is easily deceived. Or had a certain tendency to be too full of themselves. Of course there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. The question is if one can reach that end of the tunnel ... A nice movie that could have tried to tell a bit more, than it actually does. As it is, it's a decent movie with fine performances.

enekaith Please, if you are one of those that won't watch a movie simply because it has bad reviews, DON'T watch this. This movie had dimension and a great backstory that most people seemed not to notice. Well, the synopsis covered everything, all the roles were well played except for the lead role himself, Niccolo, but that is passable since he did not have a lot of lines.I got mashed up at a point during the movie when the reporter got jealous, then I got the plan. The mastermind behind this entire movie is Urbani!!!! That is what should have been standing out to those viewers who just look at the superficial and physical. If anything, try looking at Urbani as the devil in this movie. He freaking asked for Niccolo's soul to be signed to him for the afterlife at the beginning of the movie. That alone got me hooked to see if Niccolo could get his soul back, maybe through the pure love Charlotte had for him. He was foolish though, and Urbani made sure he died not at a ripe and old age by encouraging him in acts of drugs and sex and using it as an avenue to spike his 'medication'. That was ANOTHER critical minor detail that should get all the viewer's attention.Other characters in this movie did well, Urbani brought everything together with all the snide comments he made at all Niccolo's outbursts. Another big clue!!! All i have to say is if you end up watching the movie, keep a close attention on all Urbani's words, lines, actions, behaviour, etc, and the movie will make more sense.At the end of the movie, it was written in German that Paganini's body was not allowed to be buried in 'consecrated ground', now if that doesn't tell you what happened to Paganin's soul, I don't know what will.I liked the movie, but its not something that's worth multiple views.