El violinista del diablo

He is a very poor actor. His acting in this film was exact the opposite of his natural talent playing with his violin, maybe the worst ever actor I've ever seen so far. This film was also doomed and suffered from a very bad screenplay at the very beginning. The only thing that was so out of the world in this film was his crazy talent with the violin. You should watch and enjoy what he did in this film with his music but not his acting which in fact, was just terrible.

Today we can't hear the performance of Paganini, there are only different interpretations. Fortunately, this virtuoso and composer has written on sheet many of his works.

I think the violin and her virtuoso are most important in this story. Everything else is just background. Yes, this background has flaws, but they are in the details. The feeling of the era is truthful and powerful. Playing and compositions of David Garrett - they are compelling. I will remember this movie primarily with the music.

Moreover - if Paganini could choose an artist to fulfill his role, he would probably prefer the same musician. David Garrett don't play himself - he has dedicated himself to Paganini in this film.

We just saw this movie. I am a Designer and Artist to the core. What no one said here till now, is how drop dead gorgeous and yes maybe a bit "plastic" the director turned David Garrett in this movie. And made the best of Joely Richardson. And have you "seen on you tube " Nicole Scherzinger singing the aria. And even the story maybe a tad on the "too obvious" side but it done in a real very clever way and one is dragged at moment between asking one self is it play or a new filmed version like all the "Shakespeare" have been turned into..The lights and visions are conveyed with real quality. It made me dig deeper for several hours discovering very good music and plenty of entertainment and that is what I want from my movies. The costumes are plentiful and the decor detailed and every hairdresser should have wanted to style the David's gorgeous head of curls that look so very stunning in dark. It could make a way more sexy add for a leading shampoo brand that all these boring muses shaking their manes. Really ladies and gents this is a movie for relaxing and visually enjoying with a twist of love and passion and money dealing that Artist will associate with.

Niccolò Paganini (David Garrett) is a virtuoso violinist, stolen from Italian obscurity by the serpentine Urbani (Jared Harris) and brought to swinging 19th century London on the request of struggling promoter John Watson (Christian McKay). There his lascivious urges and his musical genius find equal outlet, until his heart is attuned to Charlotte (Andrea Deck), with whom he shares a harmonious partnership. Tragedy encroaches, however, as those who brought Paganini to the top conspire to cast him into the gutter once more.

What is the truth of Paganini? Bernard Rose's biopic plays fast and loose, which shouldn't matter because art strives for universal truths. Yet such striving often leads to cliché, as has happened here. As an instrument the violin lends itself well to furious solos, so the transition from classical musician to rock god is easy – throw in some long shaggy hair and stubble and sunglasses and we've basically got ourselves a Georgian Ozzy Osbourne. Not that the film is terribly anarchic. Early on we get some Dogma 95-influenced hand-held camera and hack 'n' slash editing but it soon gives way to familiar period stageyness.

Rose's film exists in the same realm as Milos Forman's Amadeus and touches on some of the same themes – genius emerging from chaos, both a creative and destructive force – but it's a relatively shallow movie, and one whose TV budget cannot be elevated by its impressively crashing classical soundtrack and its smoggy capital exteriors. Forman's film had a force-of-nature at its centre in the form of Tom Hulce. The Devil's Violinist has David Garrett, who's a wonderful violinist but no actor. Alarm bells ring when a character is meant to be thinking hard about something and actually grabs their chin.

But then, could any actor have provided a sympathetic portrayal? How charming is any man this juvenile; this unprofessional? Why should we care for a man who whinges about being "misunderstood" in one breath then dismisses his fans with the next? How do we side with someone who claims to love another and then accidentally shags a complete stranger with the same hair colour? Better writing and an actual actor might have helped us answer these questions.

Garrett isn't very well-supported, to be fair. Harris turns a scheming snake into a pantomime villain. Joely Richardson is gobsmackingly miscast as a cockney troublemaker. And while Alien Isolation fans may be pleased to see Andrea Deck in her full feature debut, I wouldn't expect the scripts to start piling on her doormat on the basis of this. But then, again, Charlotte is bafflingly written: she's genuinely repulsed by Paganini – a player and a player – only to spin on a sixpence once she hears him knock out a few notes, melody apparently trumping manners.

Rose has a firm hold of his film's darkly humorous tone, and the musical performances are, inevitably, spectacular (almost worth the rental fee alone, if for some reason an actual David Garrett Live DVD isn't available). But the decision to build a movie around a real musician backfires horribly, and with a bland and over-familiar script ("Who is the real you?" one character genuinely asks) it has to go down as a handsome, tuneful failure.

The film is good even if i ido not considered a true version of Paganini's life. I know it is not a documentary but it could have been done more.

I appreciate the effort to show real characters like Paganini's son and father but otherwise it is very fictional and there was no real need for it because his life was already a novel.

From unbridled success to accusations of a pact with the devil there was a lot to tell. In a way they tried with the figure of Urbani one of the most successful and enigmatic characters in the film but otherwise I didn't see much.

They recounted one episode of his life (the London concert) while the rest were shown in a few scenes as if they were in a hurry to finish the film.