This 1977 Wim Wenders film is an adaptation of the Patricia Highsmith novel Ripley's Game. It stars Dennis Hopper as Tom Ripley, the amoral and lonely antihero Highsmith based five novels upon. Bruno Ganz plays a dying picture framer who is cajoled into murdering a man. Through various circumstances these two men come together, and briefly become friends. This is a thriller, but it's mostly the story of these two men who come to depend on one another for a brief time. Hopper is very touching in this film, conveying Ripley's loneliness in very subtle ways. And Bruno Ganz is even better as the man caught up in something he doesn't understand. And as always with a Wenders film, this is visually beautiful. For fans of Wim Wenders or The Talented Mr. Ripley, this is well worth seeing.
83 Reviews
probably postmodern
jeff-20113 April 1999
A wonderful film whose plot elements are not nearly as important as the characters' development. Hopper is endearing, and the suspense created in a few paramount scenes is very effective. The music, and the surreal cameos and nature of the story create a very involving film full of clever twists, scenes, and dialogue. The use of different characters might be interpreted as symbols for different national characteristics; but the film is best seen for what it is. A really good story that plays on many of the cliches that were established ten or twenty years before it. Wenders knows his American films.
Dennis Hopper gives real life to Tom Ripley in Wim Wenders truly atmospheric film
Guido_TheKillerPimp18 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Any reader and fan (of which I am both) of Patricia Highsmith would reject the placement of this film in the "Noir" category. Highsmith was the author of several novels involving Tom Ripley. "The American Friend" is based on "Ripley's Game." Although born in Texas, Highsmith spent most of her adult life in Europe. The Europeon experience is an important feature of her novels. An even more important feature, one which seems to permeate every page, is a feeling much more than "Noir." This is not so much "Noir"; which, unfortunately, has grown to be synonymous with "Crime" in American Noir films of the past twenty years, as is an absence of morality. This amorality, personified in Tom Ripley is wonderfully fleshed out by Wim Wenders' direction of Dennis Hopper in "The American Friend". Ripley is a self-involved narcissist who breaks the monotony of his naval-staring to ruin the life of several people just to see if it can be done. His focus is Jonathan Zimmerman, an Ubermensch with a pre-school age son and an extremely devoted wife scraping out a life as a picture-framer while dealing with a chronic illness. Wenders completely places the viewer in Zimmerman's world as he putters around his shop between the occasional framing job only to come home to a horribly cramped apartment in the worst part of Hamburg. The viewer may be put off at the way the film plods along at times, but this is all part of the palette from which Wenders paints a world of futility for Zimmerman (and shared by residents of the post WWII/pre end of Cold War West Germany) as he begins to believe his illness is closing in around him worse than his life. The patient viewer allows a Wenders film to wash over them and breathes deep the atmosphere Wenders conveys - even if this atmosphere is terribly dreadful and smothering. Through his agent, Reeves, Ripley gives Zimmerman a chance to do right by his family by becoming a hit men of mobsters. The world closes in even more on Zimmerman as Reeves directs Zimmerman to perform the killing on a train. As Wenders moves his characters across Europe he transports the viewer within the dangerous pages of a Highsmith novel where the most everyday people are one step away the most horrible of acts. Who do we most identify with...Zimmerman?...Ripley? How close are we to these personas under the right - or wrong - circumstances. Give "The American Friend" a try and find out for yourself.
3 things you need to know before you watch this
rooprect5 September 2020
Plot summary: A normal, family "everyman" crosses paths with a questionable art broker and somehow gets tasked with the job of whacking a few people.
3 interesting things to keep in mind:
1. "The American Friend" is Wim Wenders' film adaptation of the novel "Ripley's Game" by one of his favorite writers, Patricia Highsmith. According to Wim, after he proudly showed the final print to her in a private screening, she hated it so much that she left without saying a word. This destroyed Wim. But months later, Patricia contacted him to say that she saw the film a 2nd time and LOVED it. Her initial negative reaction was due to her shock and confusion at the way the character "Ripley" was played, but on 2nd watching, she told Wim that Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Ripley was the best she'd ever seen. Which brings us to...
2. Dennis Hopper's portrayal of "Ripley". WOW!!! Just... WOW. In an incredibly complex, layered, formidable as well as lovable characterization, Dennis Hopper completely changes the book's Ripley into his own. Fresh off the set of Apocalypse Now, literally right out of the jungle and, as Wim mentions, "high on every drug created by man," Dennis Hopper entered the set of this film and proceeded to do whatever he wanted. It was fantastic, so Wim gave him free reign. So what you see here is Hopper's unique portrayal of what was originally a purely amoral villain. Instead we get a wonderfully magnetic, introspective, sensitive--and then back to calculatingly cold--character who is a real treat to watch. What makes it even better is his relationship (on screen as well as off-screen) with his co-star Bruno Ganz. Which brings us to...
3. Bruno Ganz's portrayal of "Jonathan". WOoooOOoOoOOoOWW! Swiss/German stage actor Bruno Ganz, in what he describes as his first real film credit, absolutely knocks it out of the park. And it's the dynamic between Ganz and Hopper that makes this film work. Ganz came to the set fully prepared with his lines memorized syllable-for-syllable as stage actors do. So it deeply TICKED HIM OFF when Hopper would go into his wild departures from script. This led to a knockdown dragout fistfight on set, upon which Wim shut down filming and told them to take it outside, which they did, for several hours awol, until coming back the next day stone drunk, arm-in-arm. This is exactly the sort of dynamic we have on screen. Ripley and Jonathan despise each other, and they love each other. Forced to work together toward a common goal, we watch their fantastic friendly-rivalry as events unfold. And if you believe the backstage stories, you'll understand how they achieved this rare balance. It's 100% real.
I'll just leave it there. I won't even go into the fantastic cinematography and lighting (the first time a major film was ever lit with fluorescent light, giving it a strangely surreal look), and I won't even go into the poetry and wonderful artistic elements characteristic of all Wim Wenders flicks. That's for you to look for and enjoy at your own pace. I just figured you might like the inside scoop on these 3 interesting things that helped make "The American Friend" the rare gem that it is.
3 interesting things to keep in mind:
1. "The American Friend" is Wim Wenders' film adaptation of the novel "Ripley's Game" by one of his favorite writers, Patricia Highsmith. According to Wim, after he proudly showed the final print to her in a private screening, she hated it so much that she left without saying a word. This destroyed Wim. But months later, Patricia contacted him to say that she saw the film a 2nd time and LOVED it. Her initial negative reaction was due to her shock and confusion at the way the character "Ripley" was played, but on 2nd watching, she told Wim that Dennis Hopper's portrayal of Ripley was the best she'd ever seen. Which brings us to...
2. Dennis Hopper's portrayal of "Ripley". WOW!!! Just... WOW. In an incredibly complex, layered, formidable as well as lovable characterization, Dennis Hopper completely changes the book's Ripley into his own. Fresh off the set of Apocalypse Now, literally right out of the jungle and, as Wim mentions, "high on every drug created by man," Dennis Hopper entered the set of this film and proceeded to do whatever he wanted. It was fantastic, so Wim gave him free reign. So what you see here is Hopper's unique portrayal of what was originally a purely amoral villain. Instead we get a wonderfully magnetic, introspective, sensitive--and then back to calculatingly cold--character who is a real treat to watch. What makes it even better is his relationship (on screen as well as off-screen) with his co-star Bruno Ganz. Which brings us to...
3. Bruno Ganz's portrayal of "Jonathan". WOoooOOoOoOOoOWW! Swiss/German stage actor Bruno Ganz, in what he describes as his first real film credit, absolutely knocks it out of the park. And it's the dynamic between Ganz and Hopper that makes this film work. Ganz came to the set fully prepared with his lines memorized syllable-for-syllable as stage actors do. So it deeply TICKED HIM OFF when Hopper would go into his wild departures from script. This led to a knockdown dragout fistfight on set, upon which Wim shut down filming and told them to take it outside, which they did, for several hours awol, until coming back the next day stone drunk, arm-in-arm. This is exactly the sort of dynamic we have on screen. Ripley and Jonathan despise each other, and they love each other. Forced to work together toward a common goal, we watch their fantastic friendly-rivalry as events unfold. And if you believe the backstage stories, you'll understand how they achieved this rare balance. It's 100% real.
I'll just leave it there. I won't even go into the fantastic cinematography and lighting (the first time a major film was ever lit with fluorescent light, giving it a strangely surreal look), and I won't even go into the poetry and wonderful artistic elements characteristic of all Wim Wenders flicks. That's for you to look for and enjoy at your own pace. I just figured you might like the inside scoop on these 3 interesting things that helped make "The American Friend" the rare gem that it is.
A probing and fully realized character study
howard.schumann19 January 2004
Jonathan Zimmerman (Bruno Ganz) is an easy going Swiss picture framer living in Germany who believes he is dying from a rare blood disease. When he makes the acquaintance of Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper), an art dealer of dubious reputation, he is faced with a profound moral question. Should he commit a murder for Ripley's underworld associate, Raoul Minot (Gérard Blain) in order to guarantee the lifelong security of his wife Marianne (Liza Kruezer) and son Daniel (Andreas Dedecke)? Based on the novel Ripley's Game by Patricia Highsmith, Wim Wenders The American Friend is a probing character study of two very different men, one a solitary high stakes adventurer, the other a staid family man grown desperate by his circumstances. Perhaps as a result of an unacknowledged admiration for the other's lifestyle, the business relationship between the two men slowly develops into a reluctant friendship, powerfully illustrating the complexity of the human condition.
Shot in Paris, New York, and Hamburg, Germany, Cinematographer Robby Muller's moody waterfront shots and interior yellow-green color images enhance the mood of paranoia and keep the tension flowing. Cameo appearances by directors Nicholas Ray as a painter who faked his own death and Sam Fuller as an American mobster pay homage to these icons of American cinema. The plot centers around Ripley's revenge for an offhand remark Zimmerman made at an art auction, first spreading the rumor that is health is failing rapidly, then driving him to undertake an act that he would normally consider morally reprehensible. In trying to convince Zimmerman to commit the crime, Raoul offers to provide the services of a Paris hematologist but the lab results are faked and Zimmerman more than ever is convinced that he is going to die. Reluctantly, he commits the murder in a brilliant set piece aboard the Paris Metro, then slowly sinks into a maelstrom of deceit and deception that adds additional twists and turns to an already intricate plot.
Though questions remain unanswered, the strength of the film is not in the plot but in its multi-leveled characterizations and powerful performances. Ganz is fully believable as the decent man tortured by a moral dilemma and Hopper, rebounding from a period of substance abuse, turns in a performance of diabolical intensity as the underworld-connected profiteer. The American Friend avoids the temptation to be simply another film noir thriller or a good versus evil escapade, showing fully realized human beings who have thoughts and feelings we can understand even when we strongly disapprove of their actions. I just have one question. Didn't any one ever tell Zimmerman about life insurance?
Shot in Paris, New York, and Hamburg, Germany, Cinematographer Robby Muller's moody waterfront shots and interior yellow-green color images enhance the mood of paranoia and keep the tension flowing. Cameo appearances by directors Nicholas Ray as a painter who faked his own death and Sam Fuller as an American mobster pay homage to these icons of American cinema. The plot centers around Ripley's revenge for an offhand remark Zimmerman made at an art auction, first spreading the rumor that is health is failing rapidly, then driving him to undertake an act that he would normally consider morally reprehensible. In trying to convince Zimmerman to commit the crime, Raoul offers to provide the services of a Paris hematologist but the lab results are faked and Zimmerman more than ever is convinced that he is going to die. Reluctantly, he commits the murder in a brilliant set piece aboard the Paris Metro, then slowly sinks into a maelstrom of deceit and deception that adds additional twists and turns to an already intricate plot.
Though questions remain unanswered, the strength of the film is not in the plot but in its multi-leveled characterizations and powerful performances. Ganz is fully believable as the decent man tortured by a moral dilemma and Hopper, rebounding from a period of substance abuse, turns in a performance of diabolical intensity as the underworld-connected profiteer. The American Friend avoids the temptation to be simply another film noir thriller or a good versus evil escapade, showing fully realized human beings who have thoughts and feelings we can understand even when we strongly disapprove of their actions. I just have one question. Didn't any one ever tell Zimmerman about life insurance?
long defrost time
whitecargo16 November 2003
The AMERICAN FRIEND
The fine German director Wim Wenders is responsible for this film. (If you dont know Wenders, you should). The setting of the film is handled well: the seaminess of the port of Hamburg Germany, comes across as one of the great film noir-type cities. It looks like an environment that is constantly wet and misty.
The movie ostensibly stars Dennis Hopper, but although he is given top billing in the movie he plays nearly a minor, background figure throughout. Clearly the most interesting performance, it is frustratingly parceled out to us in a way that makes you crave a really long scene with just him in it. But instead, his characterization happens in brief, truncated insights.
Hopper is well-cast once again in one of those teetering-on-the-edge roles he excels in. He is a loose cannon in this film--you clearly see his character is unbalanced --and you just dont know what he is going to do at any given moment and that lends the film its tense aspect. But the film doesnt really focus on him. Thats the main problem with this film.
Bruno Ganz (a fine Swiss actor) is the figure that the camera spends the most time on. He and Hopper and several other figures are all part of the world of art forgery and art smuggling. But Ganz's character--a painting restoration expert--is suffering secretly from a terminal blood disease. (His performance is soooo subdued it can make you antsy and annoyed, especially when you know Hopper is around somewhere).
Anyway, when the other shady characters in the movie learn of Ganz's condition they play upon his weakness to manipulate him into taking risks with the gangsters they deal with. His goal is simply to provide more money for his family after he is gone. (There is a nice moral dilemma in this film: if you knew you were dying, would your moral code alter?)
My emotional response to the plot: basically it evoked a sense of dread; a queasiness at the entanglements the main character is drawn into and the things he has to do--which are clearly against his better judgement. He is pushed to the limits of his moral and physical endurance. Its a tightly-focused story.
That being said, one immediately notices that the film's storyline is delivered in tiny, tattered snippets. These 'fragments' are in themselves intriguing. They are well photographed; they are sometimes laden with tension and atmosphere; and they often have taut, fused moments of acting.
There is also a poetic sweetness that occurs when two seemingly unrelated elements finally merge and make sense. Therefore, you know that the director isnt just fluffing it; because tiny motifs that are broken off in the beginning of the film reappear later and complete their meaning. Its great.
But overall, these slowly-delivered fragments can make one restless at times. There is too much that is unexplained; too much that we have to infer or dismiss because it simply isnt made clear. None of the characters, nor their subtle relationships to each other, are 'handed to us' outright. They are revealed in the same tiny flashes that forms the constructive style used throughout the whole movie.
Bottom line: a lot of the dialogue is frustratingly cryptic. I think you *could* figure out the weight behind each exchange if you went back carefully over the movie, but after a point--when the action takes over--youre left feeling that it just doesnt matter. Its as if Wenders shot long, fully drawn-out and rich scenes of dialogue but then went back and sliced it all up into little bits and pieces.
Its a movie that gives one mixed reactions. Kind of hard to characterize what the sum total of this film really is. Its basically a thriller, but done in such a low, deliberately dead-pan manner; that youre left with no sense of tension. Or climax. The Hopper character's weird relationship to the main protagonist, is what really leaves an aftertaste in your mouth. Perhaps that was the intent all along.
There is a sense of calm and satisfaction at the close of the movie, but more because the chaos is over and things have settled into a peaceful arrangement. Still, I enjoyed the movie and recommend it as worth seeing.
One reason that any film fan should really watch this film is the wonderful cameos by two of America's classic Hollywood directors from the 1950s: Nicholas Ray and Samuel Fuller. This is really a treat! Fuller plays a gangster and Ray plays a forger. Its the main reason I wanted to see this movie, and I am glad I did.
The fine German director Wim Wenders is responsible for this film. (If you dont know Wenders, you should). The setting of the film is handled well: the seaminess of the port of Hamburg Germany, comes across as one of the great film noir-type cities. It looks like an environment that is constantly wet and misty.
The movie ostensibly stars Dennis Hopper, but although he is given top billing in the movie he plays nearly a minor, background figure throughout. Clearly the most interesting performance, it is frustratingly parceled out to us in a way that makes you crave a really long scene with just him in it. But instead, his characterization happens in brief, truncated insights.
Hopper is well-cast once again in one of those teetering-on-the-edge roles he excels in. He is a loose cannon in this film--you clearly see his character is unbalanced --and you just dont know what he is going to do at any given moment and that lends the film its tense aspect. But the film doesnt really focus on him. Thats the main problem with this film.
Bruno Ganz (a fine Swiss actor) is the figure that the camera spends the most time on. He and Hopper and several other figures are all part of the world of art forgery and art smuggling. But Ganz's character--a painting restoration expert--is suffering secretly from a terminal blood disease. (His performance is soooo subdued it can make you antsy and annoyed, especially when you know Hopper is around somewhere).
Anyway, when the other shady characters in the movie learn of Ganz's condition they play upon his weakness to manipulate him into taking risks with the gangsters they deal with. His goal is simply to provide more money for his family after he is gone. (There is a nice moral dilemma in this film: if you knew you were dying, would your moral code alter?)
My emotional response to the plot: basically it evoked a sense of dread; a queasiness at the entanglements the main character is drawn into and the things he has to do--which are clearly against his better judgement. He is pushed to the limits of his moral and physical endurance. Its a tightly-focused story.
That being said, one immediately notices that the film's storyline is delivered in tiny, tattered snippets. These 'fragments' are in themselves intriguing. They are well photographed; they are sometimes laden with tension and atmosphere; and they often have taut, fused moments of acting.
There is also a poetic sweetness that occurs when two seemingly unrelated elements finally merge and make sense. Therefore, you know that the director isnt just fluffing it; because tiny motifs that are broken off in the beginning of the film reappear later and complete their meaning. Its great.
But overall, these slowly-delivered fragments can make one restless at times. There is too much that is unexplained; too much that we have to infer or dismiss because it simply isnt made clear. None of the characters, nor their subtle relationships to each other, are 'handed to us' outright. They are revealed in the same tiny flashes that forms the constructive style used throughout the whole movie.
Bottom line: a lot of the dialogue is frustratingly cryptic. I think you *could* figure out the weight behind each exchange if you went back carefully over the movie, but after a point--when the action takes over--youre left feeling that it just doesnt matter. Its as if Wenders shot long, fully drawn-out and rich scenes of dialogue but then went back and sliced it all up into little bits and pieces.
Its a movie that gives one mixed reactions. Kind of hard to characterize what the sum total of this film really is. Its basically a thriller, but done in such a low, deliberately dead-pan manner; that youre left with no sense of tension. Or climax. The Hopper character's weird relationship to the main protagonist, is what really leaves an aftertaste in your mouth. Perhaps that was the intent all along.
There is a sense of calm and satisfaction at the close of the movie, but more because the chaos is over and things have settled into a peaceful arrangement. Still, I enjoyed the movie and recommend it as worth seeing.
One reason that any film fan should really watch this film is the wonderful cameos by two of America's classic Hollywood directors from the 1950s: Nicholas Ray and Samuel Fuller. This is really a treat! Fuller plays a gangster and Ray plays a forger. Its the main reason I wanted to see this movie, and I am glad I did.
Decent watch from start to finish
Horst_In_Translation22 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Der amerikanische Freund" or "The American Friend" is a German movie from almost 40 years ago. Director Wim Wenders adapted the Patricia Highsmith novel for his screenplay here. Highsmith has been in talks recently again because she also wrote the base material for the pretty popular new movie "Carol". But back to this one. I may be a bit biased as I like Wim Wenders and I like lead actor Bruno Ganz even more. Do not be confused by the cast list here. Dennis Hopper may be listed first because of his big name, but this film is Ganz' character's story and Hopper is only a major supporting player, just like Lisa Kreuzer, who plays the female protagonist in this 2-hour film.
I personally felt the movie never achieved real greatness or extraordinarily memorable moments and scenes, but it was still an atmospheric watch from start to finish. It was pretty tense, very suspenseful and I also liked the locations they chose for the scenes. Apart from that, Ganz carries this film strongly from start to finish and he also physically looks exactly like he would fit into an American film of this genre. My favorite scene was probably when he commits the first murder, but runs away despite being instructed to stay calm and not act differently. The train scenes afterward were very good too. Then again, this should not come as a surprise as everybody who knows Ganz knows that he is a truly gifted character actor.
All in all, I recommend the watch. People who appreciate the likes of "The Untouchables", "Dog Day Afternoon", "The French Connection" or "The Conversation" can certainly check this film out and they will not be disappointed. I personally also had to think of "Breaking Bad" on one or two occasions. A man who is sure that he dies gets deeper and deeper into the abyss of crime in attempts to get money for his family. Of course, he was already a criminal before things got serious in contrast to Walter White. But maybe others do not see this parody. Maybe it is just me. Anyway, thumbs up for "The American Friend". I recommend it, even if it is not my favorite from the director. That would still be another Wenders-Ganz collaboration "Der Himmel über Berlin".
I personally felt the movie never achieved real greatness or extraordinarily memorable moments and scenes, but it was still an atmospheric watch from start to finish. It was pretty tense, very suspenseful and I also liked the locations they chose for the scenes. Apart from that, Ganz carries this film strongly from start to finish and he also physically looks exactly like he would fit into an American film of this genre. My favorite scene was probably when he commits the first murder, but runs away despite being instructed to stay calm and not act differently. The train scenes afterward were very good too. Then again, this should not come as a surprise as everybody who knows Ganz knows that he is a truly gifted character actor.
All in all, I recommend the watch. People who appreciate the likes of "The Untouchables", "Dog Day Afternoon", "The French Connection" or "The Conversation" can certainly check this film out and they will not be disappointed. I personally also had to think of "Breaking Bad" on one or two occasions. A man who is sure that he dies gets deeper and deeper into the abyss of crime in attempts to get money for his family. Of course, he was already a criminal before things got serious in contrast to Walter White. But maybe others do not see this parody. Maybe it is just me. Anyway, thumbs up for "The American Friend". I recommend it, even if it is not my favorite from the director. That would still be another Wenders-Ganz collaboration "Der Himmel über Berlin".
Wenders's Game
robert-temple-12 December 2008
Patricia Highsmith began infusing the world of film with creepy stories as early as 1951, with Hitchcock's masterpiece 'Strangers on a Train'. Her novels about the criminal character Ripley have been popular with several leading directors, and here Wenders has a go at her novel 'Ripley's Game'. It is not totally successful, and it is 'a real downer', with its gloom unalleviated. But it is yet another of Wenders's great films, just terribly depressing and leaving a sickly taste in the mouth. But of course that was what Highsmith aimed at, and Wenders duly executed. The main theme of the film is complicity, and the sub-text is the thin veneer of morality that lies across the surface of most respectable people, which can be more brittle than we imagine and under stress can reveal a spider's web of myriad cracks which quickly reduce the most smoothly groomed personality to a crinkled mass, like a shattered mirror which hangs on in its frame and refuses to drop. Here the shattered mirror is played by Bruno Ganz, a respectable and moral person leading a quiet life as a picture framer in Hamburg (a marvellously gloomy city). Lisa Kreuzer, who had made several Wenders films already, plays his silent and worried wife with deep intensity, and requires no lines of dialogue to convey her fears. Ganz believes he is dying, so he takes drastic measures to secure financial security for his wife and child. Ripley is played with subtlety and genius by Dennis Hopper, as an amiable American in a cowboy hat with a worm in his soul, but who beneath the criminal levels of his personality has an overwhelming and desperate craving for a real friend who is a nice person. We then see the complicity between these two opposites evolve through a harrowing tale of murder and corruption, with the pathetic Ganz becoming increasingly brazen and the brazen Hopper becoming increasingly pathetic, thus merging into one another. We see Hopper's essential loneliness when he is stripped psychologically naked by events. Ganz thinks he needs Hopper, but it is Hopper who really needs Ganz. Highsmith was intrigued by concealed needs, subliminal agendas, and dominance swops. This is a deep psychological melodrama between two men who in normal life would never even meet, much less end up as buddies. Wenders plunges in and gleefully excplores this moral maze with all the eagerness of a ferret in a rabbit hole. What fun he has! And film director Nicholas Ray is marvellous in his cameo as an aged painter of forgeries, living under an assumed name after having faked his own death. Everything about this film is morally dubious, and that is the point. After all, isn't most of life morally dubious? And aren't most people, when put to the test? Here, two unlike objects are struck together and both surprisingly turn out to be flints, producing fire and setting the kindling alight. Watch the blaze.
Like a good forgery, maybe more fun to make than to view...
ThurstonHunger14 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
While I can appreciate some of the high rankings, honestly the film for me was more fun than fascinating. On top of that, I suspect it was even more fun to make. I'll be honest, I've not read this, nor any of Patricia Highsmith's novels, so you can use that to filter out my review if you wish.
Hopper is engaging to watch with his cavalier craziness, like watching someone flip 10 heads in a row tossing a coin, or more like 50...it gets to feel more than unexpected, but a little creepy. And yet his charisma works against that tension.
Ganz goes through a couple of quick conversions, not only the committing to the crime, but the fast-binding friendship with Hopper's Ripley. Believe it or Not.
Mostly you are best off suspending disbelief and going along for the various rides. I guess I do like the idea that professional experts in both art and medicine are susceptible to deceit.
Hopper is engaging to watch with his cavalier craziness, like watching someone flip 10 heads in a row tossing a coin, or more like 50...it gets to feel more than unexpected, but a little creepy. And yet his charisma works against that tension.
Ganz goes through a couple of quick conversions, not only the committing to the crime, but the fast-binding friendship with Hopper's Ripley. Believe it or Not.
Mostly you are best off suspending disbelief and going along for the various rides. I guess I do like the idea that professional experts in both art and medicine are susceptible to deceit.
I want to tell you how incredible this film is..
byrmcusyty7 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I want to tell you how incredibly joyous this film is...but I worry that I'll tell you the wrong way and sound ridiculous. So don't read any further. Just see the movie for yourself.
Dennis Hopper and Bruno Ganz are fantastic as the perverse Ripley and his randomly picked/stalked friend. I've never seen a buddy-buddy film where the bonding is done quite like this, unreal. Unreal how deep they go. No, really, it's that amazing.
Odd things that I liked: I like the way the two shift casually between English and German. I like the Bartok-ish music. The cinematography is great, and on the DVD commentary you will hear Wenders talk about Robby's inventiveness with gels. The train scene is one crisis after another but also contains some hilarious bits (the business with the tickets). Another powerful moment takes place later at Tom's house where they try to execute a reverse-ambush. Jonathan, pipe in hand, looking down sadly at the henchman he'd just sent down for good.
What else do I like without revealing too much of the plot? Gee, I guess I like everything about this film. This is one of those films (Je vous salue, Marie; Paris Texas; Lost in Translation; Chungking Express are others) that I LOVE so dearly that I hate myself for talking about it because it's inevitable that I will be wronging it with the inadequacy of my language (ie trying to capture something that is beyond words).
Dennis Hopper and Bruno Ganz are fantastic as the perverse Ripley and his randomly picked/stalked friend. I've never seen a buddy-buddy film where the bonding is done quite like this, unreal. Unreal how deep they go. No, really, it's that amazing.
Odd things that I liked: I like the way the two shift casually between English and German. I like the Bartok-ish music. The cinematography is great, and on the DVD commentary you will hear Wenders talk about Robby's inventiveness with gels. The train scene is one crisis after another but also contains some hilarious bits (the business with the tickets). Another powerful moment takes place later at Tom's house where they try to execute a reverse-ambush. Jonathan, pipe in hand, looking down sadly at the henchman he'd just sent down for good.
What else do I like without revealing too much of the plot? Gee, I guess I like everything about this film. This is one of those films (Je vous salue, Marie; Paris Texas; Lost in Translation; Chungking Express are others) that I LOVE so dearly that I hate myself for talking about it because it's inevitable that I will be wronging it with the inadequacy of my language (ie trying to capture something that is beyond words).
Elephants
boblipton5 April 2022
It's a fine adaptation of a Patricia Highsmith's story about sociopathic Tom Ripley & associates. Müller shoots it brilliantly to look like a Hopper painting (Edward), and Hopper plays Ripley coldly (Dennis). There's the added attraction of casting a bunch of directors as actors.... but is it ever more than a series of gimmicks?
I recall, oh, almost fifty years ago, when I was taking the Clarion writing course and one of the students talked about how you had to work at developing your style of writing. I always thought that was ridiculous. Did you also have to develop a style of walking, a style of breathing, a style of putting your shoes on in the morning? You tried various things, and some of them worked and you kept those. Some didn't and you abandoned those. What was left was your style. Think about how to do it a little better. Maybe it will work and you'll be successful, however you define success.
While I started this movie, I wondered if this was director Wim Wenders working on his style. Perhaps he thought it was a reflection of the story. After all, Tom Ripley is a manipulative, controlling character. Directors are manipulating, controlling characters. Was he trying to see if those character traits would show up on the screen? Or is it about nested levels of auteurism? A director directing directors as artists who create works of art over which they have absolute control... only they're forgeries, so they're all lying and it's all elephants all the way to the bottom.
Or perhaps I was just overthinking this because Wenders was tired of the critics and when a fellow director showed up, he gave him a role, then continued on as a goof. Maybe I should shut up, watch the movie, and see if I enjoyed it. There's a novel thought!
Bruno Ganz is living the virtuous life of an art framer, since he's too ill to do restoration work. He's dying, actually. Ripley, whom he's annoyed, gets him set up doing killings, helping him liberally, happily and clumsily. There's lots of spilt brains and tortes for that wacky (no pun intended) German sense of humor. It's all Ripley's fault; it's some sort of low-level metaphor of American corruption, even if, for my money, Ganz corrupts pretty easily.
In short, it's a fine piece of translation of Highsmith to the screen, and kudos for that. If that's your idea of a good time, congratulations. It's not really mine.
But Müller's lighting is gorgeous.
I recall, oh, almost fifty years ago, when I was taking the Clarion writing course and one of the students talked about how you had to work at developing your style of writing. I always thought that was ridiculous. Did you also have to develop a style of walking, a style of breathing, a style of putting your shoes on in the morning? You tried various things, and some of them worked and you kept those. Some didn't and you abandoned those. What was left was your style. Think about how to do it a little better. Maybe it will work and you'll be successful, however you define success.
While I started this movie, I wondered if this was director Wim Wenders working on his style. Perhaps he thought it was a reflection of the story. After all, Tom Ripley is a manipulative, controlling character. Directors are manipulating, controlling characters. Was he trying to see if those character traits would show up on the screen? Or is it about nested levels of auteurism? A director directing directors as artists who create works of art over which they have absolute control... only they're forgeries, so they're all lying and it's all elephants all the way to the bottom.
Or perhaps I was just overthinking this because Wenders was tired of the critics and when a fellow director showed up, he gave him a role, then continued on as a goof. Maybe I should shut up, watch the movie, and see if I enjoyed it. There's a novel thought!
Bruno Ganz is living the virtuous life of an art framer, since he's too ill to do restoration work. He's dying, actually. Ripley, whom he's annoyed, gets him set up doing killings, helping him liberally, happily and clumsily. There's lots of spilt brains and tortes for that wacky (no pun intended) German sense of humor. It's all Ripley's fault; it's some sort of low-level metaphor of American corruption, even if, for my money, Ganz corrupts pretty easily.
In short, it's a fine piece of translation of Highsmith to the screen, and kudos for that. If that's your idea of a good time, congratulations. It's not really mine.
But Müller's lighting is gorgeous.
Turning An Innocent Man Into A Murderer
Eumenides_01 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"What's wrong with a cowboy in Hamburg?" asks Dennis Hopper at the beginning of the movie, wearing a Stetson like he just entered the wrong picture. For viewers used to the suave, sophisticated Tom Ripley played by Matt Damon and John Malkovich, Dennis Hopper's version will look like an abomination - unapologetically American, full of American speech mannerisms, slightly crazy and more than once acting like he's hopped on drugs. But that's the beauty of the movie, a beauty unique to the '70s, when American actors collaborated with European filmmakers, when different influences merged to create something unique.
Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the movie follows Tom Ripley, bon vivant, art dealer and occasional murderer. Enjoying success selling fake pictures of a popular but dead artist, one day he meets a picture-framer, Jonathan (Bruno Ganz), who displeases him. His mistake? To say 'I've heard of you' in a disdainful manner and refusing to shake hands with Ripley.
Jonathan is dying from a blood disease and has more on his mind than social niceties. He has medical bills to pay and he's worried about the future of his son and wife (Lisa Kreuzer) after he passes away. So he becomes the perfect person for Ripley to turn into a murderer when a criminal friend (Gérard Blain) asks him to find someone to kill a rival for money. Quickly the movie enters fertile territory that lets Wenders explore questions about personal responsibility, duplicity, and the nature of evil.
Although Tom Ripley usually has the spotlight in his movies, here the main character is Jonathan. Bruno Ganz plays this everyman with compassion for his predicament and also with a feeling of being trapped between accepting his fate and enjoying the freedom to become a murder it grants him. Quite fascinating are the scenes with his family, which become increasingly darker, going from idyllic to nightmarish as his secret life distances him from his wife.
Dennis Hopper gives a great performance too as Jonathan's amoral friend who plays with his life like a child with putty, manipulating it for no good reason other than personal gratification. Unconcerned with what he has done to him, he only intervenes to help him when Jonathan's problems become his own. That's Tom Ripley: elegant and nice on the outside, empty on the inside, collector of art but hardly a sensitive man, owner of a beautiful neoclassic mansion filled with objects wrapped in plastic. Once the movie ends the viewer is left wondering which of the two is the greatest fake.
Although these two actors would make the movie worth watching just for their performances, Wenders nevertheless crafted a tense, suspenseful thriller that stands on its own. Mixing cinematography reminiscent of American noir cinema with the slow pacing of '70s thrillers, this is mostly a visual experience in which sequences go on for many minutes without words spoken, the action directed by the camera and acting alone.
Sadly there aren't cowboys in Hamburg anymore. European and American cinema ignore each other, happily proud of their provincialism. But The American Friend stands as a reminder of a time when cinema knew no borders and when artists were more daring.
Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the movie follows Tom Ripley, bon vivant, art dealer and occasional murderer. Enjoying success selling fake pictures of a popular but dead artist, one day he meets a picture-framer, Jonathan (Bruno Ganz), who displeases him. His mistake? To say 'I've heard of you' in a disdainful manner and refusing to shake hands with Ripley.
Jonathan is dying from a blood disease and has more on his mind than social niceties. He has medical bills to pay and he's worried about the future of his son and wife (Lisa Kreuzer) after he passes away. So he becomes the perfect person for Ripley to turn into a murderer when a criminal friend (Gérard Blain) asks him to find someone to kill a rival for money. Quickly the movie enters fertile territory that lets Wenders explore questions about personal responsibility, duplicity, and the nature of evil.
Although Tom Ripley usually has the spotlight in his movies, here the main character is Jonathan. Bruno Ganz plays this everyman with compassion for his predicament and also with a feeling of being trapped between accepting his fate and enjoying the freedom to become a murder it grants him. Quite fascinating are the scenes with his family, which become increasingly darker, going from idyllic to nightmarish as his secret life distances him from his wife.
Dennis Hopper gives a great performance too as Jonathan's amoral friend who plays with his life like a child with putty, manipulating it for no good reason other than personal gratification. Unconcerned with what he has done to him, he only intervenes to help him when Jonathan's problems become his own. That's Tom Ripley: elegant and nice on the outside, empty on the inside, collector of art but hardly a sensitive man, owner of a beautiful neoclassic mansion filled with objects wrapped in plastic. Once the movie ends the viewer is left wondering which of the two is the greatest fake.
Although these two actors would make the movie worth watching just for their performances, Wenders nevertheless crafted a tense, suspenseful thriller that stands on its own. Mixing cinematography reminiscent of American noir cinema with the slow pacing of '70s thrillers, this is mostly a visual experience in which sequences go on for many minutes without words spoken, the action directed by the camera and acting alone.
Sadly there aren't cowboys in Hamburg anymore. European and American cinema ignore each other, happily proud of their provincialism. But The American Friend stands as a reminder of a time when cinema knew no borders and when artists were more daring.
Stands on it's own
Jona198820 March 2011
I have read all the Ripley books and loved them. Always when seeing a film based on a book you have made up a picture of how it should be. The American Friend is very loosely based on the third book Ripley's game. Knowing that, I tried to take it just as a film on it's own, inspired by the book rather than based on it. I found it worked because even if this isn't at all as I imagined it when reading the book, I really liked this film. They have taken parts of the book and managed to turn it to a great, interesting and I think pretty different kind of thriller than the usual once. The American Friend is not better than the book but I wouldn't call it much weaker either, rather calling it different. Dennis Hopper is quite a lot different than Tom Ripley in the books and really great as the character they decided to make in this. He manages brilliantly to create the kind of character that one doesn't really know what to think of. He is mysterious, seams cold but then suddenly shows and emotional side that makes me think is it fake and what is he going to do. However Ripley is not the character which the main focus is on in this film, he is the mysterious background person. The lead is Bruno Ganz as Jonathan, which is also the character which one gets the real relation to. Ganz is great in make the right feel of the character, as viewer I feel really strong for what he is going through. As the main focus of the story he is the one I think you should strongest relate and be interested to follow. He succeeds brilliant in giving the film the real depth that it impresses with. The style of it also is something that not only works great but at least for me gives somewhat of a special feel. With many book adaptations the real interest for me resides in wanting to see how a story I already know looks like physically. Where sometimes I'm just irritated in the changes from the source material. In The American Friend I'm just focusing on what twists it itself will take. This is I shall state once again because they have brilliantly created something of it's own. The suspense scenes work great, to the level of being kind of frightening on and psychological level. Even if the suspense stuff is great I feel it is the character psychological weight that make this so gripping, the emotional depth is so impressive. It is a thriller but not the average kind. Sad rather than frightening, emotionally tough rather than suspenseful. The American Friend both amazingly impressive and interestingly different. 8/10
Great story squandered on empty posturing.
Alex-Tsander25 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I will admit that I watched this film having previously, repeatedly, watched and loved the later "Ripleys Game" with John Malkovitch as the eponymous eminence gris. So I cannot consider the Wenders version without comparison. Really though there is no comparison.
I am staggered at how Wenders fans at this site seem to be preoccupied by the directors brilliance...as indicated in other work.I prefer to try to see what is before me. It isn't impressive.
Compared to the Malkovitch rendition, Hopper is utterly unbelievable. Malkovitch is the cool, manipulative, patrician sophisticate and sociopath that fits Ripleys form. When he talks art we believe it. Hopper is just a bumbling joke. In no sense can we believe the proposition that such a flake could succeed as a player in the world of fine art dealing. He wouldn't get through the door. Ray Winstones clubland villain in Ripleys Game is totally believable. The French guy in this movie is just a vacant nothing, the echo of a fart that Winstone might deposit in passing. The American gangland henchmen are utterly ridiculous. They don't have a muscle between them and are as menacing as a tea lady. The fight scenes are a pathetic joke, reminiscent of something out of a Sixties spy spoof, one tap on the head and a guys dead. Yeah! The movie is padded out with empty scenes that serve no discernible function, such as Hopper playing with a polaroid camera. One senses Wenders trying to create "iconic" images, Ganz leaning bout of a train cab screaming...but they just don't work. How the heck would he gain access to the train cab anyway? The whole thing is amateurish, pretentious and glib. Nothing has substance. Its badly edited. Sloppily shot. Inconsistently lit. The music is dire and doesn't segue properly with the cuts of each scene.
Ganz is superb, but Hoppers "performance" undermines that. He looks like he thinks the film is some funny foreign farce that he will take part in just for the fee but indicates his disrespect via various tells in expression amounting to a suggestion that he is playing "tongue in cheek" yet flatly without irony. I greatly enjoy him in other movies, even B-movies, but in this he was embarrassing to watch.
I suspect that most of the high scorers here would agree with at least some of my opinions had they seen the movie without knowing its author.
I am staggered at how Wenders fans at this site seem to be preoccupied by the directors brilliance...as indicated in other work.I prefer to try to see what is before me. It isn't impressive.
Compared to the Malkovitch rendition, Hopper is utterly unbelievable. Malkovitch is the cool, manipulative, patrician sophisticate and sociopath that fits Ripleys form. When he talks art we believe it. Hopper is just a bumbling joke. In no sense can we believe the proposition that such a flake could succeed as a player in the world of fine art dealing. He wouldn't get through the door. Ray Winstones clubland villain in Ripleys Game is totally believable. The French guy in this movie is just a vacant nothing, the echo of a fart that Winstone might deposit in passing. The American gangland henchmen are utterly ridiculous. They don't have a muscle between them and are as menacing as a tea lady. The fight scenes are a pathetic joke, reminiscent of something out of a Sixties spy spoof, one tap on the head and a guys dead. Yeah! The movie is padded out with empty scenes that serve no discernible function, such as Hopper playing with a polaroid camera. One senses Wenders trying to create "iconic" images, Ganz leaning bout of a train cab screaming...but they just don't work. How the heck would he gain access to the train cab anyway? The whole thing is amateurish, pretentious and glib. Nothing has substance. Its badly edited. Sloppily shot. Inconsistently lit. The music is dire and doesn't segue properly with the cuts of each scene.
Ganz is superb, but Hoppers "performance" undermines that. He looks like he thinks the film is some funny foreign farce that he will take part in just for the fee but indicates his disrespect via various tells in expression amounting to a suggestion that he is playing "tongue in cheek" yet flatly without irony. I greatly enjoy him in other movies, even B-movies, but in this he was embarrassing to watch.
I suspect that most of the high scorers here would agree with at least some of my opinions had they seen the movie without knowing its author.
Wenders' wonder. Don't overlook this one!
Infofreak20 September 2001
Wim Wenders' movies are really a matter of taste. His detractors find his movies to be painfully slow, drawn out, pretentious affairs. Even I can admit to finding the prospect of sitting through some of his movies (particularly 'Until the End of the World' and 'Faraway, So Close!') almost unbearable. But when Wenders is on form he is hard to beat for mysterious, multi-layered, genuinely haunting movies.
Some people regard 'The American Friend' as a total bore, but I found it to be anything but, and almost equal to his masterpieces 'Paris, Texas' and 'Wings Of Desire'. Sure it is slow, and bound to frustrate those with MTV-type attention spans, but bear with it, and you will be rewarded.
Bruno Ganz is first rate as the picture-framer turned reluctant hitman, and Dennis Hopper, who is often ridiculed for his over the top self parodic "crazy guy" roles, is quietly impressive as the enigmatic, almost poetic Ripley. Compare his performance (and this movie as a whole) with Matt Damon's obvious turn in the more recent 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'. It speaks volumes for how much less subtle and intelligent most contemporary movies have become.
Some people regard 'The American Friend' as a total bore, but I found it to be anything but, and almost equal to his masterpieces 'Paris, Texas' and 'Wings Of Desire'. Sure it is slow, and bound to frustrate those with MTV-type attention spans, but bear with it, and you will be rewarded.
Bruno Ganz is first rate as the picture-framer turned reluctant hitman, and Dennis Hopper, who is often ridiculed for his over the top self parodic "crazy guy" roles, is quietly impressive as the enigmatic, almost poetic Ripley. Compare his performance (and this movie as a whole) with Matt Damon's obvious turn in the more recent 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'. It speaks volumes for how much less subtle and intelligent most contemporary movies have become.
Wenders' thriller
dbdumonteil13 September 2001
A thriller?Only because it's adapted from a Patricia HIghsmith's novel,and because this friend is none other than Thomas Ripley the criminal dandy.It's an adaptation of "Ripley's games" but it also alludes to the former "Ripley goes underground" when it alludes to fake paintings.Although the treatment may seem "modern",the novel's main topic has been kept:when you've got a lethal disease ,and when you leave behind a wife and a young boy,is it a crime to slay a criminal?
Only strong actors could pull it off,and here we deal with Bruno Ganz and Dennis Hopper:the former,now sixty,was playing "Faust" on stage a few months ago,21 hours with an intermission (!)He was already one of the best German actors at the time.He 's Jonathan,a poor lad who's got nothing to lose.Wenders does wonders when he shows his antihero overwhelmed by an inhumane urban environment,particularly in the spectacular metro (French subway) scene.Hopper is also very effective ,a much better Ripley than Delon's in "purple noon" (plein soleil),because he's American after all.He gives a stunning performance,now threatening,now comforting,finally giving support to the unfortunate Jonathan.You should see him humming Dylan's "I pity the poor immigrant" and the Beatles' "Drive my car".
The cast is very odd:outside the two leads,we find Gérard Blain,who was twice Chabrol's star (les cousins,le beau serge) and had fallen into oblivion ,at least in France-he recently died.His reappearance in the middle of such a crepuscular thriller adds to the doomed atmosphere.And that's not all:Samuel Fuller,who was to direct a movie in France several years later("les voleurs de la nuit "-thieves after dark- not on a par with his best American movies like "shock corridor" or "pick up on south street")and Nicholas Ray whose last days Wenders filmed soon after(some critics called it a "bad taste " work)in "Nick's movie are also part of this strange gathering.
Wenders' most accessible movie,the less pretentious,and along with "Strangers on a train" the best adaptation of Patricia Highsmith for the screen.
Only strong actors could pull it off,and here we deal with Bruno Ganz and Dennis Hopper:the former,now sixty,was playing "Faust" on stage a few months ago,21 hours with an intermission (!)He was already one of the best German actors at the time.He 's Jonathan,a poor lad who's got nothing to lose.Wenders does wonders when he shows his antihero overwhelmed by an inhumane urban environment,particularly in the spectacular metro (French subway) scene.Hopper is also very effective ,a much better Ripley than Delon's in "purple noon" (plein soleil),because he's American after all.He gives a stunning performance,now threatening,now comforting,finally giving support to the unfortunate Jonathan.You should see him humming Dylan's "I pity the poor immigrant" and the Beatles' "Drive my car".
The cast is very odd:outside the two leads,we find Gérard Blain,who was twice Chabrol's star (les cousins,le beau serge) and had fallen into oblivion ,at least in France-he recently died.His reappearance in the middle of such a crepuscular thriller adds to the doomed atmosphere.And that's not all:Samuel Fuller,who was to direct a movie in France several years later("les voleurs de la nuit "-thieves after dark- not on a par with his best American movies like "shock corridor" or "pick up on south street")and Nicholas Ray whose last days Wenders filmed soon after(some critics called it a "bad taste " work)in "Nick's movie are also part of this strange gathering.
Wenders' most accessible movie,the less pretentious,and along with "Strangers on a train" the best adaptation of Patricia Highsmith for the screen.
RIPLEY, YOU SPEAK GERMAN...?
masonfisk18 April 2019
A film by the great Wim Wenders which I heard of but I had no idea it was an adaptation of a Tom Ripley book, Ripley's Game to be exact. Most people know of the Talented Mr. Ripley which was made in the oughts w/Matt Damon which was a remake of a French film named Purple Noon from the 60's starring Alain Delon. To complicate things further, Ripley's Game was remade a few years ago w/John Malkovich playing Ripley, whew! Anyway this version which was made in '77 starred Bruno Ganz playing the dupe & none other than Dennis Hopper playing Ripley. In this version, a dying man is coerced to commit a couple of murders for money & the fact he's dying works in Ripley's case to convince him. Not bad w/the location shoots appropriately mangy & dirty as Germany may've looked like back then. Film lovers will be giddy to see directors Sam Fuller & Nicholas Ray in rare acting turns.
good or bad???
ricedanielle9 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
To be honest I don't Know what to think of this film. At times I loved it and at others I was bored. The film is rather slow moving and tedious to watch at times however what occurs within it is what makes in interesting.
The film doesn't rely on plot, but on the relationships and actions used within it. The relationship between the two men is one of the most interesting to watch because it is far from real. The locations in this film add to it causing various captivating shots in Paris, New York, etc.
Although much of the film is unexplained it doesn't really matter. When watching scenes such as those on the train one can't help but be entertained. So many crazy events occur on the train showing how absolutely insane the main character is. When he sticks his head out of a moving train and just screams out of top of his lungs you can't help but think he is an interesting person to watch.
this isn't a film I find easy to explain, and not one I can recommend to others because I myself don't know what to think however although it is long and irritating at times it also feels rewarding to watch. Its not one of those spoon-fed Hollywood films. Its different!
The film doesn't rely on plot, but on the relationships and actions used within it. The relationship between the two men is one of the most interesting to watch because it is far from real. The locations in this film add to it causing various captivating shots in Paris, New York, etc.
Although much of the film is unexplained it doesn't really matter. When watching scenes such as those on the train one can't help but be entertained. So many crazy events occur on the train showing how absolutely insane the main character is. When he sticks his head out of a moving train and just screams out of top of his lungs you can't help but think he is an interesting person to watch.
this isn't a film I find easy to explain, and not one I can recommend to others because I myself don't know what to think however although it is long and irritating at times it also feels rewarding to watch. Its not one of those spoon-fed Hollywood films. Its different!
Not bad at all
francisdufort-7562610 July 2022
A couple of months ago, I bought and watched Paris Texas, directed by Wim Wenders. I searched his filmography to find some other potentially good movies. One of the movies that seemed interesting (to me at least) was this little gem with Bruno Ganz and Dennis Hopper. So finally I decided to watch it and I wasn't disappointed. The performances in English German and French are a bit « sketchy » and don't stand out too much, but other than that, this movie is good. The story is interesting and original. It's not just a standard crime drama like you would expect. The action and crime stuff is good and entertaining. The movie is slow, but it doesn't drag. But the best part about this movie, by far, is the cinematography, including the lighting and the colours.
I've seen many crime movies from the seventies and they all had one thing in common: the "dirty" look. The "dirty" look is hard to explain, but mostly it's abandoned, broken down buildings and streets, brown, grey, elephant pants, polluted streets, guns and big-ass cars. Those things give 70s crime movies that "dirty" look. I really like it, it fits well with crime stories. Der amerikanische Freund has that awesome "dirty" look, but it also has many many colours mixed in. The brightly coloured lights (neons, street lights, car headlights, etc.) reflect heavily on everything and the natural sunlight makes beautiful skies. It looks wonderful and it ads something interesting to the "dirty" look. There are also many great shots and colour choices that I liked throughout the movie.
This cinematography made this crime movie a whole new experience. I can't say this is a better movie than Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon, but at it looks way better. So if you're looking for something different that looks good, I would definitely recommend this german classic.
I've seen many crime movies from the seventies and they all had one thing in common: the "dirty" look. The "dirty" look is hard to explain, but mostly it's abandoned, broken down buildings and streets, brown, grey, elephant pants, polluted streets, guns and big-ass cars. Those things give 70s crime movies that "dirty" look. I really like it, it fits well with crime stories. Der amerikanische Freund has that awesome "dirty" look, but it also has many many colours mixed in. The brightly coloured lights (neons, street lights, car headlights, etc.) reflect heavily on everything and the natural sunlight makes beautiful skies. It looks wonderful and it ads something interesting to the "dirty" look. There are also many great shots and colour choices that I liked throughout the movie.
This cinematography made this crime movie a whole new experience. I can't say this is a better movie than Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon, but at it looks way better. So if you're looking for something different that looks good, I would definitely recommend this german classic.
Picture Framer in career change
fostrhod16 February 2019
I havnt seen this movie for years . I was a picture framer for a number of years and Identified with the Bruno Ganz character who plays the part of the picture framer. I loved the scene when Dennis Hopper is praising the framer calling him a artist. Needless to say there's more to it then flattery of a picture framer. It's a great movie
The American Friend
jboothmillard5 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
From director Wim Wenders (Paris, Texas), based on the novel Ripley's Game, which I know was turned into a film with John Malkovich, this film featured in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book, so I naturally wanted to see it. Basically Swiss picture framer Jonathan Zimmermann (Downfall's Bruno Ganz) from Hamburg, Germany is slowly dying of the blood disease leukaemia, and American art forger Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper), and they are introduced to each other at an auction. French criminal Raoul Minot (Gérard Blain) approaches Tom, he wants him to kill a rival gangster, but he refuses, but the criminal presses him that he owes him, so Minot suggests the idea to Jonathan, offering a lot of money to give his wife Marianne (Lisa Kreuzer) and son after he dies. Zimmermann originally turns down the offer, but remembering he may not have long to live, and tricked by Minot into thinking he is dying sooner than he think, he does agree to the murder. He manages to shoot the man in question at an underground train station without notice, and Ripley visits him before and after this happens to have a picture framed, Jonathan has no idea he is involved in the scheme, but the two become good friends. Tom is appalled by Minot after he wants Zimmermann to kill another rival gangster, this time on a moving train by strangulation, but he agrees again, only after he makes sure his wife will get the money whatever happens to him. He does not expect Ripley to be on the train as well though, and he commits the murder instead, along with a bodyguard, and after some near misses with passengers and other criminals on the train they do get away with it. When they return home Tom confesses to Jonathan his involved in the scheme, he declines an offer to take his money for the hit and he wants nothing more to do with his friend, he advises Jonathan he should tell Minot he acted alone. Ripley is later contacted by Zimmermann because his wife is becoming suspicious of his recent activity, she also believes the American man is corrupting him, also he believes the mafia are looking for him after some mysterious phone calls. After Minot tells Jonathan his flat has been bombed, and Tom takes him with him to the mansion where assassins are meeting them, they are ambushed but manage to kill the gunmen, and they plan a long distance journey to dump the bodies. Jonathan's wife tells him that he was deceived about his medical condition, and he agrees to have a proper talk about things after they have got rid of the bodies in the ambulance they have taken. They stop on a beach and Tom with them pours petrol all over the ambulance and sets it alight, but Jonathan and his wife drive off without him, but while driving on the road Jonathan suddenly loses consciousness, they crash, the wife is alive but he has died, and Tom is seen sitting on the dock, while Minot watching him walks away. Also starring Nicholas Ray as Derwatt, Samuel Fuller as American mobster, Peter Lilienthal as Marcangelo, Daniel Schmid as Igraham, Jean Eustache as Friendly man, Rudolf Schündler as Gantner, Sandy Whitelaw as Doctor in Paris and Lou Castel as Rodolphe. Hopper is great as the American Friend of the title, i.e. a loner with crime connections, and Ganz is also great as the man slowly dying and committing acts against his morals for the money he needs for his family, the story does has a resemblance to Strangers on a Train in moments, I will admit I got confused in the tiniest moments, but overall there were some exciting and eye-catching sequences that grip you, and overall it is a very watchable crime drama. Very good!
An interesting film; slow burning, brooding, colourful
asandor25 November 2016
The American Friend is an interesting film. The film follows Jonathan, a family man with a blood pathogen, a frame maker, and a quiet and thoughtful fellow. He is recruited by the Mafia in France to assassinate two people, and the Mafia use his blood disease to dupe him into the jobs with the promise of money for his wife and son. The story takes Jonathan from Germany to Paris to complete the jobs, and his friend and handler, Tom, acts as his guardian angel during the more difficult moments.
This movie is a mixed bag for me. Their are a lot of really great things about the film. The film is colourful, with wonderful establishing shots, use of costumes, and really great direction and shooting, which make the film really gorgeous. It manages to look almost surreal at times, and the use of head shots, close ups and panning to establishing what is happening make up for a lack of dialogue in the film. The acting is good, with Dennis Hopper as Tom being particularly interesting, and Bruno Ganz doing a quiet and reserved Jonathan well. The film has some tense moments as well, as the assassination jobs move forward, with Jonathan, the amateur assassin, tailing his prey, making mistakes, and having to improvise. The domestic scenes are also poignant, sweet, and entertaining. Much of this film is quite solid, with brooding and tense moments mixed with quiet and surreal to create a very tense and dream-like atmosphere.
However, I had some reservations about this film. The story and plot were quite dull. I have watched slow burners many times, with films like Le Samourai being one of my favourites in the film noir line. The American Friend felt much slower. There is little dialogue at all, and much of the film features Jonathan trying to figure out what to do, with long shots of his expressions, him contemplating and so on. This felt very weak to me, and I struggled to hold my attention a few times. There were also a few confusing plot points. The various side characters in the film appear, at least at the beginning, to be part of a wider plot that may be revealed. This is never capitalized on, however. These characters flutter through hither thither, but there is no pay off, no explanation, to why we are seeing these set ups. Why do we need to go back to New York with Tom? Jonathan will never know anything that happens there.
All in all, a bit of a mixed bag for me, but one I consider worth watching. It is a slow burning film to be sure, with a plot that I would approach calling weak, and a tad dull. Even so, the colourful and innovative shooting and direction, the good acting, and the tension and surreal aspects of the film, lend a hand to make it a watchable film. Easy to recommend for fans of film noir, or more "art house" affair. 6/10
This movie is a mixed bag for me. Their are a lot of really great things about the film. The film is colourful, with wonderful establishing shots, use of costumes, and really great direction and shooting, which make the film really gorgeous. It manages to look almost surreal at times, and the use of head shots, close ups and panning to establishing what is happening make up for a lack of dialogue in the film. The acting is good, with Dennis Hopper as Tom being particularly interesting, and Bruno Ganz doing a quiet and reserved Jonathan well. The film has some tense moments as well, as the assassination jobs move forward, with Jonathan, the amateur assassin, tailing his prey, making mistakes, and having to improvise. The domestic scenes are also poignant, sweet, and entertaining. Much of this film is quite solid, with brooding and tense moments mixed with quiet and surreal to create a very tense and dream-like atmosphere.
However, I had some reservations about this film. The story and plot were quite dull. I have watched slow burners many times, with films like Le Samourai being one of my favourites in the film noir line. The American Friend felt much slower. There is little dialogue at all, and much of the film features Jonathan trying to figure out what to do, with long shots of his expressions, him contemplating and so on. This felt very weak to me, and I struggled to hold my attention a few times. There were also a few confusing plot points. The various side characters in the film appear, at least at the beginning, to be part of a wider plot that may be revealed. This is never capitalized on, however. These characters flutter through hither thither, but there is no pay off, no explanation, to why we are seeing these set ups. Why do we need to go back to New York with Tom? Jonathan will never know anything that happens there.
All in all, a bit of a mixed bag for me, but one I consider worth watching. It is a slow burning film to be sure, with a plot that I would approach calling weak, and a tad dull. Even so, the colourful and innovative shooting and direction, the good acting, and the tension and surreal aspects of the film, lend a hand to make it a watchable film. Easy to recommend for fans of film noir, or more "art house" affair. 6/10
A man moves from a quiet stable life to a life of excitement and danger.
christopherllongoria23 February 2017
A quiet man who has a vary rare blood disease and is an expert in a certain painters oil paintings for a auction house. He owns and works in a frame shop gets involved with a man he despises, a collector who sells paintings. The quiet man moves from a stable life to a life of excitement and danger. Directed by Wim Wenders a movie that is exciting and brilliant. Bruno Ganz and Dennis Hopper are excellent together. This CANNES Film Festival Selection of 1977. This psychological thriller is equal to Alfred Hitchcock and Samuel Fuller and is gripping.
The beginning of violence
richard_sleboe17 December 2007
Let's start with the good news: Bruno Ganz, in the part of a tragic hero tricked into felony, will make it worth your while. But pretty much everything else about "The American Friend" will please only the most dedicated followers of art-house director Wim Wenders. Although this is one of his earliest feature-length movies, it is already riddled with his trademark allusions to the history and theory of moving images, ranging from a Zoetrope toy and ubiquitous surveillance cameras to the lead character putting himself "in frame" by hanging a picture frame around his neck. Against the backdrop of Hamburg's grimy port, Wenders indulges his obsession with American culture in the guise of Dennis Hopper. Posing as a fake cowboy, he feeds fake American paintings back to the American market by way of a German auction house. The final third of the story, from the moment Zimmermann gets on the train, is completely incomprehensible without prior knowledge of the book it is based on, "Ripley's Game". What little action we see is awfully shot; most of the time, it's slow-moving people mumbling lines from Bob Dylan songs as they go about their somber business in a parallel universe heavy with misery and meaning. What we need is filmmakers who care less about movies and more about life.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
