Liebestraum

1991 "A story of lust, murder and dreams."
5.9| 1h52m| en| More Info
Released: 13 September 1991 Released
Producted By: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A man returns to his hometown and a series of dark secrets are revealed.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.
Listonixio Fresh and Exciting
ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!
Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
aout22 This movie was strange yet intriguing. I could not quite figure out who the woman in the wheel chair was. Who was the pregnant woman? Why did the movie continually move back and forth in time? Was the woman in the hospital really his mother? What was the significance of the building and its demolition? I was totally confused by its plot. Just when I thought I had the plot figured out , another twist would take hold. I was not sure why the woman in the wheelchair's eyes appeared as they did and the purpose of the main character's lover assisting her. Was there some relevance to this particular scene. Most confusing was the two shootings. First flashback the perpetrator was a man, the second was a pregnant woman. Who really shot the mother? Confused!
preppy-3 Nick (Kevin Anderson) goes back to his hometown to take care of his dying mother (Kim Novak). There he encounters an old college buddy (Bill Pullman) and his beautiful wife (Pamela Gidley). He also gets involved with a 40 year old sex murder that may have something to do with him...I caught this in a theatre back in 1991. It was part of the Boston Film Festival and I had heard it had some incredibly beautiful cinematography. Well--it does. It just doesn't have much of a story to go with it. Also the film moves so SLOWLY--I literally fell asleep! Seeing it again 14 years later, I fell asleep AGAIN! This film is dull and slow. It's one of those art films full of strange characters who act oddly and mutter obscure dialogue (especially the police chief). Gorgeous images don't make up for the leaden pace.Acting doesn't help. Anderson (a good actor) acts terrible here. He appears to be drugged out at all times. Gidley TRIES to give a good performance but she's given nothing to work with. Pullman is the only one who pulls off a good job. Novak is (sadly) wasted and reduced to being bed ridden and screaming for no good reason.Also watch the part where the police chief has the longest urination sequence in cinema history. Why it's there I have no idea but at least it's somewhat funny. Otherwise this is a dull, slow-moving bore. Avoid.
roberthults This is a film that is thought provoking to say the least. It is romantic and also a little tastily sleazy. If you liked dead again, you should like this film. This film, however, is much better. What I don't understand is why this film is so unknown and underrated.Mystery, intrigue, romance, regret, desire, jealousy, greed, it is all here. History unfolds to give the viewer a tapestry of cinematic beauty. Some of the film shots are in the vein of Dario Argento's Suspiria while the story and plot are much more caring and romantic.I would say that this film is a mixture of David Lynch, Roman Polanski and Wim Wenders rolled up into one hidden classic.
douglasjgall A movie this muddled doesn't deserve much of a review. The plot, such as it is: an architect comes to a dying city to visit his dying mother. He tries to save a dying building (where people somewhat mysteriously really died many years ago in flagrante delecto) and is dying to have sex with his buddy's wife and solve the previously referred to mystery.This is some type of film noir I suppose, and supposedly an erotic thriller, but although it has some dirty bad language it isn't very erotic and it certainly isn't thrilling. None of the plots is particularily believable, and the question of whether they are going to tie together in the end is, yeh, but it requires such suspension of belief that the whole thing seems quite ridiculous. But don't worry, you will have lost all interest in this movie long before that. There is a "twist" at the end, which you don't see coming (until about 5 minutes before) because it doesn't make logical sense. This was tough going. Nicolas Cage was in Leaving Las Vegas by the same director, and my advice is leave Las Vegas or any other city where this movie is playing. Whoever in Hollywood approved this movie should be force to sit through it. Any other potential viewer, however, should not.