Reviews

First of all this is a very important film. Just like the other "Big" film by Eichinger "Der Untergang" it confronts the German audience (and the world should it care) with some aspect of German history that people should know about. In this case the "myth" of the RAF. To everyone who lived through the seventies in Germany it is clear that the influence of the RAF on Germany can hardly be exaggerated. I was a kid but my impression at the time was that both sides were wrong. There was a constant fear of terror coming from the terrorists but also from the state. (People did not get jobs if it was suspected they were "left".) So to make a blockbuster film, even if it does not really explain the motives of the main characters involved, at least gives us some facts. Not everyone is prepared to watch documentaries or read the book by Aust, but everyone should have some thoughts or maybe discussions on the subject.

Okay, but does it succeed as a film? Not entirely. The actors as everyone agrees were excellent, the cinematography as well. You do think you are in the seventies. That in itself is amazing. The action scenes are done splendidly, especially at the beginning the riots during the visit of the Persian Shah which culminated in the shooting of a student which in turn was, at least to some extent, the origin of the rise of terror. Of course the film is episodic and there are too many characters in it, most of them are not introduced in any way and ten years of complex history cannot be told in an altogether satisfying way. But the film succeeds in giving us a sense of what was going on. The producer, Bernd Eichinger has been accused of vanity. Which is a funny thing. Of course, he is vain. He has the duty to be vain as long as he also feels a responsibility to make movies that try to tell something. And the challenge, he feels, is to say it to as many people as possible.

This is a film that I would never have watched normally. A sort-of-remake of Rear Window with teenagers? What a terrible idea! But still, on a long flight with nothing better to do I was curious enough. Expecting to not give it more than 10 minutes I was very pleasantly surprised. It not a great film but very well done and entertaining. I liked the idea to have the the hero of the story to be under house arrest instead of having a broken leg. The love angle was a bit foreseeable, but quite okay. And I loved it how Kale becomes jealous and plays some cool (i.e. freaky to young ears) 70ies music to spoil the party Ashley was given. She understandingly upset comes over and he asks "What is? Don't you like Minnie Riperton?" This is missing in the quote section. To me the highlight of the film.

And I should not forget to mention David Morse. Great actor.

I was quite sure I would like this movie. But I did not. What we get is the story of a sixties girl group based loosely on the career of the Supremes. Excellent. There is only one mayor problem with this. The music just does not work. The Supremes had a couple of wonderful hits and we get nothing of it. What an incredible idea to let someone write some songs and trying to make us believe that these were number 1 hits in the 60s. It is just ridiculous. Hudson who plays the fat girl with the great voice that has to leave, does have a nice voice and even some kind of charisma. What she does not have is even one song that is worth listening. Same for Beyoncé. She is certainly beautiful and her voice is okay. But she is not allowed to sing let's say "Stop in the Name of Love." So compared to say Ray, this is a tremendous let down. There was something like Motown Magic. This has nothing of it at least not as far as the music is concerned. I liked the costumes and the dancing and the nice 70s wallpapers but that is not enough.

Eddie Murphy is allowed for about 30 seconds to put on a straight face. Also he plays a drug addict. That this qualifies for an Oscar nomination is quite unbelievable.

This one is known in Germany as "Die Liebe kennt keine Ferien" (Love does not know holidays) which even within the glorious tradition of mal-translations of German cinema is a true highlight. Now, Holiday is what is called a Romantic Comedy which basically means there are 2 people a boy and a girl that fall in love and marry at the end (well, they "stay" which each other these days). And in between, if it is any good, some funny things are said and done and we all feel happy. There is not too much wit in it because if there is it is called a screwball comedy and they do not make them any more. Here there are four instead of two. Two woman, who had suffered enough from the male of the species decide to swap houses. Cameron comes to a lovely English cottage and Kate to incredible L.A. This is really done exceptionally well. How they react to their new domicile. Of course a synonym for romantic comedy is predictability. And it does not come as a surprise that both fall in love with the leading men. Which of course, is nice and right. But when you think of it it is sort of sad. Cameron has all this wonderful books with her. And instead of reading them and enjoying a couple of quiet days she has to fall for Jude Law. Anyway. The story is very silly but lovely enough. And if Hugh Grant had played the part of Jude I probably would have really enjoyed it. Law is not really bad but who can care for a man who claims to be drunk and thus has to sleep at his sister's house when it is plain from his behavior that he could not have had more than half a pint? Kate is also okay the subplot with the old writer guy touching. Black totally unbelievable. But Cameron is just brilliant. She saves the movie. And why? Because she looks like Senta Berger (with just a touch of Meg Ryan). I never noticed before. Very nice.

What are the chances of me going to see a film called "Charlie and the Chocolate factory"? I would say maybe 0.5%. I do not care for chocolate and I do not need children's films or fantasies. But the fact that it is a Burton adds 10% and the presence of Depp another 20% and so I ended up watching it. It is a weird film to use Depps favorite word. Which is fine. It is daringly different. Which is fine. I have been a Burton fan since Batman. But unfortunately visual genius does not make a film. The actors were good, the music effective but in the end and I hate to say it, I did not like it. I give the whole creative team any credit but they failed to entertain me. It is a chocolate fantasy with the message that family is even more important. Very nice but also very boring.

What a sad affair. I was looking forward to this and was bitterly disappointed. Batman Begins should have been as good as the first in the series but to me it is as bad as Batman and Robin, if for totally different reasons. Let me start with the good things. First Batman. Christian Bale is the best Batman yet. He is good looking without looking ridiculous. The acting is adequate and it is a shame that the script did not allow him to make use of his talent. I liked Gordon/Oldman. Mark Boone was okay. And Cillian Murphy as Dr. Crane was brilliant. The others? Caine a caricature, Freeman the same, Neeson is just incredibly bad. In a superhero movie (and I would include the Bond films here) the woman has to be beautiful and she should be charismatic. How anyone could come up with the idea of casting Katie Holmes is a mystery. Gotham was very good, more realistic than Burton's but equally good. When the camera showed us the bad, corrupt and yet beautiful city I really liked the movie. Unfortunately the music spoiled it immediately. Hans Zimmer is just amazing. He is at the same time one of the most successful composers in Hollywood and easily the worst. Every film where he contributed the music is bad (I did not check that but I think I can rely on memory). At best the music is just boring at worst it totally spoils the mood. How he keeps his job and reputation is just beyond me. We learn the origin of Batman. Good idea. But the trip to Asia? Is that not the origin of Dr. Strange? But I could buy that. But what I cannot tolerate is a bad villain. Now I understand that these days the Evil cannot be just evil. It is boring. But there is a world of a difference between a good villain like Joker, Magneto, Doc Ock (and hopefully Dr. Doom) and Ra's Al Ghul/Ducard. I know it is in a good tradition of the Bible but the Evil wanting to destroy because people are bad is just a bit too ridiculous. Finally, the car. Yes, Batman drives in a car. Why? First to make the toy makers happy and second because there is this Hollywood wisdom: If you do not have a story put in a car chase. This is utterly repulsive. If there is someone older than 5 years on this planet who actually enjoys seeing a car jumping from roof to roof I would like to be introduced to him. Chances are he escaped from Arkham.

This one gets the Jimmy Lindbergh Award from me to celebrate the performance of an over-aged actor in a biopic. When James Stewart played Charles Lindbergh he was, of course way too old, (as he was as the Man who shot Liberty Valence by the way) and so is Kevin Spacey here. It is very nice that a man is able to make a dream real. But the result is just ridiculous. I liked the dance numbers and I liked the face of Kate Bosworth but that is not enough to save this. Kevin can sing and he can wear a yellow suit but he just is not convincing. There is no magic in his voice. He does not even come close to show that Darin might have been a match for Sinatra.

I always wanted to see a 3D Movie and I finally made it. It felt very odd wearing the funny glasses, but all in all it was well worth it. Some of the effects were amazing, especially the scene with the dancer. I liked that a lot. At other times the effect was more disturbing, especially at the beginning where there was an empty seat in the plane that seemed to be hanging in the air and looked really out of place. But sitting in row 10 and actually believing that you can touch something because it seems to be just in front of you is really amazing. The film itself was not really bad although there is not much of a plot. I enjoyed the eerie feeling, acting was adequate but I had the impression that some scenes were missing. The pilot disappears and reappears for no apparent reason and in the end the nightmare ends for no apparent reason. But if you do not expect to much from the plot you should be able to enjoy the experience.

The basic idea of this film is rather interesting. There was a catholic priest from Luxembourg imprisoned in the concentration camp Dachau during the Second Word War. He wrote a diary describing daily camp life. But for 9 days he is allowed to get back to his family for the funeral of his mother. It is known that he is interrogated by the GESTAPO. But he does not tell anything about it in his diary. So the film fills the historic gap with some fiction. We are told the story of a young Nazi official who tries to convince the priest to get his bishop to stop his passive resistance. So far so good. Quite conceivable that this actually happened. But. The whole thing is just not believable. The dialogs are weak, so far as there are dialogs at all. Most of the time Uli Matthes, who is supposedly one of the best German actors, is silent. You just see his face with an expression that you can put anything into. That of course is impressive. But it is not acting. We are told that he is brilliant, but it is never shown. He just has switched uniforms. He recently played Goebbels in the Downfall. What I had expected was some real intellectual argument between the Nazi guy and a catholic intellectual. There is next to nothing of it. Some argument about Judas but it is never clear what this is supposed to proof. There is never a moment of doubt about the outcome of the "intellectual battle". And because of this the film is a failure. Very good music, though and some good scenes of the concentration camp life.

I liked the first Spiderman but could not quite understand why it was considered to be that brilliant. For me the silly Green Goblin "costume" spoiled much of the fun. With Dock Ock we have only the second best Spidey villain but as played by Molina he is much, much better for the film. He is exactly like I thought Ock should appear on the screen. Dito for J. Jonah Jameson. He was just amazing. Please Hollywood, there is nothing wrong in considering a best supporting actor‘s award for him. There are a million great things in this one and I cannot thank the creators enough for giving us a sequel that captures the spirit of the original comic. There is really love and respect for the original but with a lot of unique new ideas that make this work perfectly. (Putting the Bugle into the Flat Iron Building was a stroke of genius.) I still think it was wrong to start with MJ instead of Gwen Stacy - the only real love of Peter Parker - but given the fact that today's readers would not know her that is okay especially as Kirsten Dunst plays her role in a way that unites character traits of both Gwen and MJ. When Peter gave up his Spiderman identity (I think in #50) it was one of the greatest issues in the series and writer(s) of this wisely built the script around this emotional highlite with nearly exactly the image from the comic. Bravo. I do hope the the third part will be as good as this. But if the creative team stays I have no doubts that it will.

Robert Stack as Lt. Sobinski is colorless. There is a disgusting scene at the end when the two Germans jump out of the plane, following the order of the Fuhrer. What a poor, cheap joke. And even that is topped two minutes later, when for no other reason then to get another cheap laugh, Bronski has to parachute out of the plane, so that one poor peasant can say "First Hess, now him".

Having said that you can get a rough idea how brilliant this film must be when I tell you that it is easily the best film ever made! Not only best comedy, but best period. Beating in my personal list GWTW, Thief of Bagdad, Taxi Driver. Lets dive into it. First of all there is this daring concept of having a Polish theater group in the middle of the Great War outwitting their oppressors. We have a great tight story that is much more than just a vehicle to transport jokes or funny scenes. You could make a very suspenseful spy thriller out of the plot. Then there is this terrific cast, Jack Benny who needed only this one film to achieve immortality, beautiful Carol Lombard who had the task of playing the faithful wife to the great actor Joseph Tura and at the same time being just believably enough attracted to this guy who is able to drop a couple of tons of bombs. Stack of course, must be colorless, since what we do not need in this story is any serious lover's triangle. Bressart is great, Sig Ruman is just unable of being not hilariously funny and here he can give us the performance of his life. Even the tiniest role is played by an acting genius. Lional Atwill as Rawich is perhaps the one that deserves in this cast of giants a special mentioning, because the way he portrays the actor who just cannot stop overacting is alone worth watching the film half a dozen times. But most of all To be or Not to Be is funny. There are a number of running gags that have never been topped in the history of film comedy. The Schultz thing, the joke on the Hitler ending up as a cheese joke and of course the Hamlet gag. But best of all: Concentration Camp Erhardt. So far I could always resist (or I chickened out) but one of these days I will sit in row two of a Hamlet performance and I will leave at the start of the monologue. The highlight of the film is the scene when Benny/Tura is confronted with dead Professor Siletzky the guy he is just impersonating. Even after having seen this film at least 30 times it still makes me marvel how they could come up with that. My favorite scene though is right at the beginning, when Tura tells his wife that for the next play he has thought that her name should appear above his own.

And she says "Oh, darling, that is so sweet of you. But of course, I do not care". He says "That is what we thought. So we won't do it". And she says "Oh". Not more. But this little scene is enough to set the mood for the entire film and it tells us all we need to know about their marriage. By the way, this scene is even funnier in the German version. Maybe it is just that I only recently had the chance of watching the Original (thanks DVD makers) but I really think the German adds something to it. Especially the off-voice at the beginning "Lubinski, Kubinski..." is more relaxed than the original and fits the mood of the film much better. And there is a great alliteration in German "Welcher widrige Wind..." I could ramble on forever. But now is the time to just sit back and enjoy the film once again.

This is one of my earliest TV memories. There were a lot of semi documentary TV shows on German television in the sixties. Most of them about the Nazi time but this was about the famous English Train Robbery. I have seen it many times since then and it never fails to amaze me. First there is this haunting music by Heinz Funk then the off voice that tells us about the gentlemen in a very matter-of-fact way always in balance between being impressed with and making fun of the "gentlemen". There is no tone of morality but also not (really) any hero worshipping.

Actually, there is not very much happening. No way a producer would go away with it these days. Most of it is about the preparation of the coup. So we see "the major", Horst Tappert - very good here, and I really hate him in his famous later role as Derrick - buying pans and other house hold stuff. Then there is the robbery and later we see them hiding in a farm house. There are some tensions and it is not quite clear what exactly the role of the other strong character Guenther Neutze (one of my all time favorites) is, but it is a pure joy to just listening to these two guys arguing. Neutze had one of the great voices of the century. He really had this natural authority and the way he had to play second fiddle to Tappert makes the whole thing work.

But the entire cast is fantastic. Karl-Heinz Hess was never better, Lowitz certainly was, but he had the gift of adding a touch of dignity and irony to every film he was in. And Kai Fischer playing the German was beautiful and very unhappy to get involved.

What fascinated me most as a kid was at the end when the off voice said This was the story of the robbery and the credits started to roll in and then he came back saying, Pardon that was the story as of... And then the story continues, telling how some of the gang members were rescued from prison etc. Very, very effective.

Remember "39 Steps"? There was this man who was on the run. And then there was this totally strange woman with him. Why was she with him? Because she was hand-cuffed to him, that is why. And why was she hand-cuffed? Because otherwise there would be no earthly reason why she would follow him. And because movie makers at the time had some respect for their audiences. That brings me to Bourne. Now, it may seem unfair to compare some run-off-the-mill film to Hitchcock, but the sad fact is these guys nowadays (sorry to generalize here but the movie made me so angry) don't care about plausibility because they despise their popcorn-eating audience. Of course, you should not start thinking about the story of 39 steps which is also ridiculous. But the point is Hitchcock makes you want to believe and care for the characters. Suspense of disbelief and all that. In Bourne Identity the first 5 minutes are okay. We just do not want to know why the hero has this bank number implanted. In case he loses memory? He goes to Switzerland? I buy that but then he beats the police guys, just why? You have pockets full of money but have to spend the night in the house of a friend when you are on the run? Potente is not bad but she surely does not save this one.

This film is of course remarkable for its sheer number of stars.

Tracy plays the American judge who has to find how guilty his

German colleagues were who played along the Nazi rules during

the Third Reich. I am not the biggest Tracy fan but here he is perfect. As are all

other actors with one exception. Richard Widmark the prosecutor

is absolutely believable in his crusade. Marlene Dietrich, finally

showing some signs of age, represents the proud, art-loving

"good` and noble German. In one of the most beautiful subtle

romances on screen she and Tracy are strangely attracted to each

other. She is trying to convince Tracy that not all Germans were evil, that

not all Germans even knew what was going on. She is very good

in it, probably believing herself even so far as to think that her late

husband, who was a General (put to death by Widmark) was

completely innocent. Tracy seems moved but in the end is

unconvinced. Great the beer-drinking-song scene where the ugly

Germans in the background seem to contradict Marlene's words.

In an exceptionally great scene when Tracy is about to leave the

country he calls her. The telephone rings again and again then the

camera moves and you see Marlene sitting just in front of it - just

beautifully filmed. Montgomery Clift is amazing. As a witness of the practice of

sterilization he easily wins our sympathies, especially by admitting

that he was not interested in knowing the birthday of Hitler. But

things are not quite as simple. He is slow-witted and Maximilian

Schell must cruelly demonstrate this. Schell won the Oscar for this role, and as the saying goes, well

deservedly so. He is arguing forcefully and yet humanely. Very

nice, the way he puts his forefinger in front of his lips, seeming to

say I have thought about this thoroughly - trust me. In one scene

he reads a passage from a law book that argues in favour of

sterilization with the conclusion `Three generations of imbeciles

are enough'. It sounds like cruel Nazi jargon but was actually

written by Oliver Wendell Holmes and was the basis for law in

Virginia. (Here is a bizarre coincidence: when I went to bed after

watching the movie I took up the book I am reading right now

which is `The Flamingo Smile' by Stephen Jay Gould. The very

next chapter I was starting to read was about sterilization practice

and exactly the same passage by Holmes was quoted! Gould

investigated in the case of the woman who was sterilized by this

law because she was imbecile and the daughter of an imbecile

and mother of an imbecile, thus three generations. He found out

that her daughter - diagnosed to be imbecile at age 8 months(!)

turned out to be an at least average pupil at school.)

Now, the exception I was talking about, was Burt Lancaster. He all

but ruins the film. It is not entirely his fault since the role was very

bad. All he has to do is sitting there stone-faced watching the trial.

He is supposed to be the tragic character who is the noble good

guy who by accident became a Nazi judge. Then at one point as

his lawyer `goes to far' he makes his statement, saying that he

was indeed guilty. Unbearably bad lines badly performed. The film has been criticized as being preachy, and it is true to

some extent. But I have no idea how it could have been avoided.

Lancaster's part is absolutely crucial. (I just could not stand it). At

least in the final scene, when Lancaster expected to morally

pardoned by his judge, Tracy tells him that the number of

injustices or murders are not the point but that one knowingly

spoken unjust judgment for whatever reasons is enough to sell

your soul. And that is the point. As he himself has demonstrated

with his judgment. Under political pressure (because of Cold War)

he still puts the judges to jail for life. It is all about integrity. Even

though all were released within a couple of years, his judgment

stays. �

Heinz Drache recently died. Reason enough to watch this one again. I find that of all the movies on tape the films of the Wallace series are the ones that I watch again and again. And the "Tuch" is after "Der Hexer" the best one. It just got everything. As a rule of thumb: the ones with Drache are best, the ones with Fuchsberger are all okay. If Kinski is in it, great. But really important is the presence of Eddi Aren't and Siegfried Schuerendorf. Luckily they are in practically every of the 38 or so of the series.

Alfred Vohrer, one of the unrecognized geniuses of Film, directs his incredible cast through a story that is both negligible and a highlight of mystery. Lord Lebanon died and his greedy family is forced to spend a week in the castle, if they want to inherit. Of course, they are cut off from the outside world because of a storm or something. And so (and this is hardly a spoiler I hope) as one after the other gets strangled, they are on their own. And Frank Tanner (Drache), the lawyer, has to solve the crime. He does it with his usual light spirit. Unfortunately not to successful, for he suspects each and everyone (and is suspected by the others) and even after there are only three members of the family left - one of them the beautiful women (well not so beautiful to be honest) who has literally no other role than to bring in some female presence, he still suspects the wrong one, namely wonderful Elisabeth Flickenschildt. Well. Of course, the whole thing cannot be taken seriously and is not meant to be taken seriously. There are funny scenes throughout the film. Eddie Aren't as butler Bonwit is superb but easily overshadowed by Schuerenberg, who only has to say "Was sind denn das für Sachen?" to make my heart jump from joy. Even better when he imitates his parrot saying "Murderer, murderer" as Aren't leaves his room. At the end all the dead are present as ghosts as the will is read to the final family member, the above mentioned young lady (Gisela Uhlen). But she does not inherit, no. Guess who is the lucky one? Try to rent this one somewhere. An easy ten out of ten.

Fritz Lang was the first director I discovered when I was a child. There was a series on TV with a dozen or so of his films. What a wonderful experience to realize for the first time that there is someone responsible for a good film (and presumably for a bad one). Of course there is the script and the actors but if you watch the films you sense a kind of directing style, even though you may not know what it consists in. I have been a Fritz Lang fan ever since and fondest in my memory was The Woman in the Window with beautiful Joan Bennett. I remember being totally captured. I just lived with Edward G. Robinson through this nightmare. I was delighted to meet Joan and I panicked when I found I had just murdered this C.M. guy. And how I despised Dan Durea. (And later after coming back to real life seeing him as a door man I thought, no, this guy is in disguise. He is too evil to be a door man.) Now I just watched the film again after more than 20 years and what a disappointment it was. Somehow the film seemed slow and predictable and one dimensional and I found myself zapping to a different program. But thinking about it now, there is just nothing wrong with the movie but only with myself. What a sad thing that I (and people in general) seem to be unable nowadays to just sit through a brilliant piece of film art. It just means that I have been spoiled by too many bad films, action and pseudo psychology. Normally I think there is no use in trying to enjoy a film intellectually and it is bad if you have to find reasons why a film ought to be enjoyed. But it this case I know that I loved the film and that it is great. So there is something wrong with me. The remedy will be forcing myself to only watching film noirs for a whole month.

Before there was the Edgar Wallace series there was "Stahlnetz" - the German adaption of "Dragnet". Except for the music it was very German, very "early sixties" but surprisingly, also very exciting and even funny. Or maybe not surprising, since the team of Wolfgang Menge (writer) and Jurgen Roland (director) guarantee quality. "In jeder Stadt..." the title of this episode is the only thing that rings untrue, because the story told could not happen "in jeder Stadt" (every city) but only in a city very much like Hamburg. Young, innocent and naive girls were promise careers in the film business. In reality the evil men have only one thing in there mind! (Would you believe it?) One of the girls ends up being a corpse floating in the Elbe river. Tough luck. In the end the murderer is caught, and like in Dragnet, we learn how much time he will have to spent in the "Zuchthaus". But we see in the end how the other go hunting for the young, innocent... again. It is great to see the old Hamburg. Lots of famous actors even in the smallest roles. As a rule, if a character has more than three lines to say, we know the actor. The most amazing thing is that the "morale" is always accompanied by humor, a trademark of Menge. The police inspector sends someone away to get something. Then the assistant says that by coincidence he got it. The inspector says "This way you do not make friends." and the assistant replies: "Who wants to have friends at the police anyway?" When the murderer is caught at the end he tries to lit a cigarette nonchalantly. The inspector just snaps it away silently. Nice touch.

This one goes back a long time. Anyone who remembers the show must be really old. For reasons I do not understand it was never rerun here in Germany. So it is a good age tester. The only thing I remember is that Bronco Lane used to drink water out of his hat. And that I liked it a lot. The fondest and saddest memory is this. I must have been 8 or 9 at the time when a friend told me that his parents just bought a color TV. I said what do you mean "Color?". He said that in it the movies are colored. I told him he was an idiot, of course everything was colored. Well, I went back home switched TV on and yes, Bronco was running and everything was black and white. I could not believe it. I had never noticed before. That was the day when color left my TV life. For a long time at least. (I wonder when I realized that movies were only two-dimensional.)

Years later when my family finally bought a color TV I did not like it and to this day I prefer black and white films to colored. And at least with certain TV series like "The Fugitive" that was colored in later seasons I turn off the color.

"There is a lot to be said for it" is a song by the Sparks who really make fun of it, continuing "but I don't know what..." I certainly do. It is quite simple. GWTW is the best film ever made by any serious and sensible criteria. Magnificent story, wonderful acting, especially Leigh (although she was clearly miscast, since the book said Scarlett was not beautiful - only joking), great music etc. It is amazing that you can watch it again and again feeling just poor delight. You never have the feeling of being confronted with a piece of art. Although it clearly is the highest art. It makes me sad to hear that people do not like it. It is something I should accept but I really cannot. Especially if looking back after sixty years it is denounced as politically incorrect. As a guest present to the first alien race we will meet someday what do we choose? Festen? Independence Day? Taxi Driver? GWTW would be perfect. One more thing: Except maybe for Name of the Rose there is not a better transition of a book to the big screen.

GWTW is only my second favorite, but whereas I could easily accept it if someone does not care much for my favorite (To be or not to be) I certainly cannot take seriously anyone who will not include GWTW in his Top 10.

This one is sick. I had hoped and prayed I would not live to see another film as bad as the Matrix but Fight Club is. In a way it is even worse since it is not as obviously silly. The actors can really play the directing is as good as could be expected by someone like Fincher (I loved Se7en). So what is wrong? Well, it is sick. Now, that is not a smart thing to say when criticising a film but there is no way to avoid it. Fight Club is extremely violent. This is something I do not like in general but for a movie with a title like Fight Club to be expected. And it is not senseless violence like in Matrix but belonging to the story. Indeed it is the essence and in this sense acceptable. What is wrong, if not evil, is that it is presented as a possible solution to the emptiness we feel in our lives. So our generation did not enjoy the blessing of an honest good war? No wonder we degenerate and start buying IKEA furniture. Is this a joke? It is not meant as one.

Our hero (the `Narrator') cannot sleep. He is not really happy but who is. What to do? First he finds some unusual hobby. He goes to meetings of people who really suffer. And the mixture of real feelings mixed with the ridiculous situation gives him energy some fake `sense of life'. There he meets the beautiful Marla. My heart jumped with joy. There was some kindred spirit. They should fall in love, marry, settle down, have some kids live happily (more or less) ever after. That is what I want (I know I am the one who is sick but this is what watching classic Hollywood movies did to me.) It would have been perfect. Unfortunately the film would have been over after fifteen minutes. That is why our hero first has to go to point zero. And he does it by establishing this Fight Club and moving in with lovely Brad. Okay, why not. But does it have to be terror organisation next? Come on. What is the point of the whole thing? You enjoyed the film? Punch yourself on the nose and start thinking. Or even better stop pretending that you do.

The schizophrenia angle was rather foreseeable but the happy ending was okay. Like I said... the two hours in between where at best annoying at worst... (I will think of something.)

Hanns Lothar is still beloved 30 years after his death. One of the few actors that fully deserved to be described as a genius. In this TV production he plays a passenger on an airplane who has to step in to save day when the crew and half of the passengers get sick from food poisoning. When I watched it as a kid I could not stand the suspense and having just seen it again I was surprised how it stood the test of time. And mainly because of Hanns. He gives the best portrait of a non-hero hero I have ever seen. He is sincere and amazingly modest with just a shade of arrogance.

Another role is played by his brother Günther Neutze a man who we also will remember until the end of times.

This is by far the best and curiously also one of the most popular German TV series ever. When it came out it caused a big scandal since here for the first time ever a typical German family from the Ruhrgebiet (the family lives in Gelsenkirchen but father is a fan of Hertha BSC Berlin) was watched. Heinz Schubert in the role of his life (it would follow him to his death) plays the small family Napoleon with a brilliance that has become legendary and proverbial. He is politically interested but mainly to support his already existing conservative views. He is against foreigners, certainly against Social democrats, he sees himself as the ideal German and everybody should try to be like him, honest hard working with a keen view of how things really are. His no-good son in law (Diether Krebs who later became a comedian but mainly wasted his talent) stands for everything that is bad in Germany in his view. Liberalism and Socialism mainly but he is the only one who can cope with him on an intellectual level. Certainly not his wife whom he despises because of her stupidity and not his daughter who is modern, liberal but just as stupid as her mother.

In every episode there was some small crisis, a visit from relative of East Germany, a not working TV set, preparations for Silver jubilee. And it was always just a forum for Alfred Tetzlaff to get his hilarious views across e.g. that Willy Brandt was an East German spy. It was a satire and of course mainly misunderstood. In a time influenced by the 68 revolution it was a welcome change to have someone to express the views of the silent majority. Even if we were supposed to laugh about it. Probably no one would admit that he was caricatured by Alfred so it certainly did not have any educational value in this respect. But we the children watching it learned more from it then ever at school. About arguing, even if on a low level, about different opinions, even stupid ones and that politics are a substantial, crucial part of our lives even if misunderstood.

The show was written by Wolfgang Menge who can claim to be the best and most controversial writer of post war Germany. We love him.

In the end sixties and early seventies they used to give us a four part great TV production of some classic novel. This one along with "Die Schatzinsel" was the best of them. Actually they took a number of Jack London´s stories and melted them into an unforgettable adventure. Of course no one will ever forget the potato scene. But what impressed me more was the wonderful love story between Hump and Maud Brewster the way Wolf talks about his ambition and his failure: "My mistake was to have ever opened a book." And of course the way the two main Characters Hump and Wolf Larrson would meet again and again with the most believable and mesmerizing love-hate relationship I know of. When Hump is left alone on this tiny island and only hatred and as he says life itself forces him to continue walking it is the greatest moment in movie history Great music score, too. The final part is a bit disappointing, the only reason why this is not among the very best films of all time.

When I recently zapped into this film I was for some reason hooked. I had seen it many years ago and in my memory it was an okay film but now I must admit it is nearly perfect. Heinz Ruehmann plays the patriarch German Professor with a family of 12 kids. They love and adore and fear him like a father these days will never know. The moral crisis comes when he or rather his daughter Atlanta inherits a house in Montevideo. His sister whom he had forced into exile because she was a "fallen" women had made her fortune. As it turns out by becoming a famous singer. But when they come to collect the money all appearance seems to suggest that the fortune was made by some less accepted profession. It now turns out that they will only inherit if some member of the family will also become an unmarried mother. Wonderful acting by Ruehmann when he tries to get the idea across to the fiancé of his daughter never directly speaking but rather using incredibly funny metaphors. A pure delight especially when it could turn out into something embarrassing at every moment which it never does. The solution to the crisis is rather silly but acceptable.