emkarpf

This is neither a new nor an original story. We have seen many biographical pictures about people who lived in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, some end well, most don't. Still this story was worth being told, as it concerns one of the most foremost german childrens' authors, whose books have become classics. Emil und die Detektive, Pünktchen und Anton, Das fliegende Klassenzimmer, Das doppelte Lottchen - they have been devoured by generations of children, and their plots have been adapted for cinema many times and in many countries. Kästner's success as a childrens' author is closely connected to his general political stance as a pacifist and moralist, never feeling the need to hide from children the complex challenges of life.

Kästner is also one of the few authors who stayed in Germany after 1933, even though his books were forbidden and he faced the danger of being arrested by the Gestapo any day. In later years he has reflected about this difficult decision, not being quite sure if he had lived up to his own standards.

Herein lies the theme for this TV movie, and it is very well brought to life by exploring the relationship between Kästner and his No. 1 fan, the boy Hans Löhr, as well as his friendship with cartoonist Erich Ohser, also unforgotten in Germany for his "Father and Son" cartoon strips. Dorothee Schön's screenplay follows the well-known chronological path from the publishing of "Emil und die Detektive" to the film adaptation, then Hitler's grab for power in 1933, the burning of books organized by Nazi students, the repression of jewish inhabitants, the call to arms for both Kästner and his young friend, which forces them to finally part ways. Even though all these plot points are more or less foreseeable, the scenes and dialogue seem fresh and authentic.

Florian David Fitz plays Kästner in an understated, very natural way, only his hairline in this film does not look as natural as it should. The performances of Nico Ramon Kleemann and Jascha Baum, who play "little Dienstag" actor Hans Löhr at different ages, are simply heart rendering. I especially liked the group scenes, where the casting was perfect down to the smallest bit parts. The production brought all the elements well together. I am glad I was made aware of this film and that it is available for rent online.

It is easy to pass judgment on a period in history when you are watching from the distance. It is much harder to go through without knowing what is yet to come.

There are several reasons to recommend this comedy. First of all, it is a very entertaining take on topics that are being discussed not only in Germany, but all over Europe: how will the influx of refugees from Africa and the Middle East change our society? In this movie, a rich Munich family wants to do more than wave "Refugees welcome"-placards, so they offer a home to one of the refugees. As a plot, this could be rather embarrassing due to political correctness (or lack thereof), but writer and director Simon Verhoeven manages to include all the different views on immigrants without losing track of the comedy for one moment. He has created a set of characters that are likable and well-rounded, and the development of the story, while predictable in the general outline (of course a comedy needs a happy ending), is surprising at every turn and full of funny dialogue which had people laughing out loud in the cinema. Another reason to watch this comedy is the cast. The older generation is being represented by the always wonderful Senta Berger, as well as Heiner Lauterbach, Uwe Ochsenknecht and Ulrike Kriener (yes, those last three together had us laughing in Doris Dörrie's "Männer" in the 1980s), the younger generation containing heartthrobs Florian David Fitz and Elyas M'Barek and a very lovable Palina Rojinski. Refugee Diallo is played by Eric Kabongo, who will hopefully get to play more leading roles in the future! And, thirdly, I very much liked the artful camera work and the well-chosen sets, which made the movie a joy to watch.

When I looked up this film on IMDb to comment on it, I noticed that there is already talk of a remake with Mark Wahlberg. It doesn't surprise me that major studios would turn to this thriller, which depicts an unusual and interesting milieu and tells its story with great suspense, warmth and humor. Although, as an art historian, I cannot recommend the negligent treatment of a Jackson Pollock painting in this movie. It's kind of sad that the remake means that this Icelandic movie will not get the attention it deserves in other countries. The acting was excellent, the directing impeccable, and the story well-crafted with interesting characters.

I've seen this film at the Lübeck film festival, with English subtitles. I have never seen a film of this director before. I'm saying this because former commentators have talked about language and the director repeating himself - I wouldn't know about that.

What I've seen was an interesting love story of adolescents, with all the insecurities and incongruities I remember from my own life at that age. The characters were interesting, their interaction believable. The story was well-constructed - a lot of things you learned in passing during the first half-hour turned out to have some impact later on. It is not easy to knit real life memories so closely together that they will carry over a two hour movie. What really made the movie come to life was the decision to extend shooting over a three-year-period, so the actors would actually get older during the movie. This cannot have been easy, especially as the film is a period piece. But it lends a special credibility to the story which I admire.

You've read it in the newspaper, how shareholders change the fate of companies, a constant dance of sinking, rising, merging and destroying, strangely unrelated to the people actually doing the work. The made-for-TV movie does not offer any new insights, but still it is very recommendable as an earnest plea for decency. Decency is personified in the character of Frau Böhm, superbly performed by Senta Berger - never has she looked so unglamorous yet so beautiful and sincere. Frau Böhm is loyal to her employers to the last, taking care of the board of directors' wages. But suddenly she refuses to pay them their 80 million Euro bonuses for selling out the company. And after we have got to know the character, we know she couldn't decide differently - just look at the way she celebrates Christmas Eve all alone in her apartment. The best thing is that there actually was a woman who said No in real life, which inspired screenwriter Dorothee Schön to write the movie. So decency still seems to be around.

Those who like the Allgäu-detective novels by the author duo Klüpfel/Kobr will hopefully agree with me that this was a perfect adaptation of the novel "Erntedank". The novels offer not only well-constructed whodunits, but also a very loving portrayal of Allgäu characters, peculiarities and myths. The TV movie earns my respect by capturing all of that. Even if Herbert Knaup doesn't look like you would have imagined Kluftinger, he does a very good job of impersonating this detective with a taste for Wurstsalat (don't even begin to ask!) and a certain ineptitude with modern technology, a detective who solves his cases with experience, creativity and instinct. The supporting characters were also well-acted, bringing the dialect-mischmasch of Kluftinger's colleagues just as well to life as the arrogance of a Dr. Langhammer. The two novelists have cameos, too. The direction of Rainer Kaufmann and the camera-work of Klaus Eichhammer convey very well the mythical quality of the Allgäu landscape. This was fun to watch, so I hope there'll be more adaptations of Klüpfel/Kobr's works.

The plot is simple: Out-of-work but hot and unconventional woman in her 50s drives three women plus one kid from North-Rhine Westphalia to Schleswig-Holstein, where they hope to be matched to three single farmers by the village pastor. Four men, four women, but will there be love? It's clear that a plot like that depends very much on characters. In this case, they were recognizable and likable, but could all have been somewhat weirder for my taste. It all worked out a little too conveniently in the end, even for the decrepit church building. Still, the landscape of Schleswig-Holstein at the time of canola blossoming is always endearing, and the TV-evening was in no way wasted - especially because of the interesting cast with Ulrike Kriener, Gerburg Jahnke and Elena Uhlig, to name just a few.

If you ever doubted that Germans are pretty cool about nudity, here's the final proof. This made-for-TV feature film tells the struggle of a nudist campsite in Brandenburg against the new owner, a conservative Bavarian businessman. It also tells the struggle of Jakob, the son of the campsite's spokesman, against his seemingly open and tolerant father. Nearly every actor in this film had to let his clothes fall at one point or another, some of them had to put them on for some scenes. What might be shocking to some viewers, however, turns out to be mostly harmless. There is good acting, OK dialogue and few surprises in the plot - if you don't count the unexpected use of the word "eggwarmers". Still, enough for a nice TV-evening you won't regret.

Once more, screenwriter Bora Dagtekin shows his talent in up-to-date comedy series. The premise of "Bridget Jones as a doctor", including all her love- and family-problems, is brought to life with a good set of believable characters, unexpected twists and very emotional story lines that make you laugh and cry at the same time. The flashbacks into the 1980s add a very nice "La Boum"-touch. The second season promises even more fun than the first, seeing how the actors really seem to have grown into their roles. Florian David Fitz' portraying of Marc has never been so likable, while still getting across all his popular-boy-arrogance. Kai Schumann's sad-eyed Mehdi is heart-wrenching, and Diana Amft as protagonist Gretchen Haase is invariably cute, however absurd the situation she finds herself in. It is to be hoped that the series will continue for more than two seasons.

Edit: Impressions after the pilot for season 3

The actors are invariably great in their roles, especially Diana Amft as Gretchen and Florian David Fitz as Marc. Their work gets harder, though, since the screenwriters have increasing difficulty in juggling the story lines of quite a lot of characters. Dagtekins roots in soap opera writing becomes way too evident in the improbable events around a pandemia (I have never seen a hospital less organized or doctors less concerned with their patients' welfare) and the rather far-fetched attempt to dispose of Alexis von Buren (Steffen Groth), Gretchen's new husband. I would have liked to see more comedy stem from the main characters' inner struggle with their feelings and less effort to steer events in a certain way. Let's hope this was just a problem of the pilot.

The Germans Jan and Sara want to marry. The problem: Her father Antonio is Italian and used to have things his way. So the wedding is to take place in Campobello, in the midst of Antonio's numerous family. Jan faces bravely the hurdles thrown in his way: frutti di mare in every dish despite his allergy, a bed not fit to sleep in, strange pictures and temperamental family members who mistrust him because he doesn't seem as enthusiastic as they wish him to be. Many hilarious situations ensue - some of which you may have seen in other films, but nevertheless they appear fresh and witty, due to the screen writing and the superb acting on the part of Christian Ulmen and Lino Banfi, supported by an equally good cast. The locations in Italy add their own charm to the film. The only weakness of the film is the ending, which is surprising, but still seems a little lame. The rest is fun to watch, recommended for a summer evening. Note: This film is an adaptation of Jan Weiler's autobiographical book of the same title, Weiler also co-wrote the screenplay. Since I haven't read the book, I can't compare the film to it.

It's hard to place this movie, because in my opinion, two principles are clashing here. On the one hand, there's what you learn in screen writing class: Protagonists should have an aim and a need. On the other, there's the reality of life on the streets, where one day is pretty much the same as the day before, small incidents excluded. This said, one probably has to accept the fact that the main character Hagen Trinker is pretty aimless for most of the movie, drifting passively along. One assumes that there must be a backstory, a life he's fled, a crisis he couldn't manage but by drinking, but we learn very little about it. Around the midpoint of the movie, his implicit need for love is brought out in the open when he is finally giving in to a teenage runaway's wish for sex. It is very touching to see how the mechanic movement turns into something more Trinker didn't expect, and how this gives him an aim for some time: Find the girl, who has been brought back to her parents. But at the end, he's drifting again - and we can only hope he'll be finally able to do something with his life. It's interesting that the supporting characters, on the contrast, have very clearly defined aims: Edgar wants to go to Acapulco with Liane, Tom wants to see Cambridge. One succeeds, one doesn't. In the end I have to admit that I admire the screenwriter's and director's courage to leave questions unanswered. Still, one would have liked to learn more about those people under the bridge (who were still moving and talking very much like dressed down actors, I'm afraid).

The idea sounds fun: A husband, frolicking around with a co-worker, finds out that his wife has been untrue, too. Unfortunately, she dies right after the confession. Herbert Knaup is rather convincing as the desperate husband, trying to find out who his rival was (of course, her unfaithfulness is MUCH worse than his, mostly because he never noticed). It is also fun to watch the arrival of Ben Becker as the said rival, a Hamburg pimp in money troubles. But from then on, the screenwriter (who is also the director, and not unexperienced in both métiers) doesn't seem to trust his own ideas any more. What proceeds as a gripping yet highly hilarious business transaction between the two rivals turns out to be nothing more than a dream, the reality being rather weak compared to it. The ending gets back to gripping, but at that point one always expects the protagonist to wake up again. So, was the end really the end or just another nightmare? Either way, it was rather boring. Sad, because the actors were fun to watch and would have deserved a better conclusion.

An enjoyable romantic comedy with interesting characters, well-chosen actors and lots of witty dialogue. The idea of a survival training in a German forest sounds at first rather ridiculous, but these trainings actually exist - and even if there is no need for a machete in these parts, I don't think many people would know how to light a fire or find something edible. So the basic idea seems believable and funny at the same time, and the characters each add their own little flavour to the situation. Of course one can guess very early on how it will all end happily, but the things happening on the way to it are hilarious, with clever and often unexpected twists. I especially liked young actor Martin Stührk, who pulled off his lines pretty convincingly, even though they were a little too much of the "nerdy but clever kid"-kind. It was also nice to meet again Irshad Panjatan of "Der Schuh des Manitou"-fame. Commended for a cosy TV-evening!

I've seen the film for the first time on DVD. First of all, it had a very poor technical quality on DVD, the yellow seemed faded, leaving over-strong blue and red images. I don't know if this is a technical mistake or if the movie was planned that way. At any rate, it felt old and amateurish because of that. My main problem was the story, though. I haven't read the novel, so I don't know how much is due to it. But even then, I would have expected from a filmmaker the range of Doris Dörrie to apply some well-known techniques to raise suspense and build character. But she didn't. Most of the dialogue was weak, referring only to the situation at hand. A considerable flaw is the fact that we see everything from the point of view of the protagonist - he leaves the room, we leave with him, not knowing what the person inside does next. It would have created more suspense, I believe, if the audience would have learned more about all the characters. Then, maybe we'd also have cared more about the murdered men and their family. The protagonist himself seems not to care too much about other persons - at the very beginning, a woman leaves him on his birthday; he never comments on that, neither showing regrets or maybe even happiness to be rid of her. His own sad family history is repeated several times, but never in a way that would give us insight into his character. The Turkish family seems an odd construction, made only for the sake of the criminal case. The rendering of the policemen is uninteresting, it isn't in the least shocking to see that they're the real criminals. One would think that, having managed to kill so many people, they wouldn't leave this snoop alive. Did we learn anything about Turkish life in Germany? Nope. Only clichés about how insensitive the Germans are. The only reason I give more than one point is Meret Becker, here being seen at the beginning of her career, playing a young woman with genuine despair and tenderness. There are more good actors in the film, but they don't get the chance to display their talent.

I've seen this on TV today for the first time, and afterwards I thought, how odd. First let me say what I liked. I think the movie was well-acted, and well-casted. I also liked how it created its own universe - the locations fitted very well the surreal, dreamlike quality of the scenes. This is something I demand from movies, and it was done well in this one. I liked how they used the Expo site for it. What I didn't like: The ending was very predictable. At the moment Yella pulled herself out of the water and ran to the station in her wet clothes, I started to beg: Please let this not be another version of Ambrose Bierce's short story about the hanged man. Then I realized that her stalking ex-husband could only be seen by her, and I hoped: Please let this not be another Sixth Sense. Even more so, after she saw Burghart Claussner's character after his death. The red blouse became a hint that was not to be overlooked anymore - especially after she'd claimed she 'needed to buy something else to wear' and still ran around in the red blouse, after all. Well, it was the Bierce version. How innovative. And I wouldn't have minded a joke now and then. Why is it that German movies have such a hard time with being funny in spite of all the characters' problems?

This has been one of my favourite movies as a child, when they were still showing 1950s-movies on TV. I hadn't seen it for almost 20 years when I recently bought the DVD. I was surprised at how fresh it still felt - the dialogue is very witty, the relations of the characters are realistic (even sex is implied - huch! That in the German 50s!), and the recurring references to writing a screenplay and to German movies of the time are very amusing ("You should have a tame deer in it!"). The movie is carried by the brilliant lead actors - there couldn't have been anyone else than Lilo Pulver to play Juliane, and the contrast between Bernhard Wicki and Paul Hubschmid is the perfect analogy to Bueffel and Berner from Barbara Noacks novel. I'm glad I have it on DVD now.

I see that I am not the only person to be disappointed by this film. I fully agree with the other comment that has been written before mine. I am no expert in music or in the lives of the Schumanns and Brahms, and I have seen no former film about them. But I know something about history and about period drama, so I will constrain my notes to this area. The first time we see Clara Schumann, she lounges in a railway carriage as if she was wearing jeans and a T-shirt. Did the filmmakers not know or not care that the kind of dress she is actually wearing comes with a corset, and that a corset influences the way a woman sits and walks? Maybe Clara was infamous for not wearing one. Then it should have been told in the film, somehow. In this same scene, she tells how she is missing her kids, but in the rest of the film, we never see her really interact with them. In fact, the little ones are barely more than extras, and speak their lines like at the third rehearsal of a school play. Unfortunately, this goes for most of the dialogue. It is wooden, to say the least, and does nothing to illuminate the characters. Most of it could be left out without a loss. The film centers on the love triangle, but never shows why these men love Clara, and how she fell in love with them. What ties this married couple together? How did she decide not to compose anymore? Did she ever compose again, after Robert's death? Why did Johannes Brahms show his compositions to Schumann, and why did he ask them back? What draws him to Clara? You'd think the music is behind it all, the way they share their understanding of music and the way they can understand each other by listening to and playing each other's compositions. But nothing of that is shown in the way the actors move, talk, or interact. Not even Martina Gedeck, whom I sincerely admire, was able to show her range of emotional expression. Yes, she did portray a passionate piano player, but it somehow didn't seem to matter what she was playing at all. Another thing I noticed was how many scenes were showing candles, but the light was unchangingly cold. In the theatre I went to, midway through the film it suddenly stopped, and it took the employees some minutes to restart it. I sincerely considered leaving then and there, because I had been disappointed from the first scene. Well, if I stayed, it was mostly for the sake of the friend I had come with, and for the sake of the music. If you care for the music of Robert and Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms, don't watch this movie. Listen to a good recording. The three stars I gave are merely for the music.

Unlike some other German movies of the 1950s, this one is still worth watching. It is a true adaptation of Erich Kästner's children's' novel of the same name. The author did not only write the screenplay himself , but also appears in the first and last scene and provides the narrator's voice in several scenes. With a cast of prominent German actors of the time, notably Paul Dahlke and Paul Klinger, and budding rock'n'roll star Peter Kraus in his first movie role, the movie tells the story of the "Tertia" students (7th/8th grade) in a small town boarding school, who continue a "prehistoric" feud with the boys from a neighbouring school. Woven into this narrative are questions of honesty, courage, loyalty, friendship - and money issues, which never lack in Kästner's books. The boys also write and perform a play about the lessons with their favourite teacher, Johannes Böck called Justus (the just one) and moreover manage to bring him back together with a long-lost childhood friend. I was astonished to see the very good acting of the child actors, among them now famous German director Michael Verhoeven. Even though it's sometimes obvious that painted scenery is used and the editing is somewhat less varied than what we're used to these days, the movie never seems dated in a way that makes it an effort to watch - quite the contrary!

This movie follows the script of the 1931 version, but stretches it with additional scenes to 90 minutes. I wasn't happy with this movie, since it changes e.g. the whole beginning - we all know how Emil was afraid of going to the police because he had "decorated" a statue in his hometown. Now in this movie he does something completely different, and so at first I didn't even recognize which of the boys was supposed to be Emil. Then the movie adds a love story between Emil's mother and Wachtmeister Jeschke. Erich Kästner actually married them off in his second "Emil"-book, but in the novel neither Emil nor his mother are quite happy with this Vernunftehe (prudent marriage), while in the movie it's all fun and happiness. I also found the dialog somewhat forced, the villain downright stupid and the police festival completely superfluous. Still, the movie gets five points for showing off 1950s Berlin. Notably the modern apartment buildings and the ruin of the Gedächtniskirche make very good backdrops for the storyline. Note how Pony Hütchen asks for the "Interzonenzug" - how nice that we've overcome the zone-era!

I agree with the earlier comment, just wanted to add some of my thoughts. I had only just recently read Stevenson's "Treasure Island" for the first time, and even being a 30something woman, I liked this "boy's adventure" very much. I found nothing of that in the two-part TV-film except for some names. The plot was artificially blown up (like the storm scene or the prostitute scene), but a lot of things were missing - for example, we never get a good view of the map, and we never learn about the setting of the island and the way to the treasure, which are so very detailed in the book. Instead, the map keeps disappearing annoyingly throughout the film. There was a lot more brutality than called for - I wouldn't have needed to see Jürgen Vogel as Israel Hands shot through the throat in close-up. A lot of people were killed when I didn't even understand why - I mean, the mutineers as well as the "Englishmen" (as Trelawney, Livesey and Smollett are called for some mysterious reason throughout the film) count on sailing the Hispaniola back with the treasure, so you'd think they'd keep as many hands alive as possible for that feat (in the book Stevenson describes how hard it is to sail the ship with a limited crew). Then, that "girl in boy's dress" plot line - horrible! What was that for, to show that the infamous Captain Flint also had a soft side? Or rather that viewers can see some naked female breasts at different times, which seems today as necessary as the brutality? From a feminist view, even if the girl is shown to be tough, her character is mostly used as a victim that Jim Hawkins can save (I counted at least three times). But what I liked least, and what the other comment has already mentioned, is how the characters were twisted. None of them was especially likable, so you really didn't care who got the treasure in the end. The largest difference to the book is, however, that Stevenson's men are men of honour. They stand by their word. This may seem naive and old-fashioned today, but that's a reason why I like to read those old stories. Stevenson's Dr. Livesey was a doctor who would tend to every patient, no matter if nobleman or mutineer, because he gave that Hippocratic oath. In the film we actually see him poisoning one of the pirates. Then, the social issues. The film asks us to side with the mutineers because they have been badly treated by the marine and are only men that seek freedom and independence. Didn't the author do any research on piracy to know that it was done for the Crown? That piracy was a common method between seafaring nations trying to outdo each other? Well, enough of that. Let's just say that Tobias Moretti and Jürgen Vogel had some cool costumes. And maybe that's what this film was all about - that some of our great guys could play pirates, just like Johnny Depp did.