lual

"Krabat" has been one of the classics of youth literature in Germany for almost 40 years and one wonders why nobody tried to make a movie out of it earlier. Actually, it is not that hard to answer this question since "Krabat" is a very grim and dark tale with some gruesome deaths, an ending that comes across as rather anticlimactic and above all an incredible amount of religious symbolism (even though the book is no sappy Christian novel) that would make it hard to market it. Parents would not go and see this movie with their kids and young people might not find it cool enough. Fortunately, the producers were smart enough to think of another target group: grown-ups who read the book in their youth and have been haunted by it ever since.

Some changes have been made. The symbolism is reduced, the role of the "Kantorka" is slightly expanded, which makes the showdown a little more exciting and Tonda's love to Worschula plays a bigger part than it does in the novel. Make no mistake, though, both women still have small roles. The story is shortened by one year (so that it now covers only two years instead of three which ultimately saves the life of one of the boys - and to those who only watched the movie but haven't read the book: It is not the guy you think it might be) and the story centers even more on Krabat than in the book, which means that all scenes that explain more about the master such as the sorcerer's duel and the trip to the Elector in Dresden were left out.

I don't mind these changes too much. While the trip to Dresden was in my opinion one of the most memorable scenes of the book I can understand why it had to go. There are some other minor changes which I won't go into. But even with the shortening of the story, Kreuzpaintner still had a lot left in his hands that he had to press into two hours. And I have to say that he does not entirely succeed. Kreuzpaintner does something Preußler does a lot in his book: He only hints at many things and hopes that the viewer will link the parts together. But Preußler had a much bigger story than Kreuzpaintner does and often this makes the movie feel rushed or incomplete. But still, the story is touching and gripping and in my opinion totally satisfying.

The cinematography is outstanding. The images are truly beautiful, and the aerial shots even allow the viewer to see the entire set. Incredible work has been done here. Now, in most big German productions there is one scene in which the director decides to go totally Hollywood and usually this ends in a disaster. The same thing unfortunately happens here when the boys get into a fight with some marauding soldiers. Kreuzpaintner tries to out-Scott Ridley Scott here and the picture is so distorted that not only can you barely see what is happening but it also really hurts the eyes. What makes this even worse is that this makes it look like they tried to cover up bad fighting stunts with these scenes even though I am sure that they were in fact done well.

The actors are mainly well cast. Brühl, Redl (especially Redl!), Stadlober all act well and make us forget the actor behind the role (Brühl and Redl succeed better than Stadlober) Hanno Koffler, whom I usually like a lot, does some over-acting which seems annoying at first, but since he plays Juro that might have been a deliberate choice. Unfortunately, David Kross is a little weak, but this seems to be the curse of title characters who, after all, are supposed to serve as models for identification. The guy I actually liked best was Moritz Grove, who plays Merten as thoughtful, caring and in the end almost tragic. All in all,it has to be said that the casting agents really did their job well in making these guys distinguishable, even though some of their parts are rather small.

While I liked the set design and the costumes, I was not too pleased about the make-up. Smeering some black paint on strategic places on the actors' faces so that they look dirty but still pretty gets on my nerves when it happens through an entire movie. It really looks fake after a while and when you get to scenes where the actors show their shaved armpits, you cannot help but laugh at this pseudo-historical mess.

I have to say, in spite of some criticism I really liked the movie and I will recommend it to everyone. To people who read the book it will bring back great childhood memories and others who have not read it will find the movie entertaining, thrilling and maybe even scary.

But just like the movie ends on a big "f--- you" to the audience I will end this review with my biggest gripe about the movie: Who on earth made the decision to put such a terrible song at the end of the movie? The picture has such an incredibly beautiful score and does everything to set the mood right and they actually decide to put some electro dance track over the credits!!!! This must be one of the worst choices of a film-promoting song in film history! The people behind this decision should really lower their heads in shame!

Once every few years, Bernd Eichinger feels the need to prove to everybody that he has the biggest dick in the German film industry. In order to do this, he refrains from making cheap stupid international movies like "Resident Evil" and dumb German comedies and makes a big movie that he calls important. After "Der Untergang" and "Das Parfum" we now get "Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex".

One really wonders who this movie was made for. People who don't know anything about the RAF will not understand most of what is going on. People who know some stuff about this will only find the things that they already know and experts on the topic will be horrified about the simplifications and elisions.

The movie looks great, as it should be expected. It really looks like it is from the era. All technical aspects are wonderful, the cinematography, the action, sound, effects. And the actors do an incredible job. Martina Gedeck and Johanna Wokalek stand out in this universally good cast as Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin.

Also, to be fair, it has to be said, that the beginning of the movie is really gripping and well done. The viewer gets to understand a lot about the feeling of the time and the intentions of the protagonists are well-explained.

But the whole thing goes downhill after a while. By the time Ulrike Meinhof joins the group and Andreas Baader breaks out of prison, we lose focus. Suddenly there are new members in almost every scene and none of them gets introduced properly (with the exception of Peter-Jürgen Boock). Certainly, not every character needs a back story, but it would have been essential to tell the audience at least how these recruits got to join the group in general.

By the time that Meinhof, Baader and Ensslin are imprisoned, we really don't care about the RAF any more. And this is mainly because we have no idea who these "2nd generation" people are. Even people who know about the RAF will wonder who this or that guy in each scene is supposed to be because only few of them are even mentioned by name. The assassinations of von Mirbach, Buback and Ponto are just checked off a list to get the story to completion. And the whole Schleyer-kidnapping as well as the attack on the "Landshut" which are supposed to serve as the climax of the movie have terrible timing and leave out so much important information.

But also the handling of characters of the "1st generation" is done poorly in parts. Raspe is basically absent from the movie until he gets taken in by the police, same with Meins, whose only purpose in the movie it is to get captured, force-fed and then die. Only these three scenes. Nothing more is seen of him! Neither Eichinger nor Edel really cared to explain or teach anything. The whole thing was just planned as a big production to show off 2/3 of the more well-known actors working in Germany in one movie. Even the guy who attempts to assassinate Rudi Dutschke gets played by a well known actor (Tom Schilling). What this movie would have needed is the kind of epilogue that Eichinger put at the end of "der Untergang" to show what happened to some characters and also to even explain who these characters were supposed to be.

So, we only have one more chance to find out. Since the movie is filled with well-known actors, reading the credits might help. No chance here. Except for the main characters no character name is mentioned in the credits, only the actors who showed up. To me, this is the ultimate proof that Eichinger didn't care about the characters at all, all he cared about was the actors he could squish into this movie.

There are other things that others will criticize, for example the way the victims are turned just into cardboard figures with no purpose other than getting assassinated, or the fact that the German government, which was very involved especially in the final act, is not present at all. I personally do not mind these things too much, because I understand that this is not the story the makers wanted to tell.

I only criticize the movie for what it is. A nice-looking, but unfortunately very hollow and confusing piece of work. Too bad. It was a great chance that was missed here.

Roger Ebert said of Andrew Lloyd Webber: "Whenever he finds one good tune, he starts rehearsing." Now, that may be a little harsh and exaggerated, but Ebert does have a point here. Webber tends to overuse sequences of particular songs and especially so in "The Phantom of the Opera".

I think there is certainly more than one good song in "Phantom", but most of the good songs are in the first half. After "Masquerade", which on stage opens the second act and is played after a little over half the movie is over, there are only 2 or three really original songs following (which are all weaker songs of the musical), the rest is just patchwork from other songs and sequences. You can't call this "Leitmotiv" either, because Webber uses theses tunes almost randomly. Really, it gets rather boring after a while.

The second half is a big problem in the production anyway. The story basically falls apart. Everything repeats itself, the focus is lost and basically, it doesn't make sense either.

Many people say that the problem is the Phantom, which is not really scary in Webber's piece. I think the problem lies rather in the character of Christine. Her relationship with the "Angel of Music" is naive and she comes across as rather bland and dumb. Also, while she is fascinated by the Phantom, she is never at all in love with him. From the beginning she falls for Raoul for motives which are also rather flat. We can never really believe that she loves Raoul (who is a boring character anyway and while Patrick Wilson plays him well, his hairdo in the movie really only underlines the impression of the spoiled vain brat that we have perceived from the get-go). So, there is no believable love-story to Raoul and no love for the Phantom either. Therefore, while Christine seems nice to the viewer, we never really get involved with her emotionally. The "love" the Phantom feels for Christine at times rather comes across as desire but still, it is the most believable emotion in the piece.

All of these are problems of the source material. But since Joel Schumacher has adapted the musical almost slavishly faithfully they need to be addressed.

The actors all do a good job, some of them even outstanding. Emmy Rossum's singing is incredible and Minnie Driver, Simon Callow and Chiaran Hinds add a much needed comic relief. In fact, it is these three latter characters who make the movie bearable. While the movie does look good it still looks far too serious. This heavy-handedness pulls the movie down quite a lot. Its OK that most of the movie looks fake or stagy but it is also filmed in way as if this musical were high art. I am sure that even die-hard fans of "PotO" will agree that while it is nice entertainment, it is nothing more than entertainment. A little more lightness, maybe even a hint of irony would really have helped here. But so, we only have Driver, Callow and Hinds to tell us that it actually is OK to laugh sometimes.

What really doesn't work are the scenes set in 1919. Apart from the opening and possibly the ending they really don't serve any point at all other than giving us a break from the singing. While that is a noble effort, a little dialog should have been included instead of just having to look at a tired old man for roughly a minute. Also, the rose in the last scene is really distracting. During the entire movie, Schumacher has been trying to make the Phantom human and real (which the stage production never does) and suddenly we are supposed to believe that this character is immortal? BIG mistake here.

You probably wouldn't guess it from this review, but I do kind of like the movie. I like looking at it, I like the actors, I enjoy many of the songs. But there is not a single moment in this movie where one is not aware of its weaknesses. We are never really pulled in. We stand by watching, listening and maybe enjoying it, but at no time do we feel like we are part of the action.

Fans of the stage production will probably love this movie and I am happy for them (except for those who keep crying that they want Michael Crawford back who hasn't played the role for about 20 years). But I don't think it is for anyone else. There are musicals which I consider to be watchable for people who do not like musicals. THIS movie is definitely NOT one of them.

I really don't like to jump on a band wagon like this. Though I had been longing for this movie for over a year and though I was expecting great things from it, this nerdy and geeky talk of comic book fans ("best movie ever") really got onto my nerves. Living in Germany, I had to wait until yesterday to finally watch the movie and I could watch all the craziness going on on the net from afar. I still wanted to like the movie, but I really feared that all this hype might ruin it for me.

Well, now that I have finally seen it I have to say that my fears were to a large part unnecessary. the movie is great and I think it is as good as a movie like this can be. Though I still get annoyed by teenagers who yell that this is the best movie ever, I can understand where they are coming from. Every decade or so there is one movie that becomes a real phenomenon. And if you never experienced this than you become part of the group that says "this is our movie and we won't let grumpy idiots take it away from us". When I was at that age for me it was "Jurassic Park" and later to a certain extent also "Titanic" and I bet most of the kids who hype this movie have not been consciously around then.

I thought the acting was great overall. Heath Ledger definitely stands out. Christian Bale is great, too. His work as the twisted Batman/Bruce Wayne character has to be a lot more subtle in this movie and he achieves that wonderfully. Unfortunately, due to Ledger's tour de force performance, Bale's work seems to go unappreciated by many here. I could go on and on. There is not a single weak performance in this movie (although the Mayor becomes a bit distracting because of his heavy eye-liner, but that's not the actor's fault).

I love the scope of this movie. The main storyline is always in focus but there still is room for subplots here and there which are all set up perfectly and fit within the overall plot. And even though you might wish to see more of some characters (like Alfred) you nevertheless don't feel that they were underused. The pacing is great as well. You keep being interested the entire time and the movie flows so naturally that you never get the feeling that this action sequence here happens because there has to be an action sequence.

So, is this the best movie ever? I leave that up to everyone to decide for himself. It is not perfect but no movie, even the best, is completely flawless. There are things in this movie that I didn't like too much. I wish they had done more with Two-Face and the whole bit about the cell phones seemed a bit gimmicky for me (I also didn't like Batman's eyes in these scenes).

But there is so much to like in this film. One has to applaud the filmmakers for going against conventions by for example killing of characters not just at the climax of the movie but right in the middle. I also loved it that the movie does not end with the big machine of the villain that he has to start in order to rule the world (even "Batman begins" fell into that trap). They found a perfectly neat solution to it all and though I think the ending is not perfect, I think it still is great as it is.

The same thing can be said about the whole movie. I love it that the script of this movie is so smart that it even takes time to ask philosophical questions. Sure, it doesn't go too deep but it is mentioned in a way that most moviegoers will be able to think about this.

I had a perfect time at the cinema and think that for what it is, this movie can indeed be called a masterpiece.

I never wanted to watch this movie. In the year when it came out, the trailer was playing constantly for at least 5 months and it really looked bad. The trailer made this movie look like it was soaked with clichés.

I finally watched this movie today and I am truly impressed. Sure, the main storyline is the coming-out story, but it is really well done and also there is so much more to this movie.

Most of the characters are well rounded, they all have their flaws and strengths. The gay guys aren't presented as saints and the heterosexuals are no ignorant gay-bashing crowd. It would have been so easy to make this movie play like a gay vs. straight story in which the straight team bullies the gays and the gays gain confidence (in fact, this is what the trailer made the film look like). But that's not the story here. On a group-level, it is a story of heterosexuals overcoming their insecurity with homosexuals and gays taking a look behind their own stereotypes.

The coming-out-storyline is pretty common stuff. There is nothing really new here but it is still well done. What made this movie really hit me hard and bring me to tears was the coming-of-age story that goes along with it. Rarely ever have I seen a movie that captures so well how beautiful it is to be young and how much it hurts when your best friendship is torn apart by growing up and falling in love. The scene in which Toby is close to panic because he knows that his friend Achim split from the group in order to have sex with his girlfriend made me remember my own youth and how jealous I got when a good friend of mine suddenly had a girlfriend. I believe that the most painful aspect of this scene is not only that he is in love with Achim himself, but that there is a feeling of loss.

Sure, you know you are being selfish and jealous by not wanting your friend to have sex. You know, you wouldn't act any differently. But knowing that right there and then it might all change and you might lose him to another person and experiencing this fear.... I really know and understand this feeling. And when Toby goes looking for them even though he knows he shouldn't and watches them the scene almost broke my heart.

The great thing about this movie is that you cannot only appreciate it on a homosexual level, but also on a plain friendship-level. I am pretty sure that while watching this movie, everybody will remember his youth sentimentally, the innocence, what it was like at the time when we realized that we soon would be free to do whatever we wanted and plans we made. And then... that dreadful experience just a little while later when we had to understand that the prize for this freedom was the loss of our innocence and the end of the carefree days.

This movie understands youth and treats it seriously. It is warm, funny, sentimental, sad, romantic, sexy and truly beautiful. I really hope that the gay element does not turn too many people off before watching it, because as I said, there is a lot more to it and these people will miss a perfect gem.

Pretty much all through the eighties (and for a big part, the seventies as well) movie musicals were considered a relict from the past. When Menken and Ashman wrote the score for "The little Mermaid", they made movie musicals acceptable again, at least for as long as they were animated. This proved to become a curse as well, since after a while, this became a formula not only for Disney but for pretty much any animated movie in production.

But then came Evita.

I remember reading about the fight over the casting of the title role back then. Every year or so some magazine would bring an update and say that now, at last, the movie would be produced. I never thought it would really happen. And then, suddenly, it actually was in production. And Madonna was in the title role. And suddenly this movie became the talk of the town. Argentinians were going berserk because Madonna (who of all celebrities had lived a life that probably resembled that of Evita's closer than the biography of any other Hollywood actress) was not virtuous enough for them to play the part. Reports of Madonna's pregnancy messing up the schedule appeared everywhere. Andrew Lloyd Webber had produced a new song for the movie (in order for it to have a chance at the Oscar's, smart guy) and next years fashion line was pretty much inspired by Evita's (in real life) and Madonna's (in the movie) look.

With all this going on about the movie I was really surprised how quickly it has become almost forgotten.

I really like the movie a lot, in fact, I think that the faults it has come from the source material. The songs in the first half, with a few exceptions, are forgettable and thus the first half drags a bit, a lot of things going on are not easily understandable for people who are not familiar with Argentinia in the fifties. While Peron's rise to power is explained in a song most of the stuff that goes on while the couple rules the country seems sketched and one REALLY needs to keep up not to lose track of what's actually going on there. Also, the musical supports the urban legend that Eva started the riots to get Peron out of prison.

Devotees of Evita cried out that the movie portrayed her too negatively, critics of Evita dismissed the movie for showing her in a too positive light. Frankly, I believe if you upset both sides, I think you are probably not too far away from the truth. In fact, the libretto is wonderfully ambiguous with its admiration for the way Evita handled her own image and her good intention and its criticism for the recklessness she used to acquire her goals and the glamour that covers up everything. Rice does something wonderful here: He gives listeners both sides and lets them decide which to choose.

I think all the singers are great. Banderas should have become a rock star, Pryce with the sonority in his voice takes some getting used to but is actually marvelous and Madonna... well she owns the film. You hear people everywhere shouting "Ohhhhh Patty Lu Pone had a much stronger voice!" and stuff like that. Yes, true, Lu Pone has a stronger voice but you also have to keep in mind that her performance was created for the stage so it had to be a lot broader. Also, the singing is always just one aspect of the performance and an actor has to create a wholesome character. I think Madonna turned her softer voice, what some people might call a weakness, into a strength and shaped a character that befitted this voice. Her Evita is softer, more emotional and also more cunning this way. I am by no means a great fan of Madonna but one really has to acknowledge what she has done here and how great she was.

Even though the movie's popularity has sunk in the last decade it's legacy still lives on. It was the first serious big budget, non-animated musical in a long time and it approached the subjects of musicals in a new way, making it look less staged by having it shot mostly on location. Also, it is a lot more about characters than about choreography and it has formed musicals in the way that today in musicals there is actually a lot more singing than talking, which also used to be different. I am absolutely certain that without Evita, none of the recent musicals would have been possible and maybe even "Moulin Rouge" and most certainly "Chicago" would never have been made.

I read The Chronicles of Narnia when I was about twelve years old. The series is not as well-known in Germany, but after watching the first season of the BBC-production I thought it looked interesting and gradually I read all books of the series. I enjoyed them but there was a lot that bothered me about them as well so I never read them again. At the time I didn't pick up any Christian allegory and when I read about all the Christian fuss that was made over the production of the first film I was wondering what everybody was talking about. I did some research then and read a lot about it and I understand it now but I still think that, especially as a child, you can read the books without thinking about the allegory at all. But now I finally understood what it was that I never liked about the books: All characters are basically paralyzed. Everybody is constantly talking about Aslan who will come and set things straight, even though he is never there when they need him. This glorification of a talking lion seemed too ridiculous to me and in my opinion no character in these books was allowed to have a free will.

Enough about the books, I am here to talk about the movie, I just wanted to get this out of the way for you to understand where I am coming from.

Honestly, in a visual sense, the movie is great, there are certain things, such as the spirit that is formed out of petals, that look so real that even though you know it is CGI it doesn't look like CGI. The animals look pretty real as well. But there are still many things, such as the river-god, that may look cool but still look a lot like CGI. All in all, the technical side of the movie is probably as good as it could be, except for Caspian's hairstyle. Seriously, after running around the forests for days without a bath or so he still sports a perfectly designed parting in the hair that looks as if it has been cast in concrete.

The acting is OK. Nothing really great but everybody delivers what is required of him or her. The only exception is William Moseley, who is still rather bland and boring. But this may also be due to the role he plays. After all, a kid who is designed as a natural leader with his brother and sisters looking up to him because he usually acts in noble and sensible ways can only be boring, right? Anna Popplewell has improved considerably since the first movie.

The movie is too long and a lot could have been tightened up. Curiously, it is the changes to the story that could have used some elaboration:

-There seems to be no reason why Peter is suddenly arrogant. And also, even though he just as suddenly goes through a change due to the tragical effects his decisions have led to this is never really addressed in the script. -The rivalry between Peter and Caspian also ends abruptly without the two of them having any exchange about it. - There is obviously some sort of attraction between Susan and Caspian. I understand that the producers did not want to make it two obvious, but really, exchanging 2 or three glances throughout the movie does not justify the emotional good-bye they share at the end.

All of these additions were interesting ideas but all of them were executed poorly in my opinion.

Even though I was entertained throughout the movie there was one element that really spoiled it for me. I understand that "Prince Caspian" is supposed to be darker and more mature than the "The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe" and I don't mind violence per se. But what I really object to is the way the violence is reduced to a gimmick throughout the movie due to the American rating system. I am not talking about the big battle sequences, the siege of the castle (even though this was not in the book) and the battle in the end, but about all the violence that occurs throughout the movie.

Appently, the American rating system approves of violence in children's movies if no blood is shown. By looking at this movie, one gets the impression that any kind of violence is excused as long as there is no blood. And so, throughout the movie, bad guys are slain with swords or killed with arrows by the kids, but everything is fine since there is no blood.

This is really like a Shoot 'em up pc-game where the baddies die as soon as they are hit and nobody has to think about them any more. Hey, in this movie, the characters even supposedly die after their legs have been sliced (without blood) by a sword-carrying-mouse. This really happens throughout the entire movie, there is barely a scene where no violence of this kind occurs. I think it is wrong to show violence without consequence. I don't mind having kids (or anybody) exposed to violence if it is not overly gruesome, but I think the filmmakers have the responsibility of showing the consequences. If the filmmakers weren't so bound by the rating system, the body-count would ironically probably have been a lot lower since many characters would probably rather have been wounded than just killed off.

This kind of hypocrisy has been bothering me about movies that had to be toned down so that they can be seen by the entire family for a long time, but here it really becomes apparent. Considering that this is a movie which is supposed to have a Christian message, I find it especially irritating that none of the good guys have any qualms about killing the bad guys by the dozens.

Note: I have added the "spoiler notice", even though I will not reveal the ending. I will mention its impact on me, though, which, for some, might already count as a spoiler.

It is so difficult to get a horror movie right. Quite often, in my opinion, the idea of the horror subject is more frightening than the execution. This applies especially to haunted house stories. But here.... I have to confess, I have rarely ever felt horror as strongly as I did while watching this movie.

I haven't read the novella on which the movie is based, but after watching the movie I listened to a radio dramatization and read some stuff on the net and from that I gather that the movie follows the story pretty closely, mostly deviating from it at the end by adding a coda.

The story starts quickly, driving the plot forward and the tension builds up gradually. What I really like about the movie is that while there is the "attack - pause - attack - pause"-rhythm that is typical for horror movies, there is no denouement here in the pauses. While the monsters "plan" their next attack, it is the humans who drive the action further and in many ways, the story that unfolds here is much more frightening than the monster attacks. The monster stuff is there for the blood and gore, the human story provides the real terror that leaves you chilled. It is this rare combination of different kinds of horror that makes this movie stand out so much.

The characters are also completely believable. There is only one scene in which a character seems to react the way he does because of the genre conventions. This is when Mr. Norton strictly refuses to go back to the warehouse to look at the remains of a monster. I felt this to be the only forced moment in the movie where the reaction was not natural, but had to be like this to keep the movie and the tension going.

Mrs. Carmody is a pretty risky character that could easily have gone wrong. But with this script and especially through the outstanding performance of Marcia Gay Harden she remains credible and real. I can't believe how many people view this as bashing of religion or Christianity. Mrs. Carmody in my opinion is not a symbol of religion but of orthodoxy and radicalness. If a Christian is offended by her portrayal, I think he should probably check his own motives.

Now, for the ending... What an incredible, courageous, terrifying, ruthless ending. When I watched the movie in the theater I couldn't believe what I was watching. This ending, while it is just the icing on the cake, is what will make this film be remembered for a long time. I can completely understand why people hate this ending. It goes against movie conventions (if you haven't seen the movie: don't worry, it is not an open ending, the story gets completely resolved) and will crush you on the floor without picking you up. This part you will have to do on your own. The point is, that this is not just a sad ending, but it stresses the unnecessarity of the actions the main character has taken. And by then giving us just a short look into the face of a woman who had taken a chance early on in the movie and was supposed to be dead but had instead survived, it makes everything even more unbearable.

Usually, when a hero dies in the end or something sad happens to him, there is always some sort of closure that what he did was right or that he was a hero of some sort. "The Mist" denies the viewer this feeling. Instead, it leaves us with a feeling of deep deep pain and uselessness. People who hate the ending and maybe feel betrayed by it, probably mostly hate the fact that they have been lured into identifying with the supposedly wrong character. This guy is not an everyman who goes out of the story with his head held high, but one who makes a mistake, an understandable mistake, that will ruin him forever.

A great movie!

Director Dennis Gansel seems to like movies about the power of groups and how they affect the individual. All of his movies deal with this subject. I had some problems with his previous outing "Napola" (wrote a review on IMDb), but in "Die Welle" he gets most things right.

Let's start with the negatives, just to get them out of the way:

-I found the marketing to be too aggressive. That's not the movie's fault but one could almost picture the producers trying to find a project which will get hundreds of German classes into the cinema.

-The big gripe I have with this movie is that it chooses the wrong girl as the heroine. Each of the students is a symbol for a certain type of students. Gansel avoids turning them into clichés, but they are symbols nonetheless. Most of the kids go for the movement, there are mainly 2 girls who don't. I don't have a problem with the first one, the smaller role. She is the typical hippieesque do-gooder who is almost fascistic herself in the way she is trying to get her own point across and thus creates an interesting and realistic persona. She values the individual, but by listening to her you get the feeling that she herself does not respect people who don't share her opinion.

It's the other girl who is the problem. This is the type of over-achieving person who engages in all kind of projects, plans ahead for the future and does everything to succeed in life. She is mostly egocentric but can hide it pretty well by engaging in group projects. Nevertheless, she is a typical "Generation Y"-kid who only acts when she can find personal gain in it. This girl is the spitting image of the ideal that German teachers and parents are trying to create at the moment and that in my own personal opinion is just wrong. The reason why she quits the group initially is that a white shirt doesn't suit her well. In fact, laughable as it is, this is the one realistic thing about her. I am deeply convinced that this character would in reality not be able to look through this scheme, but that instead she would happily participate in the group and try to advance her own position by bringing in lots of more new ideas.

In my opinion, the most realistic opposer would be an outsider who remains an outsider just because he feels unwell in groups. But this guy would be hard to identify with.

-One minor point: The Turkish guy should not have been so well-adjusted to German culture. It would have been interesting to see how he would have reacted to the group and how they would have taken him in. The movie would be even more controversial if it had shown that this would be a way in which integration could work, even though with horrible side-effects.

But enough about the negative.

The movie works well even with its flaws. It grabs you from the beginning and does not let go. The movie adapts the novel towards modern Germany but sticks close enough the source material to realize the main plot points. Even if you know what is going to happen the movie makes you follow the plot and think along.

What I like most about it is that it does not preach or give easy answers. It raises questions and forces you to think. Except for the very last scenes the events are never too much over the top and every single event by itself could find some sympathy in the viewer. This way you yourself are tempted by "Die Welle" and you have to force yourself to think why exactly it should be wrong to oppose it. In fact, in many ways I was reminded of school spirit in American high schools, especially while I was watching the sports scenes. There is no easy way out of "Die Welle" and therefore it makes it interesting for all nationalities, not just Germans.

The movie changes the ending of the novel a bit. (Here comes the spoiler).

Instead of revealing Hitler as the groups true leader, the teacher only gives a speech after which the events get out of control and a student dies. This is some rather shaky territory, because in this scene the movie really threatens to go over the top. I can definitely understand viewers who dismiss this movie as junk at this moment, but I think that it is actually a quite realistic scenario. Gansel wisely shot this scene in a very realistic way: he makes it quick, surprising and ugly and this way he makes it feel organic stylistically. It invokes the terror of school shootings and reflects one of Todd Strasser's other novels, "Give a boy a gun", and suddenly one understands the decisions of the character Tim, the boy who finally found a meaning in his life even though he still was not really accepted. He was now accepted as part of the movement, but not as an individual. Unfortunately he does not recognize this and this leads to the tragic events.

End of spoiler.

Final Comment: What I found most strange about the movie was that none of the characters knows "The Wave", since it has been taught to death on German schools. But I guess the movie would not have worked otherwise. Even though I believe that most people know about the story already I advise everybody to watch this update. They will definitely find something new in it to keep them thinking.

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie for such a long time! Since it won't come out in Germany until February 12th I had to wait even longer than the American audience. Well, I finally got to see it and here is my review.

First off, I think on its own terms the movie is extraordinary! Truly one of the greatest movies of the past year. When it started I was at first put off by the picture of the Tower Bridge (which did not exist an the time in which the movie is set) but I quickly got over it and just followed along.

The whole look of the movie is incredible. The costumes, the production design, the wigs, everything fits together perfectly. This is probably, along with "Batman Returns", the one where Burton captured his German-Exypressionism-Look best. Everything is just a little bit twisted and shabby yet somehow beyond all the filth there is something glorious about it.

The actors are just as great. Helena Bonham-Carter makes for a very funny Mrs. Lovett, even though she decided to play it down a little bit from the usual hysterical stage version and make her a human rather than a complete maniac. Depp seems to be channeling Heath Ledger's "Brokeback Mountain"-performance judging by the way he constantly clenches his teeth together. Because of this decision his singing often sounds like he is hissing the sounds through his teeth, but it fits just well with his performance. I like the decision to make the main characters not too exaggerated as they often are on stage. It might fit there, but here this portrayal seems so much more realistic and adds to the effect of the movie. Of the entire -wonderful- cast, there are only two characters who are completely overplayed: Timothy Spall's Beadle and Sasha Baron Cohen's Pirelli. But this as well adds to the movie and helps making these people characters you just love to hate, in the case of the Beadle perhaps even more than the Jugde.

The gore-level is very high and the throat slitting seems to be the most real thing in the entire movie. This is a very courageous decision as it makes you squirm even though you are entertained. Whereas the stage-version is often darkly comical the movie is rather macabre and the viewer can feel how painful death can be (and still can't wait for the next death). This makes the movie very bitter-sweet and makes it stay with you a lot longer. I was actually surprised that Burton did not go all the way and decided not to show Toby's fate as it would have made the ending even more heartbreaking. But that would have been just the icing on the cake.

And now the one thing that makes me take off one star of the movie: It really sounds like I am one of these elitists if I compare it to the stage version and I really don't mean to. In fact, if you don't know the stage version you will not miss anything at all. But since I have seen it I have to compare it automatically. Make no mistake, everything that's here is great, no complains. I just sometimes wished that some of the abbreviated songs had been intact in the movie. I know why Burton cut them and I understand his decision but since I think the choires are so integral to the musical I would have preferred it if he had kept them in a few songs, most notably "God that's good" and "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir". Sometimes it simply felt like the songs were just hinted at instead of really performed. And for "A little Priest" I would have preferred had Depp and Bonham-Carter made it just a little bit more lively. There is no need to make it the wild number it is on stage, but it is a sweeping waltz after all.. A little more than just staring out of the window would have been nice.

But enough of that. I can only advise everyone, even non-lovers of musicals, to see this movie. You probably won't be disappointed - as long as you don't mind the blood.

The movie's funniest scene is a compilation of scenes from German sex-ed movies that were popular in the sixties and seventies. And that tells a lot about this movie.

It is so sad that the movie is so very shallow, because by looking at the picture it is obvious that there were many talented and ambitious people involved.

That it not to say that the movie is bad. In fact, you will probably have a good time at the cinema and leave it very amused. There are some fresh jokes, very good actors and an incredible production design that gets the sixties right by not making it too glamorous, although it sometimes looks a little too polished.

Unfortunately, the plot does not have anything to do with the Munich sex film industry at all, as the tag-line and the production material would like you to think. And this is where the movie gets disappointing. Instead of really dealing with this industry which would probably make for a very funny movie in itself, the film follows a bunch of losers who would like to make a movie LIKE the Munich sex film industry. Neue Constantin Film has done a lot of these movies as well in that time so there should be a lot of material in the archives that could have been used for reference, but instead, after the compilation scene mentioned earlier, the movie does not have anything to do with that business at all.

There was just so much potential here and instead of using it the producers went for the easiest route which makes this film ultimately shallow and irrelevant.

I want to point out two things that I found especially distracting and disappointing.

a) Mousse T. has been hyped as having delivered his first movie soundtrack here. His music is actually quite good, a very enjoyable soundtrack. BUT it is completely wrong for this movie. While the beats seem to be reminiscent of the sixties, it is not at all reminiscent of any German music of the time. Sure, people listened to soul and music like that but for a movie like this it would have been more appropriate to remix some of the typical music found in German movies of the time. I guess that choice would have seemed too risky for the producers.

The soundtrack choice is a typical example of this movie that makes fun of the sixties from our point of view with an attitude that seems to say: "Aren't we so much more advanced today?" There is also a scene in which a naked woman walks across the room with a ridiculous amount of pubic hair. Instead of letting the comedy come out of the fact that the scene is witnessed by a young guy who has never experienced sexual freedom the movie chooses to make fun of the fact that women did not shave their pubic hair at the time. A movie like "Sonnenallee" made fun of life in the German Democratic Republic of the seventies by showing its oddities, but it never showed modern audiences as more advanced or superior. this movie chooses this point of view which somehow leaves a bad aftertaste.

b) This is a typical movie where in the end the plot is completely pushed aside to make way for the relationship of the protagonists. I don't spoil too much by saying that this movie has the typical ending where one character has to declare his love to the other in front of a large group. And as if this isn't enough, he has to do it TWICE in front of two different groups until the other person finally gives in. If you had your eyes rolling at the cliché the first time around you will stark shaking your head at the second time.

But I am making the movie sound worse than it actually is. In fact, apart from the ending nothing about this movie is really bad, it is just never as good as it could have been. It is fun while it lasts if you don't think too much about it. I was especially surprised by Benno Fürmann who often seems to act a little wooden but comes across well here as good-for-nothing Freddie. But I bet that you will forget the movie shortly after you walk out of the cinema.

This series has haunted me all through my childhood. I was 6 years old when it first aired and I was fascinated. Being one of the traditional ZDF Christmas series that were broadcast every year from 1978 to 1996 it was shown from Christmas Day up until New Years Eve. Since my parents thought there are better ways to spend the holidays than watching TV I could not watch much of it, but certain scenes always stuck in my mind. When it was rerun I tried to catch every time. In terms of audience ratings Patrick Pacard was the most successful of all the Christmal series and was shown a lot more often than many others, such as "Oliver Maass" or "Mino".

Of cause, today, the plot seems very cheesy: A professor who lives in a quiet fjord in Norway discovers a formula to make pineapples grow on glaciers and grain in the desert thus being able to stop hunger in the world. Of course secret services from all kinds of nations are alert and try to outwit each other. But there is a dubious character, Dimitri, who plays by his own rules and plans to outwit them all. He wants to get this formula to sell it to the highest bidder, in this case the tyrannic desert Prince Mullay Sharif Ali. Coincidentally a family is on vacation in Norway right where the professor is conducting his experiments.

Dimitri poisons the professor and thus makes him lose his mind, but he knows he will never get out of the fjord with the formula without being caught by the Russians or Americans. So he drugs Patrick Pacard, the young son of the family and lasers the formula onto the sole of his foot. While doing so, an accident occurs and Patrick, while still drugged looks up into the laser ray. From now on Patrick is the courier of the formula,even though he has no clue. Dimitri tries to kidnap him several times, the other agents all know that Patrick is somehow involve and have there own interests in keeping the boy safe. The family becomes a ping-pong ball between these powers where one tries to frame the others. But unfortunately for all parties, the family and especially Patrick have there own strong heads and try to get out of the situation whenever they can. But unbeknownst for anyone but Dimitri and the audience, time is running out for Patrick, for if he doesn't have surgery soon, he will lose his sight forever due to the accident.

As I said, the plot is quite cheesy and requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. But if one is willing to accept this, one can have a great time with this 6-parter, there is a lot of fun and TV-action and suspense at display.

When I was young there were certain scenes which have haunted me to this very day. Dimitri was the first multi-dimensional villain I had ever seen on TV. I was constantly amazed because he never seemed really bad but most certainly was never really a good guy either. In terms of the formula he only cared about himself but above that, he also felt a responsibility for the boy and wanted to have him saved. His scenes, and especially the solution to his story in the end, touched me a lot and the image of that syringe in the very end never left me. Also Patrick breaking down in the desert with his eyes hurting and the audience knowing that there is not much time left created a lot of suspense.

In addition to the suspension of disbelief mentioned above, the series, from todays point of view, has another drawback. It is so typically 80s that it is unintentionally funny. The catchy theme-song pops up every other minute and is typical 80s synthesizer stuff. Also, the lyrics, sung in English are so simple and so embarrassingly flat that one barely even dares showing it to an English speaker. Oh, just for the heck of it... here are the lyrics, can't get them out of my head anyways:

"There is a secret it seems, Follows you no matter where you are, Worth more than many a dream, Patrik Pacard. Good men and bad by your side, Somewhere out there in the dark, Gone with the morning light, Patrik Pacard. Farewell, you're a stranger here. Your're still in danger here, All on your own... Heroes must win in the end You are the best one by far, Patrik Pacard"

Didn't believe me? See, it actually IS that bad... but still, once you hear the song, no matter if you like it or not, you will be humming it constantly...

The series also tried to be incredibly hip and modern, using computer stuff that from todays perspective is on an amusing prehistoric level. And don't get me started on the fashion everybody is wearing!

But, to be honest, I love all that stuff. It is sort of a guilty pleasure catapulting me back into my childhood. I am often afraid of showing it to others thinking it will be embarrassing. But in fact, most people still know it from their childhood, anyway. And they all love it. The series plays on themes of the iron curtain, but still it has an innocence about it that is rarely found nowadays.

I highly recommend this series if you should ever come across it. I bet you will have a great time watching it.

I never walk out of the cinema while a movie is still playing. Though I go to the movies regularly, I choose the movies I watch carefully and inform myself. I build up an expectation based on this and I have rarely been completely disappointed. Most of the time I like the movie I am watching, sometimes it falls below my expectation. But it hardly ever happens that I hate a movie when I walk out of the theater. But there have been two times when I hated a movie so much that I almost left the cinema. The first time was "Boat Trip" (which was a sneak preview, I had no idea they were showing this, I assure you I would never have chosen that movie out of free will), the second time was while I was watching "The Matrix Revolutions".

I liked the first Matrix film. i was never a geek or anyone who could talk about the "meaning" in this movie all the time. Frankly, those people annoyed me and over time, it took a little of my enjoyment of that movie away. But I always recognized it as a visual milestone in cinema.

When "The Matrix reloaded" came out, I went to see it with quite high expectations. I thought it was OK, not as good as the first one, but after all, it was a sequel and those are hardly ever as good as the originals. I loved that it still felt like "Matrix" to me. It had a lot of the original style and most new characters fit into that. What I did not like was all that heavy dialog. The things the Architect said made me mad. Listening to it, I got the feeling that what was actually being said was something completely banal but the Wachowskys wanted it to sound profound and to have people talk about it so they made it complicated. Still, a nice movie and after the climax, I wanted to know how it would all wrap up.

What a disappointment this movie was! Whereas "The Matrix Reloaded" still had a lot of "The Matrix" in it, this movie has barely any of the "Matrix"-feeling in it, but mostly the bad things of "the Matrix Reloaded". I never cared much about all this Zion-stuff. Zion to me was the ideal that was built up in the first movie, not that Star Trek -influenced termite hill of the second film. And yet, most of this movie is about that. To top it all of, most of the film is about defending this city, which is done by characters which were all added later while the main characters just vanish or become cyphers.

Only two scenes of the movie take place in the matrix, one in the beginning and one at the end. The rest is just robot wars in Zion and trying to get to the Deus Ex Machina.

Now, like many others, I also felt let down by the ending. i felt it was a cheap way out of all the stuff the makers of this trilogy had hinted at before. But still, the ending was just the thing that assured me in my overall impression. the entire film had been ruined for me a long time before during all these ridiculous and redundant fighting scenes in Zion.

This third installment is so terrible, that it weakens the entire trilogy and even the first movie as a standalone work.

The only positive thing that can be said about it is that after that, all that annoying geek talk about the matrix allegories stopped. It seemed like the Wachwskies wanted to give a wake-up call to all those freaks.

Se7en is an excellent thriller. Sure, it might be a little bit over-stylized and the ending is not quite as logical as it seems to be at first, but none of that disturbs the experience of watching this film.

Every aspect of it is superb, the writing, the actors, the editing, the sound, the music, the direction.

I am not going to repeat the plot yet again.

I just want to point out what makes this film so special: It stays with you. After the first viewing, the images are burnt into your head, the ending leaves you drained and broken and you will think about it for days. Even though the effect wears off after repeated viewing, you can always remember the way you felt after your first experience with this movie. it is so strong that you can even remember it if someone just mentions its name. It is the kind of movie of which you never forget where you saw it first, who was with you and what it was like. I watched it in a cinema 13 years ago and can still remember the exact mood of that evening.

This, in my opinion, is the greatest accomplishment a film can achieve.

When I first saw this movie as a child, I remember I thought it to be a little too slow but yet interesting. I have come to like the movie much more since I was a teenager and had experienced losing friends over time. I think this film is more mature than most Disney pictures and maybe this is why it took me a while to warm up to it. I had to have the experience first before I could truly relate.

I have noticed that the darker Disney movies, such as Pinocchio, the Black Cauldron, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Fox and the Hound and also to some extent Sleeping Beauty were always more special to me than the normal Disney fare. Maybe this is, because they came a bit more unexpected.

The animation is very good, I think. Sure, it is nowhere near that of the early Disneys and also not as good as the animation done in the nineties, but it is a large step forward from "Robin Hood" and "The Rescuers" I think the saturated and natural colors really fitted the mood, even though the backgrounds were static.

I read in many comments, that this is a wonderful tale of friendship. I think what is even more important about the movie is that it shows that hatred or the feeling of despising one another because of difference between people is learned. Remember, Copper does not hate Tod before he goes on that hunting trip. After that he is changed, there is no hate yet but he says he has to stick to the convictions and a fox and a hound cannot be friends, the have to be enemies. Only after Chief's accident does this really turn into hate. Had Copper not undergone his education, his first thought after the accident would never have been that Tod had wanted to hurt chief deliberately.

It may be a little far fetched to show this in a fable since after all, foxes and hounds are not just different races but different species. But since many people feel moved by the picture, it must have worked. I think this is even more important message than the one on friendship, for it shows the true reasons of racism, or even contempt between different classes.

This is not a movie that shows your typical blah blah "friendship is what's most important", "everything is fine if only you got love in your life" message as so many other Disney movies or so called kid's movies from the United States do. It is more complex and goes a lot deeper and for that, it is really special to me.

Just like Kleiner_Fuchs after watching this movie and other recent Teamworxx productions like "Sturmflut" I thought that, had Cameron not made "Titanic", these people would probably not rely so heavily on the ever repeated formula of a fictional doomed love with a hazardous historical background (though this is by no means a new concept). Contrary to my predecessor I think that in "Titanic" this worked out fine. But this may be mainly because a ship is a so much smaller microcosm than a city and the actual historical figures,though playing minor parts in the story pop up every few minutes.

It might have worked in "Dresden" as well, had not been the focus so strictly on the English pilot and the Mauth family (plus a few scenes with Annas co-worker and her Jewish partner). From what I have read and seen on TV and listened to I have learned that there are so many interesting and heartbreaking actual stories. I think the makers of the movie should have worked more of them in for it was obvious in the movie that the parts that were the most shocking were the ones that were based on real events - just sad, that they were so few of them.

Also, since the movie was so very focused on a love story that obviously not many people cared about, the structure of this mini-series was somehow awkward. Why make a two-parter about the bombing of Dresden if the bombers don't actually leave the ground until the last scene of part one and only reach the city halfway into part two? Had this been cut down by an hour and shown as one 2-hour TV-movie I believe it might have had a greater impact.

Still I give this movie 6 stars, because the final 45 minutes actually do work. Of course, the focus is mainly an Anna and the two men running around in the city with her but there are many touching and horrifying scenes in which we as viewers get a little insight into how terrible and traumatizing it must have been to be at this place in this night. Sure, the actual events were still much worse and to tell survivors after viewing this one understands what it was like in Dresden is insulting, but it is mostly in small scenes like the one where a group of people asks a young soldier to shoot them because nobody will survive this anyhow, that I felt a big lump in my throat and got a better understanding of the horror than in the (arguably well done for a TV production) scenes of the inferno.

Tha final scene in which the rebuilt Frauenkirche is re-inaugurated worked for me. I think I understood a lot better now, after watching this movie, how important the building was for the people of Dresden, and why for many of the survivors it was a symbol of their wounds slowly healing and coming to terms with these traumatizing events.

But as a whole, this movie is not about "Dresden", thus it should not have this title. It is just about a bunch of uninteresting poorly written, cliché-based cardboard characters that are, though being mostly played by very competent actors, so completely unappealing, that they ruin the movie.

Actually a very courageous film that I enjoyed quite a lot. Very convincing actors, good set design and the director actually takes on the dangerous risk of toying with Nazi Aestheticism to capture the audience, which makes viewers feel uncomfortable, since even though they are enthralled by its impression, they know somehow it's wrong. This way, Gansel turns the viewer into an ally and tries to make him understand, why so many people were impressed by this era and how and why the boys were lured and brainwashed.

However, this is where the problems start. Even though I really like this film, there are two things that really spoil it a little for me. One of them is a problem of storytelling, the other is a problem of morals, which makes it even more dangerous for me.

The first issue is not that much of a problem, actually. I just feel that the solution to Albrecht's dilemma comes too quick. From the moment he speaks out to the tragic ending only about 15 minutes pass and even though the scene at the frozen lake is impressive, I think that this is quite a cop-out (not Albrecht's decision, but the screenwriter's decision) and I always felt Gansel could have made it a lot more powerful and emotional.

Now for my second issue with this movie. I believe that characters such as the one portrayed by the always reliable Devid Striesow are very convincing and real in being friendly and supposedly well-meaning but at the same time dangerous and not trustworthy. But why are all of the students innocent? None of the roommates of the two main characters is in any way a Nazi. They all go through this school, some of them have been there since their early childhood, yet all they struggle with are the problems kids at any boarding school have to face. If you think that they have been there for so many years, why does none of them show any sign of having adopted the Nazi philosophy? None of them speaks out against Albrecht, none of them supports the ideology, they all just go along like victims. Sure, they were victims of the system, but does not this omission just make this movie uneven, contradictory to itself and even dangerous in a moral view?

If this school has been designed to educate kids to become followers and members of the SS and they do not become infiltrated by the ideology (as in reality they were) why would this school be wrong? I think the director hast made a giant mistake here.

OK, there are some kids that are portrayed as Nazis, but they were all just the kids in the last grade who in the end go to fight the war. So, it must be assumed, that for a long time you are just a kid and don't get anything these teachers tell you and then from one day to the other, when you are old enough you just magically transform into a Nazi follower? I think this suggestion is completely misleading.

I love this movie on many parts (that's why I gave it 8 stars) and I think it was a very brave project. But in the end, because the director is not brave enough to show the whole picture, it ultimately unfortunately fails and not very much more remains but a feeling of having just watched a German remake of "Dead Poets Society".

I love the two Alice books and quite often I find myself looking through the pages, reading some of my favorite parts.

I think for a TV_version, this film works quite well, it is a treat to watch all those celebrities becoming some of the most famous characters in literature. Strangely though, my favorite sequence is the one with Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite as the Walrus and the Carpenter, probably the only scene in the movie that does not contain CGI.

So, why only six stars? As in most versions, the makers of the movie have mixed all kinds of elements from "Alice in Wonderland" with "Through the looking glass" (Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, The Walrus and the Carpenter, The White Knight). It may work, if you really look at the books just as a collection of episodes, but whenever this is done, the makers miss the point of the books. Alice in "Through the looking glass" is quite different from Alice in "Alice in wonderland" and also, there is a completely different composition to the latter book which is explained in the preface and which finds no acknowledgment whatsoever here. I think the makers of this movie again don't understand the books at all and though I enjoy watching these scenes independently from each other, the whole leaves me unsatisfied.

I have gotten used to mixing the Alice stories, Walt Disney has done the same thing and others as well. But what bothers me most about this film it that it turns the whole thing into a story of initiation. Come on.... Alice does not dare to perform a song in front of her parent's guest but after walking through Wonderland she finally does? This is just plain wrong and completely in contrast to the meaning of the books. Why would you want do make sense out of nonsense? The books are meant to portray Victorian stereotypes, make fun of language etc, but not to enrich a child to become more independent and self-assured. Moreover, it does not make sense at all, why Alice should finally be able to sing in front of the others.

All in all, this movie has fine performances and puppets and decent (considering the time it was made and it being made for TV) CGI, is nice to look at but in the end only mediocre TV-entertainment.

Having seen "Barfuß" today with a friend of mine, I have to say that in many ways it is better than I expected it to be.

Til Schweiger gives a remarkably good performance and obviously his ability in directing has improved since his last major effort "Der Eisbär". Johanna Wokalek is THE reason to see the film, though, and fortunately Schweiger knows this pulls himself back and gives her the ability to shine. Her performance of Leila is sweet and touching and she manages to provide the movie with a light touch as well as a necessary seriousness.

From the get-go it is clear that this movie is not supposed to be a real drama but rather a tender and poetic fairy-tale. It was important to stage it that way, because if the film had focused too much of the realistic aspect (Leila's handicap and Nick's downfall from his family background) it would easily have failed. This way, it walks a very fine line between comedy and drama quite well.

However, I have some major quibbles with the finished product. First, I think the movie cannot really make up its mind, which genre it wants to belong to, usually I like genre-bastards but this movie pretends to be a road movie for so long, that once it gets done with the road movie one wonders when the movie will finally be over.

Also, there is one moment in the story, when the movie steps over the above mentioned fine line between comedy and drama too much. I won't mention details but when the protagonists finally reach the wedding of Nick's brother, which is supposedly the end of their trip together, they both humiliate themselves at the party very much. I admit that I get uncomfortable easily when characters I like humiliate themselves, but to me this part was pretty hard to take, as I just wished for Leila and Nick to get out of there as quickly as possible, knowing they would not be able to leave just like that. (on the plus side, I guess it shows, that Scheiger is capable of making us feel for the characters, though).

Schweiger has mentioned often, that this movie has been really dear to his heart from the beginning and watching the film one can see this clearly. I believe he also wanted this to be a film that he made with a lot of friends and people he admired. Thus many German movie and TV stars such as Jürgen Vogel, Michael Gwisdek, Armin Rohde, Markus Maria Profitlich, et al. appear in cameos. While I usually enjoy a little game of "spot the celebrity", in this particular rather sweet and touching story it seemed out of place and became quite annoying to me after a while to see all kinds of stars (what was Axel Stein doing there, by the way?) having one funny moment to share.

Oh, and one last criticism: After "Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei" ("The Edukators") this is the second German movie in a short while to use Leonard Cohen's "Halleluyah" in its soundtrack. While I really love the song, to me in movie history it will always be connected with "Shrek". So PLEASE you German filmmakers everywhere: come up with something new or original if you want to illustrate a bittersweet moment. It really tears the viewer out of the context and seems like a cheap rip-off.

These points aside, "Barfuß" is a very fine movie, beautiful to look at, moving and with wonderful actors in it.