Thom-Peters

"The Assault of the Present on the Rest of Time", in the year after 1984? That sounds intriguing. Too bad the title is completely disconnected from the content of this film. There are about ten segments, without a leitmotif, random and unrelated, mostly presented in a mockumentary style. The dialogues sometimes pretend to be deep, but it's a shallow depth. The segments are just fragments, they couldn't be shown individually as short films. It's more like somebody bored is zapping through (documentary) channels.

Armin Mueller-Stahl is quite good as a blind movie director, and he is an appropriate proxy for the director of this film, Alexander Kluge, who was unable to see that his without doubt highly intellectual concept didn't work out, at all. Why did he do it? Why did he start with a scene from an opera? Why the ridiculous interview about silly numerology? With every new segment the same question pops up: Why? There are no answers. Communication just doesn't seem to be his thing. Maybe somebody could make an interesting film about this failure, preferably in the style of Kluge. Nah, just joking.

One of the famous quotes from the novel "1984" is: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." That's the present assaulting the rest of time. Neither in the year 1984, nor in this film it was about redefining the past. Today, Kluge's slogan sounds much more apt and significant. He had used some other great, poetic titles. "In Danger and Dire Distress the Middle of the Road Leads to Death" (In Gefahr und größter Not bringt der Mittelweg den Tod, 1974; a beforehand rather unknown quote from a guy who died in 1655) -- in extreme situations extreme measures are an absolute necessity. "The Artists Under the Big Top: Perplexed" (Die Artisten in der Zirkuskuppel: ratlos, 1968) -- intellectuals who have deep insights into many things and no power to change anything, or to act accordingly. Great titles, great mantras! He should have made more of them. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 24)

A Netflix bio pic about Julius Caesar would be like: Everything Caesar is famous for was actually done by his wife. When she was killed on the ides of March, a devastated Caesar also completely vanished from history.

In the Netflix series "Barbarians" it's not Arminius (also known as Hermann der Cherusker), who is the driving force, it's his wife Thusnelda. She ignites the first sparks of rebellion, she unites the Germanic tribes, she leads them to the legendary battle in the Teutoburg forest, in 9 AD, where she of course kills some Roman soldiers herself. This is an absurd fabrication. There is not much that's known about her actual life. Arminius met her in 14 AD, when she was maybe 25, more likely 15 years old. There was a severe conflict with her father, who later treacherously sold his daughter, heavily pregnant with the child of Arminius, to the Romans. Two years later, in 17 AD, Thusnelda and her child were displayed during a triumphal procession in Rome. Nothing else is known about her. Her claim to fame: She was used by the Romans for a petty, honorless revenge show.

Thusnelda did play no role at all during the period depicted during the first season of "Barbarians", it is all completely fake and ridiculous. Why bother at all with the historical accuracy of clothes, weapons and buildings, if the story you tell is just some childish imagination? The malicious falsification of history is a deadly sin. Such products are flawed beyond repair, worthless.

There is much more that's fake and wrong with "Barbarians". The pretense of authenticity: The Latin spoken by the Romans doesn't sound like a real language, but like pupils reciting some hard learned vocabulary. It is just a gimmick that gets old very quickly. The Germanic peoples speak, of course, modern German. The dialogues are terrible. The Cherusci don't live in big settlements, but in a few isolated huts in the woods. They travel through obviously modern, tidy and clean forests. The ancient woodland was very different. If the Romans see a single, random German in the woods, they capture and kill him. Why would they do that? Their cruelty isn't calculated, it's stupid, because making sure to be hated by everyone is not a sustainable way to run a gigantic empire. The professional relationship of Arminius and Varus is turned into an entirely incredible family story. Arminius is the most suspicious looking traitor, Varus the most gullible commander ever. The big finale of season 1, the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, doesn't make sense at all.- Everything feels wrong.

Unexpectedly, the second season is much less annoying. Serious efforts for improvement have been made. Thusnelda is reduced to human size. Arminius is now the undisputed protagonist. The dialogues are less silly, the Latin sounds less fake. There are some new, ridiculous flaws (the Netflix tribute), but most of the time it is a normal TV show, nothing special, somewhat entertaining, not too boring, no longer disturbingly fake. 5/10.- Got greenlit for things that are terrible, got cancelled for things that are good.

"Actually, I've got real problems!" "Seriously? I wish I had some." - With this dialogue the movie ends and it kind of sums up what's wrong with it. Some people love the idea of making movies. Not because they have something to tell or a talent for telling other people's stories. No, they just love the idea of being a storyteller, a "filmmaker", they love the image, the prestige.

Pia Frankenberg (script, direction, production and leading role) didn't have anything to tell, had no ideas, so she made this movie about a filmmaker (herself), who has no ideas either. There is no real story, just some strange scenes with a bit of (self-) irony. Sometimes the sound is so bad that even Germans need subtitles. The film is maudlin and has an old-fashioned sixties vibe. And there is "humor" like this: (Someone pointing at a cracked egg): 'What's the white stuff?' - 'Stringhalt.' - 'Abortion!' -- That's not funny - at all. Is it surrealismus? Deconstructionism? Pia-nism? Why would anybody crack a joke like this, why would anybody make a film like this? If it cant't be anything else, it must be some kind of art.

In 1981, Pia Frankenberg joint the "Hamburger Filmbüro", a film subsidy organisation with lots of yummy government dough to share for projects that were too non-commercial for the free market. Two of its most important men, Dieter Kosslick and Hark Bohm, have small parts in this movie. She wanted it, she had the opportunity, she did it. "Nicht nichts ohne dich" (Not nothing without you) is a prime example for the rule that if you absolutely WANT to and if you CAN make a movie, but you have nothing to say, you should do it in an art film context.

Pia Frankenberg was successful: Even though "Nicht nichts ohne dich" is a proud exercise in nothingness, it was shown on film festivals, even on the big one in Venice. There is nothing new, funny or just interesting about this movie, but she had become a legit filmmaker. This is an inspirational story for many. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 23)

The bad reputation of this movie is well deserved. There are two reasons why people might still consider to watch it: David Bowie and Marlene Dietrich. Here, Bowie doesn't have the aura of a rock star. He is a broody, nerdy, wimpy kid. He isn't charming, entertaining, brazen, doesn't have the physical presence a gigolo needs. When Marlene, the madam of the gigolo brothel, asks him some questions to see, if he could do the job, he doesn't answer at all, he just stands there like an timid school boy. This awkward monologue is her big scene in "Gigolo". She wouldn't go to Berlin and was filmed sitting in Paris. But why couldn't Bowie go to Paris, to turn this thing into an actual meeting, into something memorable? Getting us to see some interaction between Bowie and Marlene was after all the big promise of "Gigolo". The real job interview would have been a chance for Bowie to show that his character Paul was worthy of being a gigolo. David Bowie could have tried to charm, to seduce Marlene Dietrich. Marlene - 77 at that time and with her legs already failing her - looks great, but this scene, that could have been the film's saving grace, is its biggest disappointment. Marlene has only one other scene, singing the title song "Just a Gigolo". All in all, she's got about four minutes of screen time.

When something is really bad, people start calling it a parody. A parody of what, exactly, should "Gigolo" be? "Gigolo" is not funny, but it is definitely not a serious movie. It is rife with insane ideas.

Paul (Bowie) arrives at the front at the very end of World War I. After more than four years of war and with him having a military background, he still doesn't have the faintest clue about the brutal reality of the trench war. That's a ridiculous idea. The scene feels nearly Pythonesque, the whole WWI-prelude is alarmingly absurd.

Hermann Kraft (played by the director David Hemmings) lives in the underground, literally. He lives in a parked subway wagon down in the subway system. Is this supposed to be funny? Yes.

The story is told over a period of 10 years, and time flies by: "Winter 1921", "Winter 1923", "Winter 1925", "Winter 1928". Still everything and everyone stays exactly the same. Paul's father, a colonel, is - or pretends to be - in a state of shock since the end of the war. He just sits in his chair, motionsless, his eyes wide open, he doesn't even blink. That's a slapstick idea.

Paul is a complete nobody, just a gigolo. In all those years he didn't manage to get himself a more honorable job. He doesn't do anything of importance. Still Hermann Kraft insists on calling him "one in a million". The movie can't decide if it is about some random guy or about someone secretly very special.

Everything is nonsensical, everything is a joke. But nothing is actually funny. David Hemmings admitted that he directed the movie with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. "Just a Gigolo" is a failed comedy. Maybe nobody laughed while watching it in a cinema, but later that evening, while talking about it in a pub, it became hilarious. The original ideas might have been funny, the movie itself is a paramount example of the incompetence of the writers and the director. Hemmings didn't know how to tell a joke, he tried it anyway and he failed miserably. Now the joke is on him: "Just a Gigolo" is a legendary bad movie.

With all that out of the way, there are a few things to enjoy. There are some nice scenes from 1920s Berlin. Bowie carrying a small pig. All the actors that had been persuaded by the name Marlene Dietrich to join the cast: Sydne Rome, Kim Novak, Curd Jürgens, Maria Schell ... Most of the time, Bowie looks pleasantly enough, he is a doll, slender frame, nice face - though at that time he still had unphotogenic teeth. Thankfully, he doesn't show them too often, playing the silent, brooding type. And he is a great walker. Watched with the appropriate mindset, "Just a Gigolo" isn't a total waste of time.

In 1980 "Die Reinheit des Herzens" was quite successful. It was an ironic play on stereotypes of the tired "New German Cinema", a period that lasted from 1962 until - approximately - 1982. Cinemas were filled with laughter, it was actually considered to be a great comedy. In 2003 it returned to the cinema, with one special screening during the Berlin International Film Festival. The occasion was the honoring of film score composer Peer Raben with a lifetime achievement award. He was present, in a wheel chair, accompanied by the director Robert van Ackeren and the female lead Elisabeth Trissenaar, who delivered the laudatory speech.

The start of the movie was greeted with anticipatory applause. During the screening, the audience stayed completely quiet. It was the intense silence of boredom. The story was soapy, the characters lame, the irony unrecognisable. And the music? Somebody got a synthesizer and did some basic, uninspired stuff with it. There was no final applause, though it's kind of obligatory at events like this. The audience just left, tired and silently.

Raben, van Ackeren and Trissenaar, who had followed the screening from some kind of loge, had been turned into pillars of salt. Hardly anything can intensify emotions better than an actual community experience in a cinema. The message could not have been more obvious. Their work was dead, they had outlived their child. They had come for a celebration and had to stay at a funeral. This highly emotional, highly significant moment is long lost in time, too.

Protip: Don't start your movie with a scene that exposes your protagonist as a complete jerk. It might very well shoo away your audience. "Toni Erdmann" does exactly that. The central character pranks a mailman with an act that involves suspicous talk about parcel bombs. This scene is a fair warning, it's the whole movie in a nutshell: sad, unfunny, pointless, embarrassing, a bit mean.

It will not get any better. There is no story, no real insights into the mechanisms of society or father-daughter relations, no character development, no humor that is actually funny and not just as an abysmal failure.

The amount of international awards and nominations "Toni Erdmann" has received is frightening, because it has all the signs of a weak made-for-television film. The photography is bland. The editors should have done A LOT more of cutting. There was a script? Many things seem to be just improvised. The two main characters are caught in the rigid roles they play. The sad father Winfried Conradi hides behind the mask of an obsessive prankster, Toni Erdmann, his daughter behind that of a cut-throat company cog, leaving not much room for the actors to excel. The runtime is a gigantic 162 minutes, and the director sure found a way to make every single one of them seem to be much longer. Calling "Toni Erdmann" the year's best in any category reveals the sorry state of the movie business itself.

It's just embarrassing people doing embarrassing things. Every hope that something worth watching could happen will slowly die. When it ends - and it ends as tritely as it lived - viewers will feel an enormous relief and a proud sense of achievement. Seriously, everybody who makes it to the closing credits deserves at least a participation medal. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 22)

"Welt am Draht" is a fraudulent imitation of a science fiction movie. This is people pondering the idea that they might be nothing more than pieces of code in a computer simulation. There are no special effects, the world is strictly contemporary, with a single room containing an actual mainframe computer and a single scene with something that looks like an actual, experimental video telephone. Rainer Werner Fassbinder (RWF) obviously tried to emulate the vibes of "2001: A Space Odyssey". But instead of waltzing space ships he's only got a rotating, gyrating camera. His usage of classical music is - like most of the soundtrack - obtrusive and annoying. The slow pacing doesn't feel epic, it's nerve-wracking. The story could have, should have been told in a third of the time. Getting through the 200 minutes is a tough chore.

It's mostly talk and very little action. RWF uses some tricks to hide this: The frequently moving camera, actors aimlessly moving aroung during dialogues, interiors that are filled with glass and mirrors, multiplying the movements. On the other hand there are typical RWF mannerisms, like actors in trance and stilted, awkward dialogues. The latter create some unintentionally funny moments, but they are few and far between.

In 1973 the Matrix-concept was brand-new and exciting. Therefore the science fiction aficionados were still very pleased, even though RWF doesn't deliver more than the basic idea. That's why his film became some kind of a legend. Today it's a tired cliché and the RWF aesthetics are ridiculous at best. Klaus Löwitsch, the lead, is actually quite good. He is obviously not one of the semi-amateurs RWF surrounded himself with. Later on he became one of the biggest TV stars in Germany.

"The Thirteenth Floor" (1999), the second movie based upon Daniel F. Galouye's "Simulacron-3" (1964), couldn't be any more different from "Welt am Draht". The script is written by authors who cared about plausibility and logic. They didn't have a time slot to fill, they wanted to make a great movie - and they did. There is much action and very little pondering. In a direct comparison "Welt am Draht" looks even more like a strange, lifeless curiosity, something from a dead end that in its day was considered to be a new path. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 21)

Hellraiser (1987) is the most famous work by Clive Barker. It is an exceptional movie, it's not a great one. It is memorable, with a lot of highly original visual ideas, but it is not especially entertaining. It is directed by Clive Barker himself, his directorial debut, and it shows. Barker was obsessed with flesh and blood, especially blood. His most famous books are the six "Books of Blood" (1984-1985). There is a lot of blood in Hellraiser, bloody bodies, magical blood. That was probably the reason for Barker to insist on directing: to make sure that the blood was appreciated. And he was right, there is less blood in the sequels. This is the bloody original.

The biggest weakness is the missing motivation of the occultist Frank for using the magical, hellraising box. Why did he do it? Pinhead, the leader of a new kind of demons, the Cenobites, that are summoned by that box, says: "We have such sights to show you!", something that later turned into his catchphrase. But he never does. All the Cenobites ever do is ripping the flesh apart, torturing, killing. Yes, the line between pleasure and pain can't be measured by means of the brain, but this is ridiculous. After his first encounter with the Cenobites, Frank's main objective is to get away from them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Hellraiser features two remarkable inventions: The puzzle box with an unique and fascinating design that opens a door to another dimension (aka hell) and the Cenobite Pinhead (Doug Bradley). These are the defining elements of the Hellraiser franchise, the only ones present in all of the seven sequels until "Hellraiser VIII: Hellworld" (2005).

The first rule of this franchise is: There are no rules. Every installment is quite different. Don't expect consistency in hell. The original stories of parts 6, 7, 8 and - maybe - 5 had been rewritten to turn them into Hellraiser stories and movies. That's actually a good way to avoid already travelled Hellraiser paths. These are not just variations on a theme, they are new melodies with some recurrent motives.

Hellraiser II is the only real sequel. A very cryptic scene at the end of part I that features a mattress and looks like a huge continuity error turns out to be the most important connection between the two movies. That's annoying, but hell is not supposed to be pleasant. In II four humans walk through a hell that looks like an endless, empty sewer system. They say "Boring as hell!" for a reason.

III: In the beginning it looks like a great reboot. Features the origin story of Pinhead. IV: The history of the puzzle box, from the 18th century in France to a futuristic space ship. The director used the pseudonym "Alan Smithee", meaning he was very much ashamed of this movie. V: A well done detective story. VI: A very different mystery story with a really surprising ending. VII: A death cult in Budapest stalks the Cenobites. VIII: A fan convention party for the online game "Hellworld" turns into the setting of a slasher movie. Very meta. Last appearance of Doug Bradley as Pinhead. A fitting end of this era.- In aggregate, the sequels are nearly half good. As stand-alone movies they might be quite useless, but as part of the series they are interesting enough to be watchable. None of them is more of a sight to see than Hellraiser (1987).

First of all, the talking CGI-kangaroo is only a gimmick. It is named "Kangaroo" and voiced by the author Marc-Uwe Kling. No explanation is given, it's just there. It doesn't do anything important a human actor couldn't have done, and everybody treats it as something entirely normal. It's not from some kind of alien kangaroo culture, it talks and acts just like some average young guy. It looks different, that's the whole point. And it is female, because - News Flash for Mr. Kling! - male kangaroos don't have a pouch.

The story: Marc-Uwe, the housemate of Kangaroo, loves Maria, the single mother next door. After another date went wrong, he manages to get her to accept a bet. If he wins there will be a last try for a romantic date - in Paris. To win that prize, he has to destroy Maria's mother's believe in conspiracy theories. Which one? All of them, everything ever labeled as a conspiracy theory. There is no differentiation in this movie, it's just one big conspiracy blob. Then the father of the child reappears, who had been a political prisoner in North Korea. He is welcomed by Maria and the bet should be off, the film should end. Everything else would be creepy - and it is: Marc-Uwe still wants to have his prize, still wants to get into her pants.

There are a lot of gratuitous filler scenes in this movie, a lot of cringe worthy dialogues, there is much hate and precious little that's fun or funny. At its core is the proudly ignorant depiction of "conspiracy theorists" as braindead, fanatic, violent sectarians, whose thoroughly baseless ideas invariably turn them into right wing extremists. Maybe the script was written by a 14-year-old pupil after watching some YT- or PBS-rants, who was mainly concerned with not writing anything that could be interpreted as any kind of sympathy or understanding or even some kind of humanization of the "conspiracy theorists", because that would surely anger his teacher. The "discussions" are just buzz words and slogans. It's a borefest, "Reefer Madness"-level of propaganda. Mind you, that movie from 1936 became a campy cult classic 40 years later, so there might be hope for this one.

Already, in May 2023, some of the things in this movie really didn't age well. The salute of the "conspiracy theorists" is "Stay woke!" - while doing the All Seeing Eye hand sign. Lol. In one endless filler scene, Marc-Uwe lectures a soldier about the evilness of his profession. As an obvious supporter of the Green Party, due to the war in the Ukraine, he would now sing a very different tune. Talk about the "deindustrialisation of Germany" is one of the examples given for the utter insanity of the errant truth seekers. Today the collapse of the energy supply and the deindustrialisation of Germany are hot topics and parts of mainstream discussions. Double lol! The times have been a-changing.

The mindset of this movie - believe everything the authorities tell you or we'll call you a nazi - is dangerous. The escalating war against "fake news", "disinformation", "conspiracy theories" and so forth is an actual threat to democracy, because it is led by people who could actually end it, and there is ONE fundamental freedom without that all the others will erode and disappear. On the other hand, the millions of kooks, simpletons, esoterics, potheads and what have you that believe in all kinds of preposterous things are mostly marginalised and completely harmless. It is absolutely fine to make fun of them, but "The Kangaroo Conspiracy" demonizes them, declares open season on them, unrestrainedly punching down. Therefore it is a blessing that this movie is that bad. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 20)

16 sketches reimagining historical figures and moments, with an average length of five minutes, featuring among others Neanderthals, Egyptians, Columbus, Michelangelo, the Titanic and Al Capone. The main joke is that everybody has the attitudes and uses the language of our contemporaries. There is a "Rock Concert" at Athens with the oldtimer group "Socrates, Plato & Aristotle", there are the Vikings doing affirmative action and there are some suffragettes throwing a wild bachelorette party in World War I.

In the most notable sketch we see Max Giermann very convincingly playing Jesus Christ as Klaus Kinski. That sounds very promising. In 1971 Kinski tried to start a new career as a reciter of the New Testament, but his very first appearance ended with a spectaclular scandal. Some hecklers offended him and he answered with uninhibited rage and bile. He was more into the whipping than into the loving part of his new role. The clips from that outbursts are legendary, extremely hilarious. This sketch channels the rage, not the fun part. We just see a permanently enraged, swearing KK/JC, who - as a PR stunt - wants to fake his crucifixion and turn himself into a martyr. The sketch ends with the narrator spreading some hate against Christianity. The author obviously had some rage problems himself.

Hate is the biggest problem of this failed comedy. Again and again they insert some hate against mankind in general and Western civilization in particular. It ends with the end of mankind and an euphoric song praising that destruction. Some people should have never evolved from single-cell organisms. Actually, that's the first - animated - sketch: a disco, where single-cell organisms discuss the "problematic" aspects of evolving.

The most blatant deficiency is the humor. The sketches are annoying, embarrassing, silly or simply pointless and lame. Laughing out loud moments? None. There are some "Well, yeah, that's kind of funny, I suppose"-ideas. The original concepts of the Athens and the Al Capone sketches have some potential, but their realization falls flat. What's worse than a comedy that's not funny? (One that's also hateful, of course.)

While all the sketches feel like episodes of TV shows, some of them look very expensive - like the (especially repulsive) one praising the use of the guillotine during the French revolution. It is utterly ridiculous, how much money, effort and real talent, how much potentially valuable resources were wasted with such abject results. This is a bad movie and its lavish production makes it even more hateable. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 19)

... the urge to just walk away will be that strong. It's really tough to get through the first 10 minutes and it won't get better. I promise.

"Hai-Alarm" is not about sharks. It is not just another parody on silly genre movies ending up being even more ridiculous and far less funny than they are. It is all about Friedrichshagen, a borough in the outskirts of Berlin, with a population of less than 20.000. That's where the author and director Leander Haußmann grew up. Except for the 20.000 it's hard to tell, what kind of audience this movie was supposed to attract. It is most likely the most provincial Berlin movie ever. It looks like it has been made by dilettantes, but it is actually an extra long insider joke, made by a bunch of well-known German artists from the higher echelons of the theater and movie world, who wanted to do something stupid and funny. Funny how?

Well, they are all into humoristic strangeness, into a very low-key, sometimes barely noticeable kind of humor. In some ways it feels like a homage to the 1990s:

• Frank Castorf (Frank Konopke). In the 90s he was the most critically acclaimed theater director in Germany. His meandering stagings often had a vibe quite similar to that of "Hai-Alarm". Henry Hübchen (the major) played the protagonist in many of them.

• Sven Regener (Co-author, co-director). From 1991 to 1994 he and his band Element of Crime released three marvelous, classic albums, with unobtrusive humorous lyrics. The songs he wrote for "Hai-Alarm" sound similar, but after a while they do get a bit on the annoying side.

• Detlev Buck (Polizist Müller). In the 90s he was famous for the very special, dry & laconic humour in the movies he wrote and directed. They were based country comedies - refreshingly different from the usual quirky urban comedies. Again, "Hai-Alarm" is probably the most provincial movie about Berlin ever.

It is possible to find things of cultural significance in "Hai-Alarm", it's possible to understand some of the more obscure references. It's possible to enjoy this movie, it'a just not very likely. Hell, it's even possible that some of the numerous gags will make you laugh.

One of the references hardly anybody will get: At a press conference the mayor is asked questions in English, French and Russian. He answers fluently in the same language. It's a long and pointless scene. "Hai-Alarm" is from 2013, in 2009 a guy from the BBC asked then German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, if he could ask in English and if the minister could please answer in English. Westerwelle rejected the request. Most people would consider this to be normal and trivial. Some very special Germans cried "Scandal! Provincial!", because of this refusal. But extensively mocking this nothingburger years later? That's really too special. Then the scene gets even more special: The whole hall starts to sing: "Friedrichshagen, you woman of ill repute". This box-office disaster most certainly did not better her reputation. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 18)

The Good: Great production values! The producers had obviously a lot of money to spend, and they've spent it well. Kudos to the location scouts in Berlin - a good mix of well known and nice lesser known places. A few expensive German actors have been hired: Udo Kier (who became famous in 1973/1974 by impersonating Baron von Frankenstein AND Count Dracula in the two Andy Warhol horror movies) plays a crazy artist and father. Til Schweiger, arguably the biggest German movie star right now, appears in episode 3. Katharina Thalbach, the Grand Dame of the Berlin theatre, plays a ghoulish mix of Lotte Lenya (From Russia with Love), some character by Ingmar Bergman ("Sweden is in Germany, right?" - The screenwriters.) and a crazy old lady. Granted, only Udo Kier should be a part of this good news section. But this is a musical and the most important aspect is of course the musical quality. The music is well produced and nice. Unremarkable, but nice. Actually there should have been more of it.

The Strange: The casting! There are quite a few questionable and strange casting choices. I guess Adam Devine is an acquired taste, something I did not quite manage to achieve. He is the goofy normal guy and I respect the choice to make him the star of a show and not just the comic relief sidekick, but I'm sure he'll annoy a few people. Very annoying is the permanent grimacing of Flula Borg. He looks like he's got some severe mental problems. Whoever told him to act this way made a big mistake.- Some scenes are completely nonsensical, confusing strangeness with humor. A prime example for this is the appearance by Til Schweiger in a Youtube-2017-like sketch as Pickle Til. It is desperately unfunny, but there are layers upon layers of absurdities.

The Bad: The ignorance! The screenwriters didn't have the foggiest idea about Germany. They got everything wrong, and they didn't care at all. Using some stereotypes for humorous effects is fine, but the total ignorance is just lame and stupid. US-screenwriters in the 1970s have been much more culturally savvy that this bunch of hacks. The writers' ignorance is universal. At one point they have a bureaucrat, who spends his leisure time at a music festival, legally perform a marriage. There is no country on earth, where this is possible. "But that's the joke!" No, it isn't. This is a musical and the story is clichéd and silly, alright. But especially in episode 6 this reaches levels of sillyness and cringe that shouldn't even be possible. There is no discernible connection to reality. Going completely over the top can be a stylistic device, but here it only feels amateurish, childish and sluggish. The authors probably feel like high-riders, thinking big and stunning the plebs. That's funny. They should not give up their daytime jobs. They are terrible.

The Bottom Line: Technically fine, but utter nonsense - watch it with really low expectations.

After watching two conventional screen adaptions - by Rudolf Noelte (1968) and Michael Haneke (1997) - I was well prepared to appreciate the very different and much more cinematographic approach by Aleksey Balabanov. It's not a drab study in futility and paranoia, but a colorful grotesque with lots of strange new ideas added to the original story. That's not to say he disrespected the source material, some details in his movie are actually better than in the two afore-mentioned ones. Complementary to the strangeness of Kafka's novel, he created an entertainingly surrealistic atmosphere. The Surrealism and the book were both born in the 1920s, so I'd like to call this addition age-appropriate.

Of the three screen adaptions, this one features the best snow-covered landscape, the best locations, the best art direction, the weirdest people, by far the most people and the youngest leading actor. This is not a musical, but there is a lot of music and singing going on, mostly in the busy backgrounds. But even if this movie version of a Kafka book is more pleasant than others and could be enjoyed by quite a few viewers, this "Fun with Kafka" has of course the emphasis on "Kafka" not "fun".

As for Kafka purists ... The funniest joke about Kafka is that some people actually think that he had access to divine wisdoms and truths. So they get into the loop of reading and interpreting his books over and over again, always ending in some kind of frustration, because Kafka's writings are as hermetic as a well oiled bureaucracy. But that's what being "Kafkaest" is all about - stubbornly looking for truth in all the wrong places. And that's funny.

The last 15 minutes are not from any Kafka script I know of. It seems to be a new, original and appropriately enigmatic ending to Kafka's fragmentary, end--less story. 8/10.

Kafka's novel doesn't have much of a story. A movie that tries to tell this strange, deceptive and repetitive tale is bound to frustrate and annoy its audience. As this is a very famous piece of literature, three state-sponsored TV stations from Austra, Germany and France decided to give it another try, as part of the obligations from their - in the mid 1990s still officially relevant - educational mandate.

Haneke's film remains close to the source material, while still staying somewhat watchable, for most of the time. That's not a small achievement. This is a deliberate literary adaptation, a not too obtrusive narrator adds the sound of Kafka's writing, which is an essential feature. The color scheme that's mostly close to black and white, but not everywhere, is an interesting decision. The art direction is okay. The cast is of course top-notch. The storyline is what it is, not great, not annoying, and there is most certainly no deep hidden meaning to discover.

Kafka himself didn't have access to some divine wisdoms and truths. He described a worldview, a sentiment, created a melody that was very influential in the 1950s to 1970s. Haneke's film does the best it can to bring it to the small screen.

Kafka didn't know how to finish his novel. It's been said that he was considering to just kill K. Off. But that would have been a boring cheat, Kafka accepting his own defeat. Therefore his novel stayed "fragmentary" and was published as such two years after his death. This film ends EXACTLY like his script - not the printed book - ends. It's a surprising and funny moment.

Today, of course, the logical ending seems to be obvious: If everything is lies within lies, people pretending to be from the castle are most likely not from the castle. So when K. Finally gets a coach "to the castle" - he ends up in another village. Fixed it. Once you know the melody, it's easy to do a Kafka. 6/10.

This is a TV movie, made at a time, when the "Theatre of the Absurd" still managed to entertain people. The TV people probably thought: "The story doesn't make any sense at all, but it is completely absurd. So we are good."

The story: A stranger comes into a village with secretive, hostile and bureaucracy obsessed residents. Everything turns out to be deceptions and lies. Or just utter nonsense. He doesn't achieve anything. Still he is hellbent on staying there.

Watching this screen adaption of Kafka's novel is like reading one of the absurdist plays by Eugène Ionesco. It's a pointless chore done for school. It is bleak, dull and every kind of meaning people attribute to it is completely arbitrary. But it is also a product of its time and not without value. It shows how not to do a screen adaption, especially if you want to create a work that can be enjoyed without knowledge of the source material. 4/10.

'Berlin, I Love You' has been made by people, who don't know much about Berlin. The amount of things they've got completely wrong is amazing. Nearly everybody in Berlin speaks English all the time? That's a fundamentally distorted view of the world. Some of the authors quite obviously think that Berlin would be a better place without Germans.

Most of the ten segments' stories could have been used for a 'Dallas, I love you' or 'Birmingham, I love you' compilation, because Berlin is nothing more than the background scenery. All of them are quite pointless, cliché-ridden and extremely predictable. If the nagging feeling that you are wasting your life tends to give you depressions, you should stay clear of this movie. There is an awful lot of obtrusive agitprop by pundits who don't have a story to tell and therefore settle for sending some platitudinous messages. On the other side it sometimes gets so bad and pathetic that it gave me some laughing out loud moments - so that's a positive.

The segments in chronological order:

• 0 "Transitions", the wraparound (director: Josef Rusnak)
• 1 "Berlin Ride" (Peter Chelsom)
• 2 "Under Your Feet" (Massy Tadjedin)
• 3 "Love is in the Air" (Til Schweiger)
• 4 "Berlin Dance" (Justin Franklin, Daniel Lwowski)
• 5 "Me Three" (Stephanie Martin, Claus Clausen)
• 6 "Hidden" (Dani Levi)
• 7 "Sunday Morning" (Fernando Eimbcke)
• 8 "Lucinda in Berlin" (Dianna Agron)
• 9 "Embassy" (Dennis Gansel)

Three episodes could be considered as tourist promotion: "Berlin Ride", "Berlin Dance" and "Transitions". In "Berlin Ride" a simple photo safari through Berlin cures an American tourist of his suicidal thoughts. "Transitions" borrows heavily from the imagery of Wim Wenders' "Der Himmel Über Berlin" (Wings of Desire). It shows an emotional journey from depression to lust for life. While Wenders' movie features an angel with an interest in humans, here the brooding angel impersonator (Robert Stradlober) seems to be more attracted to the great beyond. A tourist from Israel will fix this - temporarily. "Berlin Dance" is basicly a music clip for Max Raabe and his Palast Orchester, it's actually nice and by far the best segment.

Three episodes are completely expendable: "Love is in the Air", "Sunday Morning" and "Lucinda in Berlin". "Love is in the Air" is a trainwreck of a story and it features Mickey Rourke - a match made in the heaven over Berlin, I guess. It is notable for the complete absence of Berlin, everything happens inside of a hotel. "Sunday Morning" is the dream of a drag queen to get hit on by a cute 16-year-old. (Yeah, that's exactly what it is!) In "Lucinda in Berlin" the depression of an American tourist gets cured by puppetry.

Two episodes are hypocrisy on steroids: "Under Your Feet" and "Me Three". Whoever still likes this kind of heavy-handed propaganda is in dire need of a software update.

Two episodes are so bad that they are actually funny: "Hidden" and "Embassy". In "Hidden" an asylum seeker who killed a 15 years old German boy (but of course he is still the good guy, because it was somehow "self-defense"), seeks refuge in a brothel. Unintentional hilarity ensues. Definitely on the funny side of bigotry. In "Embassy" the passenger of a very talkative taxi driver reads my mind and asks her: "Do you really need to keep talking? It would be great if you just not do that." It's the beginning of a wild ride that had me in stitches. Your mileage may vary.

There is an eleventh short film, beach boy Ai Weiwei directed the filming in Berlin via Skype from Peking. Sadly, it didn't make it into this compilation, which is a shame, because this sounded like the perfect recipe for a desaster.

If you suffer from depressions, Berlin is probably the last place you want to be, except if you just want to surround yourself with like-minded people. David Bowie and Iggy Pop tried it in the 1970s, you should listen to their Berlin-made records from 1977 "Low" and "Lust For Life" - not really fun stuff. 42 years later they are still a perfect soundtrack for this city. In spite of reiterated attempts of cheerfulness, 'Berlin, I Love You' is basically a very bleak and boring movie. It will not attract many tourists, if any at all.

All in all: Yes, this is a very bad movie. But it is made with adorable incompetence and a complete lack of self-reflection. Yes, sometimes it is so bad, it is kind of good. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 17)

The story of MUTE is not a science-fiction-, it is a Vietnam-story, informed by the M*A*S*H-franchise. If it were set in the early 1970s and in Thailand, many annoying details that are just wrong would fall right into place. This is where it belongs. The gratuitous SF-masquerade is only an inane gimmick, it turns the plot itself into a fish out of water. "Cactus Bill" and "Duck" (Paul Rudd & Justin Theroux), two US army surgeons who deserted from their military unit during a war in an Asian country, are even still dressed for the 1970s.

The CGI-look of Berlin in 2052, praised by an astounding amount of shills, is a complete rehash of ideas from the 1970s and 1980s, predominantly mimicking the vision of 2019 Los Angeles in "Blade Runner". Back then it was of course unique and amazing, but it was also far from being prophetic. The L.A. of today doesn't look like the one imagined in 1982 at all. On top of this MUTE's production designers still think that nothing says "future" better that neon signs ("Neon lights, shimmering neon lights", Kraftwerk, 1978) and nothing says "Berlin" better than graffiti scribblings. This is just lazy and tacky. While "Blade Runner" is still great, MUTE was born as and will always be kitsch. Some people will hate it, others will like it - "Kitsch is a beautiful word" (Barry Ryan, 1970). Whatever. The main reason for the praising of MUTE is a bunch of stale stereotypes, really.

40-year-old Leo (Alexander Skarsgard), who is mute since an accident in his childhood, hasn't learned yet to really cope with his handicap. Most of the time he looks awkward, gawky, insecure. In MUTE's 2052 it would only take minutes to give him back his voice. Author and director Duncan Jones' cop-out: Leo is a devout Amish - even though he is not living in an Amish community and is working as a bartender at a strip club. That's not how Amishness works, Mr. Jones.

Leo drives a Mercedes-Benz built in 1972. It still can't fly.

Leo's weapon of choice is a bedpost. At this point it should be clear to everyone that Mr. Jones is just joshing with his audience.

MUTE will make it in every top ten list about stupid decisions villains make when they are going to kill the hero.

The mise-en-scène is sluggish, the characters are as unappealing as the anachronistic story lines. This movie is a complete train wreck. Duncan Jones has dedicated it to his father, David Bowie. That's a sacrilege.

What is wrong with this picture? Everything.

'Babylon Berlin' has been the most expensive German TV series to date, so of course there are quite a few people talking about how absolutely, totally, utterly fantastic this show is. But if you intend to watch it, you should lower your expectations from the very beginning. And things will not really get any better. Looking back on the first 16 episodes, nothing makes much sense. Keep it complicated, keep them guessing - that's the formula of 'Babylon Berlin'. You need to have a very intelligent script to pull this of. Or you just hope that the audience will be satisfied with the style and forget about the substance. Sadly, 'Babylon Berlin' goes for the second option.

Gereon Rath (Volker Bruch) is the cop with severe personal problems. He was traumatized in WWI, not by the constant terrors of this war, but by a single family drama that happened in the trenches. The "This time it's personal!"-version of WWI. For more than 10 years he kept the symptoms, an uncontrollable shaking of his hands, under control and a secret. But now his meds are turning him into a junkie. TV traumata work in mysterious ways. He commits burglary, cracks a safe (in the easiest way ever), takes a hostage, gets into a full-blown shoot-out - it's all in a day's work for a 1929 cop in 2017. He kills somebody, while he is drugged, and tries to bury the corpse in concrete... Cops don't get any more rogue than that. Actually his whole police department acts like a mafia clan. How much of a villain can the hero or the anti-hero be? Gereon Rath is still not edgy enough? Then maybe you can root for the next guy.

"Der Armenier" (Misel Maticevic) is Berlin's most eminent gangster. His headquarter is the Moka Efti, an entertainment center featuring a posh restaurant, a big dance hall and - in the basement - a brothel. His place is one of the main sites of 'Babylon Berlin', a jack of all trades device for the film producers. Keep it simple. The Moka Efti is basically the eponymous 'Babylon'.

Charlotte Ritter (Liv Lisa Fries) is the strong independent woman. She works in the basement of the Moka Efti. After meeting Gereon Rath, she wants to become a police inspector herself. Yeah, sure. But this is a 2017 TV show and she is the strong independent woman, so you shouldn't expect too much relation to reality.

The main plot - the main confusion - is about a cargo train from the USSR officially transporting artificial fertilizer, non-officially poison gas, even more non-officially one of the rail tankers is filled with the gold of a Russian aristocratic family. Different groups with very diverging motivations try to get hold of this train. In episode 16 Gereon Rath kind of solves the train's mystery by discovering a hidden message in an oil painting, giving the audience the helpful finger.

This ostentatious nonsense is the manifestation of a deep contempt for the audience. Selected nonsense:

• People survive situations nobody could. Expect comic book levels of survival.
• A coup d'etat in Weimar Germany is supposed to start with the assassination of the French foreign minister. Sure, great plan.
• A guy who could be easily and anonymously be gunned down is killed by an insanely complicated plan that supplies the police with a witness who can and will reveal the identities of the killers. Great plan! In the end you'll feel soiled by the insulting stupidity of the script.
• While nearly all of the characters are severely damaged goods, there are still some good guys: the communists. Seriously, I kid you not. Keep ignoring some of history's most dire lessons. Great plan!
• People desperately screaming while being deep down under water doesn't look highly dramatic, but laughable. This is most likely the reason why it has never been shown before. Technically this scene is amazing though. Kudos to the actors involved.

They've got the money, the technique, the technicians and the actors. They lacked the heart, the logic and the story telling powers to make 'Babylon Berlin' more than just tolerable at best. Sadly, there is no way the next seasons could be any better. They are leaving the 1920s and entering the 1930s. Therefore it's a sure bet that they'll slide progressively into a complete stereotype mode.

--Tod den Hippies!! Es lebe der Punk! (Death to Hippies!! Long Live Punk!)--

This is not a punk movie, but just - after "Die Unberührbare" (2000) and "Quellen des Lebens" (2013) - the third effort of Roehler to get back at his long dead parents. The bizarre antics of their proxies, Gisela and Klaus, are at the center of this film, the rest is seriously random stuff. In his mind Roehler sees himself as a punk and his parents as hippies. But the obsessive blaming of the parents has always been a core part of hippiedom. Hippies might actually enjoy this movie, with all the sex & drugs and all the lazy drug-induced imagery they would quite likely mislabel as "surrealistic and artful".

Part 1: Punk Comic. Completely grotesque, insanely exaggerated characters. A school that looks like an university, with every hippie cliché personified. A "Nazi Punk" who drugs / narcotizes his hippie teacher and cuts off his long hair.

Part 2: Hippie Underground Comic. Roehler's alter ego, Robert Rother (Tom Schilling), moves to Berlin and starts working in a "peep show", a place that actually existed during the early 1980s. 15 booths surrounding a stage upon which a naked woman performs some kind of gymnastics. In "Tod den Hippies" all customers are superhumans, therefore RR has to clean the little windows in front of their faces all the time, because they get completely covered with white goo. Two underground rock stars arrive, Blixa Bargeld & Nick Cave. They are allowed to enter the backstage area, where they are given the full VIP-treatment by the overjoyed "models". This is seriously a hippie fantasy, straight from the pages of Gilbert Shelton.

Part 3: New Wave Posers. People sitting or standing around in a little, white painted bar, with Bargeld filling up some glasses from time to time. Really heavy, serious posing. So pathetic that once or twice it's actually funny.

Part 4: Old hippie blames his parents for his misery. A nearly sixty-year-old, still obsessed with his parents. So sad. The main part, not much to write about.

Epilogue: RR wants to move to the USA, but goes to Egypt instead, because someone told him he could get to the USA from Egypt for free. On a transportation van in the middle of a desert he meets his old boss from the peep show who is carrying a suitcase full of (unchilled) sausages with which he wants to open a snack stall in Egypt. RR tells him about the prohibition on the consumption of pork, the sharia, stonings. The end. Completely random stuff.

Roehler was the grand master of the auteur trash movie, but with "Tod den Hippies" he is only the grand master of "What the Heck?" ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 16)

Trailer and basic information promise a laughable inane plot. Victoria, a young Spanish girl meets four boys in a Berlin nightclub, they bond, they rob a bank, they have to escape the police. As this is a real time movie, everything happens within 134 minutes. A surefire recipe for a complete bomb. Surprisingly enough though, it didn't turn out that bad.

The world in "Victoria" is not even TV-, but dream-like. Probability doesn't matter at all. Do not think, just go with the flow. Then "Victoria" can be experienced as some kind of mindless fun. Well, not exactly fun, more like kind of OK-ish.

Pixie dream girl Victoria is not only manic, she's secretly suicidal. She's completely lost in Berlin, desperate to make a connection. That's why she's making all those terrible decisions. This is a cautionary tale for everyone.

The blandness of today's movies is so overwhelming that people have become more and more desperate in their search for the odd one they could really love. If anybody tells you how much he loved "Victoria" this could be a cry for help. There is a manic pixie dream girl hidden in the most unlikely persons.

Or he could be a peer of "Victoria"'s cameraman, who shot the whole 134 minutes in a single continuous shot. If you don't share that professional interest, this gimmick will neither spellbind nor annoy you. You'll just forget about it. The four boys Victoria meets are not very agreeable. But that's OK, it's only a dream. You'll wake up, they'll be gone.

I really don't understand the Boll phenomenon. His movies are greeted with universal mockery and jeer by critics and entertainment seekers alike. Still he is emitting one Boll-work after the other. How does he manage to do that? It defies common logic. Does he have good friends in very high places? Is he a superior being, far beyond the grasp of normal men? It's probably not a good idea to criticize him or his movies.

But "Rampage: Capital Punishment" isn't really a movie, it's something completely different. The heavily armed and armored Bill, Bolls alter ego, takes a dozen hostages at a TV Station and forces the station's boss to broadcast his revolutionary proclamation, which can be summed up with "Kill the rich!". Not Boll-rich, but billionaires. Not TV bosses, but bank bosses. Actually, you can find similar ideas all over the internet, there are quite a few like-minded souls. We are treated with this rant in it's entirety (5 minutes), while the TV station's boss, played by Boll himself, comments: "The guy is totally right, you know?"

While the movie itself is completely forgettable, this stunt elevates it high above similar airtime fillers. It has to be seen to believe it. Instead of forcing TV Stations to broadcast his message, he wraps it up in a little movie, with much talk, some shootouts and explosions and they'll even pay money to send the Boll-manifesto. The nerve of that guy!

"Revolution NOW!" - Jawoll, Herr Boll!

Without the apparatchiks of Germany's film subsidy system movies like "Hotel Lux" would never come into existence. It has been financed by seven different subsidy bureaucracies. A lot of long, long corridors to walk along, a lot of forms to fill, a lot of functionaries to convince. They love to hear new ideas that they already know.

The basic plot of "Hotel Lux" is from "To Be or Not to Be", with a bit of "Hitler--Dead or Alive" (both from 1942). But of course it starts with "Cabaret", which in 1972 established the fact that the Berlin of the early 1930s was basically a variety theater. It might be fun for some nerds to spot all the little details from the 1972-Cabaret incorporated in this 2011 version. But in this cabaret hindsight rules supreme. "Hitler" and "Stalin" dancing and singing as good friends in 1933 - and the audience giving this performance a standing ovation? This is gimmicky pulp fiction. And if you can enjoy the ludicrousness of self-righteousness, you might have a ball.

Next stop: Moscow, or rather the long, long corridors of the Hotel Lux in Moscow, probably built and run by Franz Kafka. A lot of communist emigrants live here, under the permanent threat of being arrested and shot by other communists, when a denunciator has labeled them as "Trotskyists". Many of the apparatchiks behave like robots, a ghastly, alien breed. Some famous names join the party. Meet Mr. Walter Ulbricht, who in 1961 ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall, building a wall with sugar cubes. Meet Mr. Stalin, who is an old paranoiac, so scared of hidden microphones that he wouldn't talk without turning the faucet on. Poor Stalin, so very afraid of the "apparat", just like the average Joe.

Life is very cheap at the Hotel Lux. It's the time of Stalin's Great Purge that did cost up to 1.2 million lives within two years. A strange backdrop for a comedy. Even stranger is the fact that we are still supposed to sympathize with two of the three main characters who are hardcore communists themselves.

This is neither a comedy nor a thriller. It offers only a pulp version of history. What kind of target audience did the producers have in mind? It didn't find much of any. But that's the beauty of Germany's film subsidy system, I guess, things like that don't matter too much.

Movie buffs might be entertained by the many quotes, some might appreciate the production and costume design. The specialists of the "apparat" will proudly consider "Hotel Lux" a well made piece of cinema. Except for historians, "Hotel Lux" is not really annoying, it's just boring. But if you are in a desperate situation where your only alternative would be to watch paint dry, I would recommend this movie. It's better than that. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 15)

In 1968, during the trial against a member of the German student movement, he managed to take a dump on the judge's table. This action earned him the love & respect of his peer group, while students who were seriously into politics felt dumped on, too - and quite rightly so.

This is basically the spirit you can expect from "Terror 2000". Lots of fecal matter, people invocating their archaic god all the time ("Scheixxx, scheixxx, scheixxx!"). There are completely hysterical sex & violence scenes. People acting like children having a temper tantrum. This movie is loud, shrill and - in the worst sense imaginable - "anarchistic". You should't expect anything else, except long boring filler periods.

Christoph Schlingensief was the epitome of political correctness, wearing the mask of the ultimate riot clown. That's why the German media loved him. They always worship those crazy guys who are thinking totally out of the box - while keeping strictly to the rules that really matter. "Terror 2000" is ripe with tired old clichés approved with the PC-stamp "critical thinking", featuring first and foremost of course the obligatory "Nazi"-obsession.

Its basically just a practical joke by and for adolescents that will embarrass them once they've finally grown up. A lot. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 14)

"Measuring the World" is based on screenwriter Daniel Kehlmann's eponymous bestselling "biographical" novel, a "Big Bang Theory"-like portrayal of two famous scientists as ridiculous, stupid nerds, and an incredibly ignorant, deeply resentful look at Germany around the year 1800, a time that spawned many of the most famous German poets and philosophers. The movie turned out to be not quite as annoying, but that's not saying a lot.

It does feature some nice settings, costumes and camera work. Therefore its trailer might fool you into expecting something worthwhile. Contentwise it just shows several scenes from the very different lifes of Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) and Carl Friedrich Gauß (1777-1855).

Humboldt is an aristocrat, occupied with basic research in the fields of geography and biology. Most of the time we see badly thought out scenes from his travels through the Amazon rainforest. Gauß is a natural born genius. He comes from very humble beginnings and manages to become an internationally renowned mathematician. He's only interested in numbers and women, well, mostly women, because numbers don't look that well on film. One is having dangerous adventures in terrae incognitae, the other one sits and thinks. Yet they are both doing science. Isn't that amazing? No. Like apples and oranges they are just different - so what? As this "Parallel Lives"-thing is the main idea of the novel and the movie, both are fundamentally pointless.

Leading man Albrecht Schuch (Humboldt) sometimes doesn't look - and sound! - like a professional actor at all. But the dramatic arts really hit rock bottom when Michael Maertens (Duke) and Max Giermann show up, acting like the worst buffoons ever. It's really hurtful to watch their scenes. This time it's the fault of the director Buck and his low-brow sense of humor. The same applies to the last 20 minutes. Decades later, in 1828, Humboldt and Gauß finally meet, and their thesps deliver an overkill of hammy "old man"-acting, rewarding everyone strong enough to be still watching with an incredible cringe-fest, including urinary incontinence and senile stubbornness bordering sociopathic behavior. Gauß was just 51 years old, Humboldt almost lived to see his 90th birthday, 31 years later. Showing them as frail old crocks in 1828 is just another blatant lie. No, people didn't wither away at the age of 30 as some think, fooled by statistics. Of course, the author makes his Gauß utter some nonsense about statistics, too. It figures.

What's the use of a movie like this? It doesn't give us a story, just fake biographical sketches. It is only very loosely based on historical facts. Its author and its director don't even try to understand the protagonists or to develop a sense of the time depicted. They just mock their ancestors and ridicule men once considered as "great", but today nearly forgotten, parading their self-righteous zeitgeisty attitude. That's poor taste, pathetic. A movie for little minds. ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 13)

"Oh Boy" features the same "plot" as countless art-house and student movies: A young man drifts through a big city, meets strange people, the end. There is probably a fancy name for this, but most people just call it pointless, boring, a waste of time. Regarding "Oh Boy" there is really no point in arguing with them.

The "boy" (Tom Schilling) meets about 12 stale caricatures: a presumptuous bureaucrat, a snide coffee shop waitress, a wacky lonely neighbor, a fat girl who was bullied by him at school and is now thin and very blatantly mentally unstable, his rich & heartless daddy, stupid ticket inspectors ... These characters are neither funny nor interesting, they are just incredibly annoying versions of stereotypes recycled by a clueless author. He actually manages to dedicate two of the movie's scenes to the times of Hitler - in a movie about a young man's journey through the Berlin of today! That's world-class, in its own inane way. You are afraid to deal with current topics; you don't have a single original idea? Well, you can't go wrong with Hitler! He's still got a gigantic fan base that can't get enough of this guy.

"Oh Boy" is author/director Gerster's thesis project for a film academy. Therefore critics shouldn't be too harsh; they should concentrate on the promising aspects of this exercise. But there was a preposterous hype about this movie. It won the highest German movie award, the "German Film Award", for best feature film. This "best German movie of 2012" will be shown in art-house cinemas and Goethe Institutes around the globe. There is no reason to hold back punches anymore. Gerster's professors might be proud, but viewers expecting a good movie are bound to be seriously disappointed.

While I'd give zero points for the author, the work of the cinematographer is quite good. "Oh Boy" is not only filmed in black-and-white, sometimes it really does look like an actual movie from the Fifties. And it has got an appropriate jazzy soundtrack to go with that. All in all there are several minutes of lovely Berlin photography. If B&W-movies do have a future, the name of the cameraman Philipp Kirsamer is definitely one to remember.

In one of the two remarkably pointless Hitler scenes, the weather-worn old man Michael Gwisdek (born in 1942) gives a theatrical monologue about how he as a young boy witnessed the "Night of Broken Glass" in 1938, dreading that all the glass would hurt his bicycle tires the next day. This 5 minutes long, static monologue got him the "German Film Award" for best male actor in a supporting role. Awkward! Is the German cinema really that dead? ("Bad German Movies"-Review No. 12)