Roman-Nies Reviews

The Deerslayer (1957)

racism and sexism

[10/10 · 31 December 2022]

For all those who critisize possible racism and sexism in this film. Well so, whatever You like, but you need to know that the people who lived there in Northern America where different than you today. They made some mistakes you today do not make, whereas you make some mistakes they did not make then. You have to accept that history went its way without you 200 years ago. It is your right to hate racism. But life in the wilderness over there was brutal and had a darwinian attitude and I am sure that you find also some reasons to hate sbd or sth. I am no friend of hate or darwin, but it is human.

Bonanza: Blessed Are They (1962) Season 3, Episode 30

Peculiarity

[10/10 · 3 March 2018]

Borden Chase wrote the script. He is also responsible for some James Stewart Westerns and "Red River" scripts, altogether filled with strong characters, fallen villaines who raise to moral heroes. True Bible stories. The same is true for thies story here "Blessed are they" from 1962. It is about the story of King Salomon and the two women who fought for a baby. The king tested both and the one who showed more love and mercy got the child. This Bonanza story is even better, because both families, who fight for the two children were set to reconcile themselves. It is all about reconcilation in the Bible. Even Jesus Christ gave His life that there will be reconcilation between God and mankind, for every single sinner salvation is offered. The Bonanza series from the 60ties and early 70ties are always about morals and often enough about bad people who are corrected and sometimes they even change to become good people. The Cartwrights are there to stand for righteousness, care, charity and many other Christian standards. Sometimes you see the Cartwrights, father and three sons sitting for a dinner and praying. It is clear that this was the way an American should be in the 60ties. Compare this to series of today with their sexuality and immoral behaviour as self-evident example of political correctness and social normality and their inevitable scorn for Christian values then you will know what makes the decline of America.

U-571 (2000)

Patriotic and not realistic

[3/10 · 23 March 2009]

Often this film is compared with the classic of all Submarine films "Das Boot" . U-571 has in any respect got the worst of it. It has to be criticized that they tried to copy the older German film, which was so successful, with the difference that the heroes are Americans. "Das Boot" was written by a German submarine man of WWII. It was realistic, no exaggerations, except perhaps the feasting in the harbour. A human drama that took place a thousand times during the war in the Atlantic. But here with U 571 it is apparent that the US patriotism had to be satisfied. They are not interested in German heroes. They want to see US heroes. As always when the history is faked this is sometimes ridiculous. Nevertheless the film has dramatic moments. The film earned many critic especially in Britain, because the Brits were the guys who captured the „Enigma" machine, not the US. So far an audacious, almost incredible falsification of history. But be sure that this is common practice of movie makers! For the sake of entertainment. One has to understand that patriotic films have their own logic and their own legitimacy. Why the US is producing a lot of such patriotic movies which are at the same time lacking truth and reliability in historic correctness? Because the reality is too sobering and boring, I presume.

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Kitsch as Kitsch can

[2/10 · 2 September 2008]

I do not really understand the hype about this remake film of an outstanding original Japanese movie. I looked it once. It has to be admitted that the actors, a whole bunch of stars, make a good job. But the story which might be suitable and a little realistic in the original Japanese "The Seven Samurai" is not at all fitting in the Wild West. Perhaps the US audience liked this film for these reasons: 1. Americans like to believe that they are the heroic saviors of the suppressed peoples all over the world. The characters of the film embody this idea. It must be a slap in the face of Mexicans that in the film the Mexican village people are saved by the white US-boys (although not all of them are white), in spite of the US stealing half of the American West from the Mexicans 2. America had never real heroes so they have to create some in their movies, even the Wild West produced almost only doubtful heroes – a Buffalo Bill who slaughtered bisons in the thousands and (mis-) used the injuns in his varieté shows in a neither realistic nor honorable way. With a Wyatt Earp who was allowed to falsify facts into movies, since he lived long enough to influence film making by his twisted biography. With Jesse James and Billy the Kid who were Outlaws etc. The seven magnificent are typical stereotype heroes. The US-Americans were with the exception of some independence war battles always victorious whenever they went into war – except they had not the preponderance in armed forces. They defeated the natives, the Mexicans and others to come in their way always by the force of their outnumbering the opponent or by technical superiority. It is interesting to see that in patriotic styled Hollywood movies there is always a small number of good US boys fighting and defeating a superior enemy. It is in war films as well as in Westerns. Even Superman is a typical US-American invention. Therefore the trauma of Vietnam where this tradition was violated. 3. The Vietnam war was still to come, but many who appreciate the film, have the Vietnam war somewhere in their mind. And it also comes to the mind, that this – the magnificent are the US army boys in Vietnam fighting the ugly communists there to free the South Vietnam village people who want freedom and later Coca Cola. The USA was a melting pot of all European characters and deserves to be portrayed more realistic. If you want to see honest western movies try the Naked Spur or the Wild Bunch or The Searchers. Too much patriotism in films is always ridiculous. The characters of the seven are not at all convincing (no matter of what nationality they were). The shooting scenes are an insult (which is mostly so in Westerns, if you want to see realistic shoot-out of the 19th century type watch "Bad Company" (1972). This film is for me nothing than a big kitsch. Campy, florid, puffed-up, swaggered, over-loaded, slobbery, infantile. The genre has dozens of great Westerns which are not only fun to watch but also have something deep going to transport in a sophisticated and honest manner. The message of this film is you have to stand for the (American) ideals to fight against the powers of evil, even if you have to sacrifice yourself. Fine! This is also the issue of 55% of the Western movies. Nothing new. This alone does not justify to give this film more than 1 star. I give another for the 7 stars. Does anybody know if this was the film that was most often shown to US soldiers in Vietnam?

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Of confusing boredom

[1/10 · 19 August 2008]

The thesis of the film is the same as in the book of Dan Brown. Jesus was married to Maria Magdalena and produced a child with her. After the crucifixion Maria fled with the child to France where she founded the dynasty of the Merovingian kings. In them the blood of Jesus lives on. Emperor Constantin has manipulated the Bible to make Jesus to God and ban the women from leadership of the church. Maria Magdalena leads on the godly line of the Egyptian Isis cult. In the film it is Leigh Teabing to explain the theory. Teabing is an anagram of the name "Baigent". Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are authors of discussed Qumran and Gral-books. Their erroneous assertions were rejected by experts. But Dan Brown was inspired by them. He assembles in his book the full offer oft the actual Christian conspiracy theories: Templer knights, Maria Magdalena married to Jesus, Symbols of Da Vinci, Opus Dei, the Holy Grail. That is the fabric for millions to watch in the cinema. How is this proved to be true? With mysterious signs, alleged suppressed informations, hints on Da Vince paintings and reinterpretation of church history. Browns and the films conspiracy theory swims on top of the superficial, religious, tolerant spirit of the post modernism with an anti-Christian spearhead. Not like Brown director Howard shows Robert Langdon rather as a skeptic, not so much as a follower of the grail-theory. Before the start of the film, star Tom Hanks stated: "If you take a film – even a hundred million dollar production – for hard cash, you make a big mistake!" Right so! The story remains what it is. A play of irritation and a confusing labyrinth. But the film shows also what the book is, a fictive novel!

Jarhead (2005)

Shameful dirty

[1/10 · 17 August 2008]

I was also in the military, but not in the US army. If this movie, showing "strictly a story told by the main character about his time serving in the Marine Corps and his tour in the Gulf" is really true to life, from the language, situations, to the way the characters interact, then it would propose that all the American young men are bad educated lunatics whose place should better be in a fenced establishment (mental asylum). I am sorry but I cannot believe that the film is true. I met a lot of young Americans, who were not like this, but is is also true that they were not from the Marines, except one. That one really scared me a bit. He had resigned and damned all the army. He should have known why. One thing of the film was true. There are no heroes in war.

I think the film does a lot of damage to the reputation of the US and the US military abroad and it will rather encourage the enemies of the USA to dare the challenge. Did Al-Qaida contribute to the making financially?

Into the Wild (2007)

The end of an idealist

[8/10 · 17 August 2008]

Glorious or inglorious, that is here the question. Alex Supertramp is a down-shifter par excellence, who still needs at first the non-down-shifters for his gradual self-realization. He is an adventurer and freedom-seeker and he is not satisfied with little. He resigns materialism, the urges and lies of the American society and tries to break out into the wild nature, to experience "real" life. To late it dawns upon him that nature is no garden Eden and that some attainments, not so much of the civilization, rather of the socialization are reasonable. It is a surprising end that Krakauer describes with the help of the diary of the unfortunate. The movie is here not so much stringent. The end of Alex is cruel and shows that it is vain to romanticize nature. Unfortunate could be the wrong word. If Alex would not have renounced such reasonable artifacts like a map, which he intentionally left back, or at least if he had informed about the locality, he could have made it easily to survive. That he wanted it is shown clearly by his desperate struggle against death. Experienced adventurers always calculate with emergency cases when they plan their special tours. Idealism needs carbohydrates! Alex was sheepish, overambitious maybe simply silly. Yes, exaggerated idealism is sometimes nothing else than density. But it would be wrong to judge this young man. He made a decision and he paid for it. Did he find self-determination? No, no man can exist for himself, the freedom some are searching is nothing but an abstract and nature is not nice at all! She is like she is. Without man she is nothing at all. Nature is there for man, but she does not know it. But man has to know it. The sojourn in nature is a good opportunity for self-reflection. Krakauer implies that Alex could have reached the goal to live his idealism until the very bitter end. He is not different to mountaineers who notwithstanding the risks want to have their extreme experience. There is nothing left than the hope, that instead of the romantic transfiguration of a life in the wilderness or the intended union with nature – a thing that cannot exist – in the face of death the simple recognition prevailed that life, that loves and can be loved is the most sensible and praiseworthy. A lot of knowledge for a young man in our times. A recommendable film and book. Krakauer did not draw conclusions. He did not want to interpret too much into it. Perhaps because he is guilty himself of extreme adventures.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

demonic spectacle

[1/10 · 4 May 2008]

I dislike these films. I dislike all this films with witches an wizards and other inhuman beings which are demonstrated to be good and the demons are mostly primitive. Humans should not turn to such kind of supernatural forces and produce fairy stories for entertainment. I went into one of the three "ring"- films with my children, who were already half grown up. After half of the film I left the cinema because I could not stand any longer this high quality-nonsense. In spite of the vast occult imagery, these movies and their literary counterparts are being praised by some professing Christians to be an allegory for the Bible story in which the good prevails in the end over the bad. World magazine's review is titled "Powerful Rings" and says that the "movie version of Tolkien's book speaks to today's culture." Unfortunately the today's culture is a very doubtful sort of thing. What about the increasing preference of our Youth for the occult, for violence and obsessions? Is the Lord of the Rings harmless fantasy or even a wholesome Christian allegory? I think neither nor. If the film or the books contained Bible truths it would not attract so many atheists. If they attract Christians it is apparently because these sort of Christians have a liking for the belief that wizards, hobbits, dragons and the kind could be of the good buddies, maybe also a liking for pagan contents which also had the author Tolkien. His books are filled with occult imagery, such as witches, goblins, warlocks, wizards, fairies, and such things; and though these are strongly and unconditionally condemned in the Bible, they are often portrayed as good and desirable by Tolkien. Many of the heroes of the Lord of the Rings, in fact, are of doubtful nature. The books became in the sixties and seventies popular with the generation of drug headed hippies. When Tolkien was eight years old, his mother converted to Roman Catholicism, and he remained a Catholic throughout his life. In his last interview, two years before his death, he unhesitatingly testified, "I'm a devout Roman Catholic." Catholics have a different approach to the Bible as Protestants as well as a different approach to pagan symbols and cults. As a professor of literature at Oxford University, Tolkien specialized in Old and Middle English and loved ancient pagan mythology. His first fantasy novel, The Hobbit, appeared in 1937, and The Lord of the Rings, in 1954-55. Several others were published later, some posthumously. Like Tolkien Lewis and perhaps most of the so called Christians they did not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God and he picked and chose what he would believe about the New Testament, rejecting it in parts. And like Tolkien, C.S. Lewis loved at least some things about Catholicism. He believed in purgatory, confessed his sins to a priest, and had the last rites performed by a Catholic priest.

The books depict the calling up of the dead to assist the living, which is plainly condemned in the Scriptures of the Bible as every Protestant knows. Sympathy with the devilish is not so much fostered and demonstrated as in the dominant occult Harry Potter series but Tolkien's fantasies are certainly not of a Christian spirit. Some Christians regard them as potential dangerous message. Films are to a younger unexperienced audience always a strong influencer. In a film review this should also be taken in consideration. For agnostics the films should be rejected as they depict the bad as something too less subtle. The enemy of man is not outside him, it is inside him and everybody should know this. In US schools young students massacre their fellows, there are no Hobbits who come to give the defenders of the right and good a helping hand, no flying by of Harry Potters. The bad is inside man and we have to take means to keep it down and promote the good. Films like that are not helpful. In his last interview in 1971, Tolkien stated that he did not intend The Lord of the Rings as a Christian allegory and that Christ is not depicted in his fantasy novels. Tolkien said, "But that seems I suppose more like an allegory of the human race. ... they (the humans) struggle on, almost blindly in a way" A blind struggle? It is going to be a blind struggle if we do not take care to which direction our offspring goes! Survival of the fittest? Are the good the fittest? May be, maybe not! Tolkien also said: "I dislike allegory whenever I smell it." He had definitely no Christian aims.

Fantasy role-playing games are very influential today. Dungeons and Dragons, which appeared in the early 1970s, was based on Tolkien's fantasy novels. Tolkien certainly did get his ideas from pagan religions, and the message promoted in his fantasy books is strictly pagan. And so do the films. The morals in the books and films is of a very doubtful nature, it is primitive and not endurable. It can carry nobody to nowhere.

My Darling Clementine (1946)

Ignorant or artistic?

[6/10 · 20 April 2008]

It is worth to see the film because of the many outstanding actors who might have contributed to the high ranking. But the film, although entertaining, is in parts rather boring. It is hardly to be understood why they ignored the historic facts so much that it is not bearable for anybody who likes to have treated truth with more respect. It would have been better to change names to create just a simple story about the wild west. It is in my opinion of no use at all to show history in falsifying history. I am a strong opponent to this. If history is too boring You need not make a film about it, choose something else or relate a tale. That is much better. Compared with other westerns of the time, this one is not very convincing. To locate Tombstone in the Monument Valley is not excusable. Ford did not care a penny for the ridicule he must have received from all the Arizona audience. But You have to respect the claims of people who live in the area where historic incidents happened. They claim more accuracy and they have the right to do this. Hollywood is of course not bound to facts or history, but it is much more appreciated if they do not only make fantasy films when the reality is much more interesting. The art is not in displaying fantasy but in making sense, something beautiful for the eyes and something bothering for the mind.

Zulu Dawn (1979)

Selfcritical British

[9/10 · 19 April 2008]

This film is outstanding for many reasons some of which have been already mentioned. But I want to add another reason why I appreciate this film. I know why the film was no hit at the box office. Anglo-Saxon audience is used that the British or US boys are always the good and the others are the ugly. In this film they are the fools (the stubborn, haughty commanders, the ammunition box holder) and the ugly as well (the scene where captured Zulus are tortured). This is reality, this is the reason why the British lost the battle. They did not take the Zulus as serious opponents. They were arrogant, blind and they had not the right tactics to oppose such a strong enemy. And this shows the film perfect. And this is the reason why I think this film is astonishing. Ten or twenty years earlier the British would not have wanted to make such a self-critical film. But this is a show piece for all people who think that one do not has to pay respect to others abilities and rights. There should not be a debate why the battle was lost. Well-equipped and well-trained British soldiers could have made a better performance with the right preparation for the battle (logistics, camping, scouting etc). But it was hardly possible to survive, in face of 25 thousand wild Zulu warriors who attacked with ferocity and dedication, maybe also with drug assistance. The army employed classic military indoctrination techniques, such as drill and war dances, in order to coalesce individuals into cohesive fighting units. The Zulu army was no doubt the only string native enemy of the British imperial forces in Africa. The only army the British forces did not defeat in Africa was that of Lettow-Vorbeck 40 years later, and that one was much smaller and used highly skilled guerrilla tactics. The initial view, reported by Horace Smith-Dorrien, was that the British had difficulty unpacking their ammunition boxes fast enough and that the quarter-masters were reluctant to distribute ammunition to units other than their own. This is also stressed in the film. The lack of ammunition caused a lull in the defense and a subsequent rout. Donald Morris in "The Washing of the Spears" argues that the men, fighting too far from the camp, ran out of ammunition, starting first with Durnford's men who were holding the right flank and who had been in action longer, which precipitated a slowdown in the rate of fire against the Zulus. This argument suggests that the ammunition was too far from the firing line and that the seventy rounds each man took to the firing line was not sufficient. But I ask myself who knows? Only 5 Brits or so survived the battle. Shortage of ammunition and difficulty in unscrewing the boxes could as well have been a minor and local problem. But be that as it may be the enemy was too Strong in sheer numbers. The only chance to survive was to fortify with the mountain behind and the hope that the Zulu would retreat after some time of exposition heavy gun fire. That the Martini-Henry rifles were prone to jamming should have also been a minor problem (maybe some spears also jammed!)

I find it interesting that at around the same time (some years earlier) the US army suffered a similar defeat by similar reasons (Litle Big Horn). It can also be noted that at the time after the defeat at Isandlwana the British feared that the lost battle could have the same effect as the battle in the Teutoburg Forest 1970 years earlier when 18 thousand Romans were exterminated by a Germanic guerrilla army (in fact Lettow-Vorbecks ancestors), because they were outmaneuvered. That time the Romans decided to abandon the intention to conquer Germany ( better:the land east of the Rhine). Would other nations worldwide take the example of the Zulus and rise against imperial Britain? It was vital for the Empire to defeat the Zulus. But the Romans had no guns, the difference between a Martini Rifle in a drilled hand and a spear is too big. In the long run the Zulus had to surrender. It is a pity that we do not know what would have become with a free Zulu nation! Would they have kept to barbarism? The impressing films battle scenes (thousands of Zulus in a frenzy run towards the British lines) are a masterpiece of coordination, although the in-fight is not very much realistic in parts, which is typical for films where no experts are consulted (later they are insulted). The shooting qualities are exaggerated. But this does not spoil the total impression of the film. The actors are good and dedicated, there is even space for some heroism which is always also found on the battlefield. This is balanced. I pay my respect to the makers of the film. The message could be that failure and weakness and foolishness in a "happy" union is often on the side of those who have not the right. All armies suffered from it.

Killers of Kilimanjaro (1959)

Colourful entertainment with no historic ambitions

[4/10 · 13 April 2008]

Taylors performance is like that in the Valey of the Kings - somehow monotone. But may be that is how he had to act in his role. Perhaps Stewart Granger would have been the better choice as in the inimitable King Solomons Mines, which is the ultimate unrivaled Africa-adventure-film. The setting in Killers… is beautiful, apparently not Arizona. Watusha land? I did not come across it travelling through Tanzania, Kenia, Uganda. It is a pity that Col. Pattersons Ghost and Darkness story was not filmed in the fifties or forties when they knew how to make films. Today too quickly a lack or tiredness of brainwork is replaced by computer work or stupid overaction-action. The opening of the film was made in Old town Sansibar! Thank You for that. Taylor looks as if he had a problem with alcohol. Where did the lady get the hairdressing after days of bush trekking? The train was also too modern. Slave trading in Eastern Africa? Yes! From, 17. till 19. century Sansibar under the domain of the Sultan of Oman was a center of East-African slave trading. But it was pushed back more and more from Britain and Germany although slave trading was still holding a stand around the Red Sea till the middle of the 20. century. In Saudi-Arabia slavery was abolished in 1963 publicly, but it is still existing in secret. Slave trading came to a renaissance in the 1970s during the Sudan conflict since the girls from Sri Lanka and the Philipines are not longer ready to go to the Arabs in the needed numbers. The crash of Somalia 1990 revived the slave trading again. Especially the Sudan is a fortress for the misuse of the black people. Slave trading is an abhorrible crime to humanity. Any country which allows this practice shows a backwardness which should not be tolerated by the family of nations. Of course it is pure accident that all those countries are Islamic. In Sansibar slavery was abolished by the Brits in 1897. But back to the film: That German officials are working together with slave traders to attack a harmless group of anglo-saxons has nothing to do with historic facts. But who else could play the villains. The German troop commanders of the Eastern-African army corps were in high esteem among the local askaris. How else could their faithful support be explained which gave so much nuts to crack to the superior British forces in the WWI battle field of Eastern Africa. Small numbers of German led Askaris with insufficient supply and poor weaponry withstood superior British forces. When they surrendered the British commanders allowed the officers to retain their weapons as a mark of respect for their most remarkable achievement. The allied casualty list was10 times longer than those of the enemy although the Brits outnumbered the enemy 10 to 1. The film shows the opposite. 200 German led Askaris with guns are defeated by 3 or 4 Brits who have only the support of some spearmen. That for a film 14 years after WW II? A little disturbing. English travelers of the time when Tanzania was a German colony highly paid respect to the German efficiency of colonial government, like The Cape-to-Cairo EwartGrogan, the British Hemingway as the Sunday Telegraph called him. That sort of exaggerating anglo-saxon heroism at the cost of the opponents reduces the worth of such films. Entertainment yes, but the art of entertainment is much bigger when keeping to facts. But you have to work hard sometimes to make facts interesting. Films that serve clichés are primitive and something to forget quickly. The film shows also why so many wild animals were exterminated until the fifties. Whenever a rhino or a lion shows up too close to a white mans gun it is gunned down. Great achievement of these white heroes, indeed. by the way Kilimanjaro was till 1918 the highest mountain on "German" territory!

Yellow Sky (1948)

Mastress of the dead town

[6/10 · 6 April 2008]

This is the German title of the film. "Yellow sky" is an empty title. Not so empty is the movie. Ann Baxter deserves it to be in the title as mastress of town. She is the eye-catcher, second the scenery. For each of the stars I give one star and another for the rest of the cast. The acting is good. Although I do not really believe Peck him being a bank robber, same with his role in Moby Dick. It is the job of the actor to be convincing not my job to change my prejudice - if I should have him always in the good guy roles.This might be the difference to Widmark, who can play both, the good and the bad. he started his career as a villain. Peck is neither a gangster nor a cowboy. His riding abilities are that of a English country nobleman. He makes no convincing band leader! I would have contradicted him! Him standing with both hands in his revolver belt, is amusing. I would have told him. "take care - your guns might be loaded! Wouldn't You rather hand me over them!" The film contains some unlikeliness of the sort that could easily be banished from Westerners, if they would have some experts as advisers. The writer of the story was apparently not a man from the West, he must have been of the dream factory. Nobody in the whole world could shoot like Ann in the "welcome" scene with Peck. Afterwards she misses a barn with the big gun. Everybody - except Hollywood screenplay writers - knows that big guns make much better shotguns than revolvers. Not to speak of the accuracy of revolver or colt production of the 19. century! Funny how long-suffering the gangsters are when Ann is shooting three times at them. And Widmark has - he says a bullet in his belly! That must have been a miracle for 19.century medicine as it is still today. He survived the shot and carries it around! No, he is only boasting! Also I recognized the reluctance of the horses to drink water after they made it through the deserts. By the way it is a nice idea to let a gangster change his nature only because he is confronted with a lovely woman. Either we have too few lovely women in this world or this procedure does not function at all. But it is a nice imagination. Films should not only entertain, but also make people reflect - and dream if reflections are too heavy. For that I give another star. Apaches skimming through a ghost town! Almost another star! Another highlight (I did not know Apaches so far North). They rode a mixture of ponies and ordinary horses, I suppose stolen from the Whites and not yet sold. Minus the half star! And they are friends of the miners! Bravo! Even if I do not get it right what made them so. To see Ann Baxter as a youthie another star! The locality is inspiring, but should have deserved a stronger story.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Waste of time

[1/10 · 5 April 2008]

It is enough to state that it is a ridiculous, boring movie. I watched it only for 20 minutes, started reading while TV was on, changed program finally. I had enough.

Maybe I missed the best part, but I did not want to waste my time. Sometimes I wonder how primitive film making is and what the hell the people who are dedicated to produce it are thinking about their job? Where is the responsibility for the audience? Unthinkable that in the forties or fifties they would have done sth like that! I am told to ad more lines. The idea of 3 angels is not too bad, but it should be filled with life. I think the art of film making should contain to make the story believable even if it is not likely at all, supposed that one is telling fantasy stories. The onlooker should always be in the situation to "accept" what he sees, although he knows that it is just a story. I miss this here totally. Waste of money. Waste of actors talents.

Destry Rides Again (1939)

It is time for a re-ride

[10/10 · 4 April 2008]

But alas, no more Destry, no more Stewart. The role was perfect for Stewart. I cannot express how much Stewart fits in this role. He "is" Destry. This Western has everything a western must have, the villains, the heroes, the good is very distinctly divided from the bad. True, this is not very realistic, but it is unpolitical, therefore the pedagogic message is clear: in the end the good survive. I was amused to see Stewart perform his miraculous shooting abilities. Of course absolute nonsense. But who cares. Hollywood is not able to do this again. You know why? Because they have not the directors, writers for this, or rather they have no chance to get the commission. The audience would like it after these mass production of unbearable dull animated action films. The film is one of my ten favourite westerns. By the way the years 1939 featured a lot of great Westerns: Dodge City with Errol Flynn, Stagecoach with John Wayne and Jesse James with Tyrone Power and Henry Fonda and great directors. Great times. In my opinion all these films are great works of art and they show some of the best types of American characters. America of today will not be able to do something comparable in Western art. They lost the inspiration for that - and the spirit!

To Hell and Back (1955)

Propaganda trash

[1/10 · 4 April 2008]

I cannot understand why a man like Audie, certainly a man with character, let it happen that he was misused for this propaganda film. This film is of the same indescribable, ridiculous stupidity as most war films that were produced as long as the Germans and the Japanese were the bad guys. I watched it horrible 60 minutes long, still waiting for something positive. In vain. It is remarkable that - the longer the time runs since WWII - war films are becoming more realistic and "fair" with the former enemies. Compare this Audie film with the last film of Clint Eastwood or even Soldier Ryan (which has still a lot of unbearable patriotism).

I am bored to look these films in which the US-boys are always: 1. outnumbered by the red-Indians, Huns, Japanese, Spanish whereas the historical record has it that more often it was vice versa 2. the enemy always has the bigger weapons, the better equipment, the better support etc, whereas in reality it was more often vice versa 3. the US heroes are mostly shot from behind, there is no other way to overcome them! They are always character better. Believe me, if you have two armies with 100 thousand young men between 18 and 30 the percentage of good guys and bad guys is on both side the same, as well as the percentage of mothers who swear an oath that their boys are good boys - right so as well as wrong so! All of these 3 typical Hollywood-war-film-points are displayed in this film. Audie played it like that because the film-makers ordered him to do so. This was his earnings. He died young. Maybe he could not live very long with these lies or he became sick of being a hero that felt to be useless for normal peace-time-life. Maybe his biographical war-time-story was a total fake. America needed a hero like that, because America lacked of true heroes. The American soldiers had hardly any chances to become heroes as it was looked for it that they got as often as possible their exchange at front. Air fighters for example had ten times less service at the front than Germans. The care the Americans took for their men should be hailed, where lives counted much contrary to totalitarian systems where human lives count nothing.

So, if the story of Audie was true, it was not a typical story of an American soldier in the last war. Anyway human acts should be hailed as heroism, not exterminating humans which is always a multiplication of human tragedies (think of all the mothers and fathers, wives, children). If You want to know how the war was ask one of those who were really at the front and whom you know as reliable and honest people. If you believe in these propaganda Hollywood movies you fall in the same pit as so many of Your nation. You will have to pay the bill. Trust in God and You will thrive, not in Your own weakness! He can win Your wars for You, if You leave him, no more.... I know that the readers do not like to read this comment, which is so hostile to their liking, but soldiers who fought at the front mostly do not like glorifying films either. There is no room in reality to glorify people for killing others. Following orders might be a necessary act to survive and to fight against evil (which Nazi-terrorism or Stalin-terrorism were) and banish it from the face of Earth. But this is nothing heroistic. Germans or Japanese who fought against the overwhelming powers of the Allies committed also "heroic" acts (and wasteful as well!), but for what good? In our days it is only acceptable to show films which demonstrate the necessity to fight against injustice and evil, but at the same time the barbarism and cruelty of war. I do not understand the reason for that kind of American film-making. It must be an exaggeration of patriotism as I do not believe that Americans have a minority complex, which is often the reason for hubris. This exaggeration is self-deceit and also very dangerous, because it blindens oneself for reality which in the long run has very negative effects.

Sink the Bismarck (1996 TV Movie)

More propaganda than heroism

[7/10 · 12 August 2007]

The meanwhile approved theory that the Bismarck sank because the Germans did the sinking themselves would only be one more mosaic piece to the phenomenon that the Germans astonishingly knew how to build war-ships. But the British? Apparently not sufficiently. I say astonishingly because the Germans did not start with it long before WW I, having no experience like the other sea nations. The British Navy had a long tradition of being the supreme Sea-Power for more than 3 centuries. This made them perhaps believe that there was no real threat from the "hun" land-rats. But the British ignorance is too apparently one reason for the sinking of the Hood. The Hood was a WWI built ship. If the British would have learned their lesson in the Battle of Jutland and other naval battles of WW 1 with the German "Hochseeflotte" they would have never send the Hood and the not so much stronger Prince of Wales against the two brand new German ships /the other the cruiser Prinz Eugen). Naval experts and all who study the matter know well why British warships had extreme difficulties to stand against comparable German warships. I mention here only two facts: 1. the German ships were better armoured, this meant constructed to give a most perfect protection (the British ships being build lighter for more speed could be the winner for the battle with the big Spanish armada, but that was some hundred years ago). I quote a British Admiral at the Battle of Jutland, after two or three of their battleships exploded in a similar way the Hood did 25 years later: "Something must be wrong today with our ships!" How right he was. The mistake in construction of the British ships were apparent, but no decisions were made. The Hood got a better armour after WW 1, but the Germans got a better artillery and munition as well! 2. the German had the superior artillery. They were able to hit the target in short time of execution. The German artillery was already superior in WW 1. This was a question of development. The German war industry in the first half of the 20. century took advantage of the highly developed German capabilities of engineering - by the way, not to the benefit of the Germans.

Luckily or not, the Germans laid more stress on their land armies, otherwise they could have build more of those dreadful ships. One commenter put it right: from a strategic view point it would have made more sense to build on the Submarines. But the Germans of those times were not blessed with intelligent leaders . Maybe the British pride could not confess that in their domain - the Navy - they had rivals who were even more capable in certain fields. But it is a fact that wrong decisions, even underestimation of the enemies capabilities cost many lives in WW 1 and WW2 - on both sides. We do not have to speak about the Nazis. They were silly criminals that had to be opposed by all means. I regret that many films do not conclude that Germans were also the victims of the Nazis in the sense that they were misused. The sailors of the Bismarck became victims of being ordered from a criminal regime to serve on the ship. What would You have expected? That they desert? The ordinairy people had not the same informations we have today. There was propaganda. Ironically Germany seems to be today the country with least propaganda, whereas in the USA and Britain it is getting difficult to filter the propaganda and "writing history" in the sense of "we are always the good boys" even from movies made in older days. But the longer history goes, the more the approach is realistic. In the historical "Sinking of the Bismarck" there was no heroism at all. It was tragedy and waste of lives. But that is always the case in wars. Germany was the oppressor and had to be defeated. But the fate of the single people was everywhere the same. This is what should be shown on films like this to develop a sense for mutual understanding and respect and rejection for any aggression and propaganda. To participate German historians in the making of documentary films is recommended since the Germans have proved since their nazi-"propaganda age" as self-critical and balanced. They are rather anti-propagandists.

Sink the Bismarck! (1960)

Ignorant British Navy

[5/10 · 12 August 2007]

The meanwhile approved theory that the Bismarck sank because the Germans did the sinking themselves would only be one more mosaic piece to the phenomenon that the Germans astonishingly knew how to build war-ships. But the British? Apparently not sufficiently. I say astonishingly because the Germans did not start with it long before WW I, having no experience like the other sea nations. The British Navy had a long tradition of being the supreme Sea-Power for more than 3 centuries. This made them perhaps believe that there was no real threat from the "hun" land-rats. But the British ignorance is too apparently the reason for the sinking of the Hood. The Hood was a WWI built ship. If the British would have learned their lesson in the Battle of Jutland and other naval battles of WW 1 with the German "Hochseeflotte" they would have never send the Hood and the not so much stronger Prince of Wales against the two brand new German ships. Naval experts and all who study the matter know well why British warships had extreme difficulties to stand against comparable German warships. I mention here only two facts: 1. the German ships were better armoured, this meant constructed to give a most perfect protection (the British ships being build lighter for more speed could be the winner for the battle with the big Spanish armada, but that was some hundred years ago). I quote a British Admiral at the Battle of Jutland, after two or three of their battleships exploded in a similar way the Hood did: "Something must be wrong today with our ships!" How right he was. The mistake in construction of the British ships were apparent, but no decisions were made. The Hood got a better armour after WW 1, but the Germans got a better artillery and munition as well! 2. the German had the superior artillery. They were able to hit the target in short time of execution. The German artillery was already superior in WW 1. This was a question of development. The German war industry in the first half of the 20. century took advantage of the highly developed German capabilities of engineering.

Luckily the Germans laid more stress on their land armies, otherwise they could have build more of those dreadful ships. One commenter put it right: it would have made more sense to build on the Submarines. But the Germans of those times were not blessed with intelligent leaders, but cursed with very doubtful minded ones. Maybe the British pride could not confess that in their domain - the Navy - they had rivals who were even more capable in certain fields. But it is a fact that wrong decisions, even underestimation of the enemies capabilities cost many lives in WW 1 and WW2 - on both sides. We do not have to speak about the Nazis. They were silly criminals that had to be opposed by all means. I regret that such films do not conclude that Germans were also the victims of the Nazis in the sense that they were misused. The sailors of the Bismarck became victims of being ordered from a criminal regime to serve on the ship. What would You have expected? That they desert? The ordinairy people had not the same informations we have today. There was propaganda. Ironically Germany seems to be today the country with least propaganda, whereas in the USA and Britain it is getting difficult to filter the propaganda and "writing history" in the sense of "we are always the good boys" even from movies made in older days. In the historical Sinking of the Bismarck there is no heroism at all. It is tragedy and waste of lives. But that is always the case in wars. Germany was the oppressor and had to be defeated. But the fate of the single people was everywhere the same. This is what should be shown on films like this to develop a sense for mutual understanding and respect and rejection for any aggression and propaganda.

Aus König Laurins Rosengarten (1951)

Typical German

[10/10 · 11 June 2007]

This is just another "Heimatfilm". "Heimat" is a typical German word. It means the home of somebody.But not only his house or family or country is his home, but everything that gives him the longing back to his Heimat, when he is somewhere far away from it. It is more imaginative, yet rooted deep inside, not so much a physical place. May be that modern people who are mobile and move around the world at will,do not have a sense for a "mystic" Heimat. But many of the elder people have. Why did they make these films? To appease the souls of homeless people? No, just to commercialize the satisfaction of a demand.

The word "Heimatfilm" has in cinematographic Germany of today not such a good sound. But that is the kind of entertainment the people in Germany needed after the traumatic WW II. That Genre was totally produced for the taste of the masses and served well for this. It is a similar speciality of German cinematography like the Karl May films (Winnetou and friends) and the Edgar Wallace films of the sixties. Nothing that can be very interesting for Non-Germans, neither could be understood by other people. You should notice that Germans in the fifties were not politically interested. They just wanted "Heimat", a manageable scope for daily life. Mostly the "Heimatfilm" plays in the mountain areas, where You could not see the damage the war brought to the German cities, the place as well where a short trip for holidays was possible for the German people. If You went for holidays, You went to the Sea or to the Mountains. The Heimatfilm and the „Bergfilm", which is another speciality of the German cinematography (films featuring mountain stories), are closely related, the first comes from the latter. That started already in the twenties. Even Luis Trenker was a German filmmaker, because the people of South Tirol did not regard themselves as Italians ( and still don't) German film-making has not been a successful story in the last 30 years, but in the fifties with the „Heimatfilm" and in the sixties it was. You could also grasp the meaning of these movies for the German audience when You compare them with the Bollywood movies. The Indian audience is also not interested in politics, they just want to escape into a hail world for a few hours. There are no more "Heimatfilme" for the cinema any longer, but there were always TV-series about the same Genre. What the "western" is for the US citizen is the "Heimatfilm" for the Germans. This is something for depth psychology. The Germans seem to have a strong inclination for having a nice time in a natural surrounding (natural but under control) where they can dedicate themselves to their "Weltschmerz" and cultivate their longing for peace and harmony (which should not be interrupted again). So far it is not alarming that violence-films are not produced in this country. Unfortunately they are shown on TV, made in the USA. The elder people look the harmless "Heimatfilm", the younger look violence- and action-films. A new generation of violent-prepared Germans is brought up, with the help of US movie and TV productions.

Ferien vom Ich (1952)

Brave good world

[10/10 · 10 June 2007]

I give a ten as protest against the violence films that flood our TV programs. The word "Heimatfilm" has in cinematographic Germany of today not such a good sound. But that is the kind of entertainment the people in Germany needed after the traumatic WW II. That Genre was totally produced for the taste of the masses and served well for this. It is a similar speciality of German cinematography like the Karl May films (Winnetou and friends) and the Edgar Wallace films of the sixties. Nothing that can be very interesting for Non-Germans, neither could be understood by other people. You should notice that Germans in the fifties were not politically interested. They just wanted "Heimat", a manageable scope for daily life. Mostly the "Heimatfilm" plays in the mountain areas, where You could not see the damage the war brought to the German cities, the place as well where a short trip for holidays was possible for the German people. If You went for holidays, You went to the Sea or to the Mountains. The Heimatfilm and the „Bergfilm", which is another speciality of the German cinematography (films featuring mountain stories), are closely related, the first comes from the latter. That started already in the twenties. Even Luis Trenker was a German filmmaker, because the people of South Tirol did not regard themselves as Italians ( and still don't) German film-making has not been a successful story in the last 30 years, but in the fifties with the „Heimatfilm" and in the sixties it was. You could also grasp the meaning of these movies for the German audience when You compare them with the Bollywood movies. The Indian audience is also not interested in politics, they just want to escape into a hail world for a few hours. There are no more "Heimatfilme" for the cinema any longer, but there were always TV-series about the same Genre. What the "western" is for the US citizen is the "Heimatfilm" for the Germans. This is something for depth psychology. The Germans seem to have a strong inclination for having a nice time in a natural surrounding (natural but under control) where they can dedicate themselves to their "Weltschmerz" and cultivate their longing for peace and harmony (which should not be interrupted again). So far it is not alarming that violence-films are not produced in this country. Unfortunately they are shown on TV, made in the USA. The elder people look the harmless "Heimatfilm", the younger look violence- and action-films. A new generation of violent-prepared Germans is brought up, with the help of US movie and TV productions.

Heimatland (1955)

Heimatfilm versus violence-films

[10/10 · 10 June 2007]

To appreciate the "Heimatfilm" one has to consider a few facts. The word "Heimatfilm" has in cinematographic Germany of today not such a good sound. But that is the kind of entertainment the people in Germany needed after the traumatic WW II. That Genre was totally produced for the taste of the masses and served well for this. It is a similar speciality of German cinematography like the Karl May films (Winnetou and friends) and the Edgar Wallace films of the sixties. Nothing that can be very interesting for Non-Germans, neither could be understood by other people. You should notice that Germans in the fifties were not politically interested. They just wanted "Heimat", a manageable scope for daily life. Mostly the "Heimatfilm" plays in the mountain areas, where You could not see the damage the war brought to the German cities, the place as well where a short trip for holidays was possible for the German people. If You went for holidays, You went to the Sea or to the Mountains. The Heimatfilm and the „Bergfilm", which is another speciality of the German cinematography (films featuring mountain stories), are closely related, the first comes from the latter. That started already in the twenties. Even Luis Trenker was a German filmmaker, because the people of South Tirol did not regard themselves as Italians ( and still don't) German film-making has not been a successful story in the last 30 years, but in the fifties with the „Heimatfilm" and in the sixties it was. You could also grasp the meaning of these movies for the German audience when You compare them with the Bollywood movies. The Indian audience is also not interested in politics, they just want to escape into a hail world for a few hours. There are no more "Heimatfilme" for the cinema any longer, but there were always TV-series about the same Genre. What the "western" is for the US citizen is the "Heimatfilm" for the Germans. This is something for depth psychology. The Germans seem to have a strong inclination for having a nice time in a natural surrounding (natural but under control) where they can dedicate themselves to their "Weltschmerz" and cultivate their longing for peace and harmony (which should not be interrupted again). So far it is not alarming that violence-films are not produced in this country. Unfortunately they are shown on TV, made in the USA. The elder people look the harmless "Heimatfilm", the younger look violence- and action-films. A new generation of violent-prepared Germans is brought up, with the help of US movie and TV productions.

Waldrausch (1962)

Heimatfilm and the German peculiarity

[10/10 · 10 June 2007]

To understand and appreciate the meaning of "Heimatfilm" you have to consider a few facts. The word "Heimatfilm" has in cinematographic Germany of today not such a good sound. But that is the kind of entertainment the people in Germany needed after the traumatic WW II. That Genre was totally produced for the taste of the masses and served well for this. It is a similar speciality of German cinematography like the Karl May films (Winnetou and friends) and the Edgar Wallace films of the sixties. Nothing that can be very interesting for Non-Germans, neither could be understood by other people. You should notice that Germans in the fifties were not politically interested. They just wanted "Heimat", a manageable scope for daily life. Mostly the "Heimatfilm" plays in the mountain areas, where You could not see the damage the war brought to the German cities, the place as well where a short trip for holidays was possible for the German people. If You went for holidays, You went to the Sea or to the Mountains. The Heimatfilm and the „Bergfilm", which is another speciality of the German cinematography (films featuring mountain stories), are closely related, the first comes from the latter. That started already in the twenties. Even Luis Trenker was a German filmmaker, because the people of South Tirol did not regard themselves as Italians ( and still don't) German film-making has not been a successful story in the last 30 years, but in the fifties with the „Heimatfilm" and in the sixties it was. You could also grasp the meaning of these movies for the German audience when You compare them with the Bollywood movies. The Indian audience is also not interested in politics, they just want to escape into a hail world for a few hours. There are no more "Heimatfilme" for the cinema any longer, but there were always TV-series about the same Genre. What the "western" is for the US citizen is the "Heimatfilm" for the Germans. This is something for depth psychology. The Germans seem to have a strong inclination for having a nice time in a natural surrounding (natural but under control) where they can dedicate themselves to their "Weltschmerz" and cultivate their longing for peace and harmony (which should not be interrupted again). So far it is not alarming that violence-films are not produced in this country. Unfortunately they are shown on TV, made in the USA. The elder people look the harmless "Heimatfilm", the younger look violence- and action-films. A new generation of violent-prepared Germans is brought up, with the help of US movie and TV productions.

Schwarzwälder Kirsch (1958)

Weltschmerz against violence

[10/10 · 10 June 2007]

The word "Heimatfilm" has in cinematographic Germany of today not such a good reputation. But that is the kind of entertainment the people in Germany needed after the traumatic WW II. That Genre was totally produced for the taste of the masses and served well for this. It is a similar speciality of German cinematography like the Karl May films (Winnetou and friends) and the Edgar Wallace films of the sixties. Nothing that can be very interesting for Non-Germans, neither could be understood by other people so well. You should notice that Germans in the fifties were not politically interested. They just wanted "Heimat", a manageable scope for daily life. Mostly the "Heimatfilm" plays in the mountain areas, where You could not see the damage the war brought to the German cities, the place as well where a short trip for holidays was possible for the people. If You went for holidays, You went to the Sea or to the Mountains. It is the same today. The Heimatfilm and the „Bergfilm", which is another speciality of the German cinematography (films featuring mountain stories), are closely related, the first comes from the latter. That started already in the twenties. Even Luis Trenker was a German filmmaker, because the people of South Tirol did not regard themselves as Italians ( and still don't). German film-making has not been a successful story in the last 30 years, but in the fifties with the „Heimatfilm" and in the sixties it was nation wide, the fifties being a time with no TV! You could also grasp the meaning of these movies for the German audience when You compare them with the Bollywood movies. The Indian audience is also not interested in politics, they just want to escape into a hail world for a few hours. There are no more "Heimatfilme" for the cinema any longer, but there were always TV-series about the same Genre. What the "western" is for the US citizen is the "Heimatfilm" for the Germans. This is something for depth psychology. The Germans seem to have a strong inclination for having a nice time in a natural surrounding (natural but under control) where they can dedicate themselves to their "Weltschmerz" and cultivate their longing for peace and harmony (which should not be interrupted again). So far it is not alarming that violence-films are not produced in this country. Unfortunately they are shown on TV, made in the USA. The elder people look the harmless "Heimatfilm", the younger look violence- and action-films. A new generation of violent-prepared Germans is brought up, with the help of US movie and TV productions.

One, Two, Three (1961)

Sitzen machen!

[10/10 · 5 June 2007]

I enjoyed it from the first to the last minute. I am no fan of Coca Cola nor too enthusiastic about American imperialism. But this kind of import - kindly supported by Germans (in the German version the German actors speak their own roles ) is welcome. It ridicules about everybody and everything. Some do not like Billy Wilder Commedies. Some do not like people that are shown in a much too sympathetic and philantropic way. Here You find this plus cynicism. A rare find. This comedy is an astonishing high-velocity-masterwork. This is very human, even the communists are likable. All are spoofed, the Americans, the Germans and the Russaians, East and West. I have no doubts that Shakespeare would have liked it (he was not that serious)Of course,this is far from reality. Why not! An exaggeration of exaggerations. Why not! The world is dull enough, let us laugh about it - sometimes! Just sit down, relax and have fun. Perfect entertainment, except for aliens and cranks and too serious people...

The Mark of Zorro (1940)

Masked but unmasked

[10/10 · 30 May 2007]

Why is this film a great one? 1. because the dramaturgy rises from beginning to the end, even the love story goes parallel in the same pace and reaches its climax towards the end 2. two dedicated "engenious" main characters - Tyrone and Basil who are the perfect antagonists (they are incredible) 3. an outstanding fencing scene (no animation, has anybody seen a more impressing one? 4. another extreme is the tension between the masked hero Zorro and the unmasked coward who is the same person (which makes also "Superman" so interesting, it is a nice idea that the latter is in reality the "masked" because he is masked with a wrong personality 5. From the beginning the spectator, although agitated from the wrongs and iniquities, knows that the good will prevail, notwithstanding there is always a high tension 6. highly morally! the good is clearly visible, as is the bad 7. Everything is alway plain and straightforward and in accordance with the expectation of the spectator 8. It is a film for everybody, no limitation of age, no sex (all real great films do not need that kind of private "sensation"), the violence is either to be condemned if performed by the bad ones, or admitted if done by the good ones. 9. It is not like in the real life, but it turns out to be of the sort of things everybody who dreams of a better world, would like to have it

Some specialities: 1. No Us boys! mostly the Spaniards are in anglo-saxon films the villains, here even the heroes and heroines are Spanish! I applaud! 2. We learn that Los Angeles was originally a happy place for latinos 3. This film reminded me strongly to Captain Blood and The Adventures of Robin Hood. If I compare these three films - you could ad Dodge City - there are many similarities. If You compare them with the movies of our days ... good old times! They are not able to make such movies today. They lack of everything which is needed.

4. I could watch the film from beginning till end, I was never bored (which is very seldom).

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Awful

[1/10 · 28 May 2007]

I like Richard Dryfuss as a type of actor. But I cannot tell what has ridden him to be a part of this film. This film is absolutely ridiculous. It is perhaps something to entertain children whom You tell something about the man in the moon. If Spielberg tried to make something to be taken serious he failed totally - in my eyes (he will come over it). He had a fantasy and he made a film out of it and interestingly enough many spectators seem to have the same kind of dream in the US, not so much in Europe. It is not a sophisticated dream to say the least. Supposed that aliens like the aliens in this film came to land in my garden I would start to laugh and could never end it. How would the aliens react, fly away peeved and demoralized? These bloody immature humans! I am sorry that I am so uncultivated!

Spielberg has either a childish character or a good sense for business - perhaps both.

There is nothing to be criticized for making childish fairy tale movies, except if anybody starts to take it serious. The idea of aliens who try to contact with humans, developed in this way is not too bad, but how its was put into practice, is just nonsense. "Ah look the aliens, how cute they are! Nice people, let us shake hands with them!" Peace, joy and egg-cake! I am anxious that aliens will not visit our Earth as long as we make films like that - sorry, as long as here are humorless people like me!