It was common practice during the early days of sound films to make different versions in other languages and aimed at the cultural tastes of their audiences. Some actors were bilingual while others spoke their lines phonetically, sometimes with harsh accents.I was surprised to notice the differences in these two versions concerning the plot changes. The English one has some new scenes (The introductory one with more actors)including the ending where we see the ghosts of the fallen expedition members as a tribute to their memory. This version seems more geared to American audiences who prefer sentiment as opposed to the longer,harsher Teutonic version where the dog gets less screen time and disappears. Leni hardly speaks in both films and in the English version her voice seems dubbed by someone else as well as as her German counterparts. Regardless, watching both versions is a worthwhile experience. Stunning location scenery is cleverly edited with set work to create coherent exciting scenes.
9 Reviews
Harrowing adventure pre Jurassic Park
drystyx17 September 2011
Much about this Arctic adventure film looks to be inspiration for JURASSIC PARK.
Although there are no prehistoric beasts, there are beasts. It is the characters and the nature of the experience which reminds a viewer of Jurassic Park.
The characters are all quite believable, making for what typically makes the best story line, credible characters in incredible situations.
However, this situation is not as incredible as Jurassic Park.
Still, the characters remind us of it. We have "good" guys for the most part, and the "bad" guys are not really "bad" so much as victims of circumstance of their personalities.
Jurassic had three bad guys, and didn't contrive too much in their fates, as two bad guys perish along with at least two heroic types, leaving the most insane and irresponsible of the evil men alive and smelling pretty and still rich.
Here, there is a similar character, a maniac who risks the lives of his group in folly, not waiting for the time to tell him when to explore, but deciding he is a god who tells time when he can explore.
In real life, such a maniac would perish, and the other unstable character can actually be excused his madness, for he does so out of a hunger we probably can't imagine.
And like Jurassic, there is no contrivance to save heroes, bad guys, the brave, or anyone. The chips fall where the chips fall, with just enough miraculous survival to be credible.
The experience is harrowing, and full of adventure. It is a bit chaotic, as we aren't sure who these people are for a long time, but we gradually learn to care about them.
This is an exciting film, and has all the credentials of a good film. Thumbs up.
Although there are no prehistoric beasts, there are beasts. It is the characters and the nature of the experience which reminds a viewer of Jurassic Park.
The characters are all quite believable, making for what typically makes the best story line, credible characters in incredible situations.
However, this situation is not as incredible as Jurassic Park.
Still, the characters remind us of it. We have "good" guys for the most part, and the "bad" guys are not really "bad" so much as victims of circumstance of their personalities.
Jurassic had three bad guys, and didn't contrive too much in their fates, as two bad guys perish along with at least two heroic types, leaving the most insane and irresponsible of the evil men alive and smelling pretty and still rich.
Here, there is a similar character, a maniac who risks the lives of his group in folly, not waiting for the time to tell him when to explore, but deciding he is a god who tells time when he can explore.
In real life, such a maniac would perish, and the other unstable character can actually be excused his madness, for he does so out of a hunger we probably can't imagine.
And like Jurassic, there is no contrivance to save heroes, bad guys, the brave, or anyone. The chips fall where the chips fall, with just enough miraculous survival to be credible.
The experience is harrowing, and full of adventure. It is a bit chaotic, as we aren't sure who these people are for a long time, but we gradually learn to care about them.
This is an exciting film, and has all the credentials of a good film. Thumbs up.
Watch the Kino DVD...and see them both.
planktonrules24 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the more interesting DVDs I've seen in some time--both "S.O.S. Iceberg" and "S.O.S. Eisberg" were included on the same disk from Kino. While the two films are close to being the same film (the first in English and the other in German), they are NOT exact copied of the other film. Instead, the films were made as a joint project with Universal and their German counterpart. Many of the scenes were identical and much of the cast were in both films, however, many plot points and the ending were quite different. Seeing both films, one after the other, was an unusual experience and I am thrilled that both were packaged together.
Here are some ways that both films differ:
1. The German version has Dr. Lorenz alone in Greenland. Apparently he was separated from the rest of his party because he's stupid, though the film never exactly said this. Then, a meeting is held some time later to discuss the recent failed rescue attempt as well as to plan the next. In the American version, all the characters in the film meet at a meeting about Arctic exploration at a club. The entire group goes, but Dr. Lawrence wanders off and much of the film is spend looking for him. Both Lorenz and Lawrence are played by a German and an American actor (respectively).
2. The film involving the initial trek across Greenland is quite different as well as the scene where Lawrence/Lorenz is discovered.
3. Gibson Gowland dies slightly differently and at different times in the two films.
4. Gowland shows his unstable and evil side far earlier in the American version. There's less suspense this way, but his actions later make a bit more sense this way.
5. The American film (at least in its current version) is about 10 minutes shorter.
6. The breakup of the iceberg occurred at a different time and was more dramatically placed in the American version.
Regardless which version you see, the main plot is still basically the same and the cinematography is, likewise, wonderful in both films. It really appears that some of the differences are simply due to the film being assembled slightly differently--like they shot a lot of film at one time and divvied up some of the scenes to each film--then included a few identical scenes with mostly the same actors.
So which is better? Well, neither is that much better or worse. But, if I only were to see one I might suggest the American one---especially if English is your first language. Not only that, but it being shorter is NOT a bad thing--the German version drags a bit more because more scenes of the men crossing the barren ice are included. You really get bored by this after a bit--even if the scenes were incredibly difficult to make and looked amazing. As for me, I'm a nut and watched them both!
By the way, take note of the actors Ernst Udet and Leni Reifenstahl in the film. Udet was a top WWI fighter ace with 62 victories. He also was Hitler's choice for head of the Luftwaffe during WWII. However, after he and Goering blew the Battle of Britain, Udet killed himself in 1941. As for Reifenstahl, she was one of Hitler's BFFs and directed some of the most technically astute and impressive pro-Nazi propaganda films, such as "Olympia" and "Triumph of the Will". Following the war, Reifenstahl apparently told reporters and war crimes tribunals that she'd been away from Germany on vacation from 1933 to 1945 and was angry someone had been impersonating her all those years and saying all these nasty things about her--an 'innocent' lady!
Here are some ways that both films differ:
1. The German version has Dr. Lorenz alone in Greenland. Apparently he was separated from the rest of his party because he's stupid, though the film never exactly said this. Then, a meeting is held some time later to discuss the recent failed rescue attempt as well as to plan the next. In the American version, all the characters in the film meet at a meeting about Arctic exploration at a club. The entire group goes, but Dr. Lawrence wanders off and much of the film is spend looking for him. Both Lorenz and Lawrence are played by a German and an American actor (respectively).
2. The film involving the initial trek across Greenland is quite different as well as the scene where Lawrence/Lorenz is discovered.
3. Gibson Gowland dies slightly differently and at different times in the two films.
4. Gowland shows his unstable and evil side far earlier in the American version. There's less suspense this way, but his actions later make a bit more sense this way.
5. The American film (at least in its current version) is about 10 minutes shorter.
6. The breakup of the iceberg occurred at a different time and was more dramatically placed in the American version.
Regardless which version you see, the main plot is still basically the same and the cinematography is, likewise, wonderful in both films. It really appears that some of the differences are simply due to the film being assembled slightly differently--like they shot a lot of film at one time and divvied up some of the scenes to each film--then included a few identical scenes with mostly the same actors.
So which is better? Well, neither is that much better or worse. But, if I only were to see one I might suggest the American one---especially if English is your first language. Not only that, but it being shorter is NOT a bad thing--the German version drags a bit more because more scenes of the men crossing the barren ice are included. You really get bored by this after a bit--even if the scenes were incredibly difficult to make and looked amazing. As for me, I'm a nut and watched them both!
By the way, take note of the actors Ernst Udet and Leni Reifenstahl in the film. Udet was a top WWI fighter ace with 62 victories. He also was Hitler's choice for head of the Luftwaffe during WWII. However, after he and Goering blew the Battle of Britain, Udet killed himself in 1941. As for Reifenstahl, she was one of Hitler's BFFs and directed some of the most technically astute and impressive pro-Nazi propaganda films, such as "Olympia" and "Triumph of the Will". Following the war, Reifenstahl apparently told reporters and war crimes tribunals that she'd been away from Germany on vacation from 1933 to 1945 and was angry someone had been impersonating her all those years and saying all these nasty things about her--an 'innocent' lady!
Chaotic but intermittently impressive oddity.
Mozjoukine4 March 2003
After the international success of WHITE HELL OF PIZ PALU and the arrival of sound, Universal decided to get itself involved in this two version effort from Fank's team.
The German copy is incoherent with our hero stumbling round on the ice flows for what appears to be weeks, getting help, but there are some quite amazing passages - harpooning the real polar bear who (understandably) takes a dim view of that or the actors swimming in with the genuine ice flows, an ice berg turning over, Ernst Udet's flying footage and rescue by kayak.
Dramatically things get by. Having Gibson Gowland from GREED in the US version in which a glamorous Leni Riefenstahl speaks English adds curiosity value.
These frozen waste dramas are a cycle which remains fascinating and it's a pity we don't have more access to them
The German copy is incoherent with our hero stumbling round on the ice flows for what appears to be weeks, getting help, but there are some quite amazing passages - harpooning the real polar bear who (understandably) takes a dim view of that or the actors swimming in with the genuine ice flows, an ice berg turning over, Ernst Udet's flying footage and rescue by kayak.
Dramatically things get by. Having Gibson Gowland from GREED in the US version in which a glamorous Leni Riefenstahl speaks English adds curiosity value.
These frozen waste dramas are a cycle which remains fascinating and it's a pity we don't have more access to them
An Expedition Braving the Arctic Elements
Uriah4321 April 2024
This film essentially begins with a formal dinner being held by the International Society for Arctic Research in recognition of 5 men who plan on undertaking a dangerous mission to Greenland in search of the remnants of an earlier expedition which had resulted in apparent tragedy the year before. Although they eventually find one of the camps from the former expedition, rather than waiting there until winter arrives, the leading scientist of the group named "Dr. Carl Lorentz" (Gustav Diessl) decides to throw caution to the wind and sets off in search of more information pertaining to the lost expedition. Recognizing the danger their colleague has foolishly brought upon himself by heading out on his own, the rest of the group eventually decide to set off in search of him. But what they don't count on is the ice breaking up and stranding them on an iceberg adrift in the ocean. Now, from what I understand, this movie was a joint effort between an American studio and its German counterpart. As such, it was filmed in both English and German with the German version incorporating a couple of scenes which extended its running time for an extra 10 minutes. Likewise, the severe Arctic weather also created difficulties for the for both film crews as well. In any case, although the film is quite dated, it's still an entertaining movie, and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.
Bergfilm. Survival on icebergs west coast of Greenland.
Vortrek25 December 2007
The story involves an expedition of four men who set off to Greenland to rescue an explorer previously presumed dead, but whose survival is attested to by a note written on a piece of jetsam. The expedition itself gets into fatal trouble when, trying to cross a half-frozen fjord, it is swept out to sea. This will be no leisurely drift into the ocean; they constantly see similar icebergs rolling over due to uneven melting. A similar roll would surely be their sudden end.
Even though all action in this movie takes place within a few hundred feet of sea level, this is definitely a mountain movie or Bergfilm (German). Bergfilms are all about individuals at the utmost edge of human existence, pitted against a relentless lethal Nature in a struggle which Nature wins as often as not. Bergfilms are not about wonderful dialogs or intricate plots, they're about iconic heroes sternly staring into the face of an implacable oncoming storm.
The film is directed by Arnold Fanck, the dean of Bergfilms. Leni Riefenstahl, a veteran lead in many great Bergfilms, and later to become a very controversial director in her own right, plays an aviatrix in search of her husband.
The cinematography of the icebergs-- calving, drifting as stupendous sculptures, or rolling over like massive whales breaching-- is absolutely spectacular. You will not be able to detect the shifts between shots made on the outdoor sets and those actually filmed in Greenland.
The film offers some unexpected bonuses-- 30's airplanes puttering among the icebergs, and scenes of real Eskimos (Inuits) in their village and on the water, their lives not yet transformed by Western goods.
If you accept the film for what it is, a symphony of ice and water in dark conflict with the human will to survive, you will not be disappointed.
Even though all action in this movie takes place within a few hundred feet of sea level, this is definitely a mountain movie or Bergfilm (German). Bergfilms are all about individuals at the utmost edge of human existence, pitted against a relentless lethal Nature in a struggle which Nature wins as often as not. Bergfilms are not about wonderful dialogs or intricate plots, they're about iconic heroes sternly staring into the face of an implacable oncoming storm.
The film is directed by Arnold Fanck, the dean of Bergfilms. Leni Riefenstahl, a veteran lead in many great Bergfilms, and later to become a very controversial director in her own right, plays an aviatrix in search of her husband.
The cinematography of the icebergs-- calving, drifting as stupendous sculptures, or rolling over like massive whales breaching-- is absolutely spectacular. You will not be able to detect the shifts between shots made on the outdoor sets and those actually filmed in Greenland.
The film offers some unexpected bonuses-- 30's airplanes puttering among the icebergs, and scenes of real Eskimos (Inuits) in their village and on the water, their lives not yet transformed by Western goods.
If you accept the film for what it is, a symphony of ice and water in dark conflict with the human will to survive, you will not be disappointed.
Shoddy execution hamstrings great potential
I_Ailurophile22 September 2021
Scenes of immense natural beauty in the frozen north contrast with the plain peril of shifting ice in frigid open water. The setting for this tale is ripe with possibilities, and the essence of the narrative is solid. Regrettably, while 'S. O. S. Eisberg' is passably entertaining at times, it's filled with very distinct flaws that drag it down.
The basic scenario is great and full of promise, and the screenplay is generally sound. There are a few especially noteworthy shots, and some scenes are especially well orchestrated. To that point: to read a little bit about the production history, it's clear that 'S. O. S. Eisberg' was created without the benefit of stunt doubles, and with very present danger for cast and crew alike. While it's never acceptable to put people at genuine risk for a movie, the fact that the stunts captured on film were very real, and the situations at hand a true hazard, elevates the thrills and excitement beyond what we would otherwise get. It's unfortunate that this realism may actually be one of the most rewarding aspects of the feature.
Everything sounds good on paper, but the execution leaves much to be desired. Editing accordingly helmed by Hermann Haller and Andrew Marton is blunt and sloppy. Whether by their hand or that of director Arnold Fanck, or by studio interference, transitions between shots and scenes, and even the sequencing of the picture, feel not just disjointed, but disorderly. The dramatic weight of each passing moment is drastically undercut by a presentation that repeatedly makes us ask "wait, what?" Fanck and his stars - Gustav Diessl, Leni Riefenstahl, and Ernst Udet - previously made the highly successful mountain adventure 'The white hell of Pitz Palu,' in which all very much proved their capabilities. Here, the cast mostly goes to waste; while provided the benefit of sound and dialogue, the actors are mostly given little more to do than stare forlornly into the distance. For as direly rough, unrefined, and ill-considered as 'S. O. S. Eisberg' is, their performances aren't meaningful - only crudely perfunctory.
It all culminates in a climax and ending that seems incredibly forced, ham-handed, and unconvincing. And that final tawdry impression reverberates so much as to paint the whole length in the same unwelcome hue. The end result of a storied production in which cast and crew had to be hospitalized for the conditions they experienced is that its real-life history vastly oversells the cinematic endeavor. I'm willing to watch almost anything, and to learn that this was not received well upon release in 1933 didn't dissuade me from viewing it for myself. But clearly the high expectations I had developed from recently checking out 'Pitz Palu' for the first time set me up for failure in following it with this. I am gravely disappointed.
It's far from the worst movie you'll ever see, and I hope other viewers can get more out of it than I did. But I watch this and see only great potential that was all but wasted in a realization that broadly feels so garishly undisciplined as to be amateurish. With so many great movies to watch instead, I can't particularly imagine ever recommending 'S. O. S. Eisberg.' Two thumbs down.
The basic scenario is great and full of promise, and the screenplay is generally sound. There are a few especially noteworthy shots, and some scenes are especially well orchestrated. To that point: to read a little bit about the production history, it's clear that 'S. O. S. Eisberg' was created without the benefit of stunt doubles, and with very present danger for cast and crew alike. While it's never acceptable to put people at genuine risk for a movie, the fact that the stunts captured on film were very real, and the situations at hand a true hazard, elevates the thrills and excitement beyond what we would otherwise get. It's unfortunate that this realism may actually be one of the most rewarding aspects of the feature.
Everything sounds good on paper, but the execution leaves much to be desired. Editing accordingly helmed by Hermann Haller and Andrew Marton is blunt and sloppy. Whether by their hand or that of director Arnold Fanck, or by studio interference, transitions between shots and scenes, and even the sequencing of the picture, feel not just disjointed, but disorderly. The dramatic weight of each passing moment is drastically undercut by a presentation that repeatedly makes us ask "wait, what?" Fanck and his stars - Gustav Diessl, Leni Riefenstahl, and Ernst Udet - previously made the highly successful mountain adventure 'The white hell of Pitz Palu,' in which all very much proved their capabilities. Here, the cast mostly goes to waste; while provided the benefit of sound and dialogue, the actors are mostly given little more to do than stare forlornly into the distance. For as direly rough, unrefined, and ill-considered as 'S. O. S. Eisberg' is, their performances aren't meaningful - only crudely perfunctory.
It all culminates in a climax and ending that seems incredibly forced, ham-handed, and unconvincing. And that final tawdry impression reverberates so much as to paint the whole length in the same unwelcome hue. The end result of a storied production in which cast and crew had to be hospitalized for the conditions they experienced is that its real-life history vastly oversells the cinematic endeavor. I'm willing to watch almost anything, and to learn that this was not received well upon release in 1933 didn't dissuade me from viewing it for myself. But clearly the high expectations I had developed from recently checking out 'Pitz Palu' for the first time set me up for failure in following it with this. I am gravely disappointed.
It's far from the worst movie you'll ever see, and I hope other viewers can get more out of it than I did. But I watch this and see only great potential that was all but wasted in a realization that broadly feels so garishly undisciplined as to be amateurish. With so many great movies to watch instead, I can't particularly imagine ever recommending 'S. O. S. Eisberg.' Two thumbs down.
In the great tradition of the 1930's German mountain movies.
Bernie444421 January 2024
An expedition of explorers was striking out across Greenland (The Karajak Glacier.) Dr. Karl Lorenz (Gustav Diessl) was missing and presumed dead by all of his fellow explorers. New evidence, however, shows Dr. Lorenz has survived! So now, it is time to send out a rescue party.
Hella Lorenz (Leni Riefenstahl), wife of Dr. Lorenz and stunt pilot learns of the expedition's demise. Also, that her husband may be alive on a rogue Iceberg.
This film has lots of ice action. Once again, the true actors are the icebergs in this instance. You get to see some flying stunts. Also, almost everything is eaten; but do not worry, you do not have to see all these things eaten except for raw fish. So, sit back and enjoy the thrill of watching the drama in the Arctic Ocean, as the iceberg is soon to turn over.
This KINO presentation has both the original German version and the English version. I must say that the English version was shorter, chopped up, incoherent, and misleading. The one redeeming value of the English version of this film is that in the end, you can see that they had saved the dog. English or more dog friendly. However, the German version was a work of art. If you have trouble keeping up with the German version, there are English subtitles, and this is still far superior to the English version.
Being a fan of Leni Riefenstahl movies, I could not pass this one and I am glad I did not. I figured that she would be burnt out by now, but she just keeps getting better.
Hella Lorenz (Leni Riefenstahl), wife of Dr. Lorenz and stunt pilot learns of the expedition's demise. Also, that her husband may be alive on a rogue Iceberg.
This film has lots of ice action. Once again, the true actors are the icebergs in this instance. You get to see some flying stunts. Also, almost everything is eaten; but do not worry, you do not have to see all these things eaten except for raw fish. So, sit back and enjoy the thrill of watching the drama in the Arctic Ocean, as the iceberg is soon to turn over.
This KINO presentation has both the original German version and the English version. I must say that the English version was shorter, chopped up, incoherent, and misleading. The one redeeming value of the English version of this film is that in the end, you can see that they had saved the dog. English or more dog friendly. However, the German version was a work of art. If you have trouble keeping up with the German version, there are English subtitles, and this is still far superior to the English version.
Being a fan of Leni Riefenstahl movies, I could not pass this one and I am glad I did not. I figured that she would be burnt out by now, but she just keeps getting better.
A bit of everything, not enough of anything
Horst_In_Translation13 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"S.O.S. Eisberg" is a German black-and-white film from 1933, so this one is already almost 85 years old. It runs for roughly 1.5 hours and was written and directed by Arnold Fanck, a German filmmaker, who was pretty famous back then and is still known today for his dramatic nature films with focus on ice and mountains. He worked with Luis Trenker for example too. Or with Leni Riefenstahl like in this movie here. It is one of her last performances in front of the camera as Riefenstahl focused more on making films when the Nazis came into power which was at pretty much the same time when this film came out. There also is an English-language version of this movie that came out the same time, but stars American actors like Rod La Rocque playing Lorenz' part and the director is also not Fanck in that version. But Riefenstahl plays in both and so do other actors. But back to this one here. it is a film from the very early days of sound film. Pay attention to how there really isn't a whole lot of dialogue in here. The premise isn't bad. A polar expedition goes on a voyage looking for the members of another polar expedition that they lost contact to. Sadly, what they made of it in detail is not really convincing at all. I almost never felt well-entertained watching this one. If there is one main problem, you can probably say it is the script in general. The random nature recordings aren't even bad here I think, but the characters and story around them never feels really interesting unfortunately. I would not even blame the actors, they tried their best, even if I am not really sold like everybody else when it comes to Riefenstahl's alleged charisma and range. Oh yeah, legendary German pilot Ernst Udet plays himself in here too, which is pretty interesting. But still the bad outweighs the good and I give this film a thumbs-down ultimately. Not recommended.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
