Reviews

'Hero' tells a clever, though somewhat thin story of a group of assassins who plan to murder the king of Qin, that is, the ruler who would go on to unify China in the late 3rd century BC and who is today known as Qin Shi Huangdi. Two of the group get a chance to kill their target, but both reconsider at the last moment. The story is interspersed with long and carefully choreographed fighting scenes that would stand out in no way (every wuxia film offers lots of that kind of stuff) if they were filmed less beautifully: Each fight has one underlying colour scheme; as a whole, they turn the movie into an esthetic marvel. However, it is a marvel with a sinister and deeply disturbing side. By eventually refusing to kill the king, the two lead assassins acknowledge that Qin Shi Huangdi was justified in using all kinds of terror - terror that is never shown or mentioned in the film but that covered anything from burning books to burying people (alive, that is). All for an ulterior aim: unifying China to avoid bloodshed. This is more than merely the old idea that the end justifies the means; it is the same trite justification of despotism that has been en vogue at least since Jean Bodin. In the final scene, the film heavily implies that today this 'principle' is as valid as it was more than 2000 years ago. No wonder China's ruling oligarchy were pleased with Zhang Yimou's product (and with its international reception): As a propaganda tool, it works admirably, at the same time advertising the esthetics of China's culture and justifying the brutality of its regime.

One of the big mysteries of film history is why Jack Gold's 'Red Monarch' has as good as disappeared: It is hard to find, does not come on the telly, and has, as of today (23/12/23), garnered no more than three reviews on IMDb. All this is a mystery because the film is absolutely brilliant. It shows Stalin's (Colin Blakely) private life in about 1950-53, and it does so largely accurately. You may gasp at what you see, but it all happened more or less like the film shows it. Stalin's paranoia, sadistic humour and skill as a manipulator are well attested, as is Beria's (David Suchet) role as serial rapist who forced his underlings to supply him with pretty young athletes. Check Sebag-Montefiore's 'Court of the Red Czar' - he has the details and the references to original sources. For all that, 'Red Monarch' is not a documentary; it is a comedy steeped in sarcastic, dark humour, which is arguably the only approach to the horrors of Stalinism that does not put your sanity at risk. The only reason why I am not rating the film higher than 8 stars is its episodic structure. While the same figures appear across all the short vignettes that make up the movie, there is no narrative arc. In that respect, 'The Inner Circle' (1991) is better. But only in that respect.

'Santa Fe Trail' takes the usual Hollywood liberties with history but is on the whole a competently made, well-acted, well-paced and suspenseful film. Before watching it, I had not heard of John Brown and Bloody Kansas and had only the haziest notion of the raid on Harper's Ferry (I am more into European history). The film made me read up on all that, which goes to show that it can still have an educational effect!

For all that, I found 'Santa Fe Trail' irritating. The problem becomes evident when you look at the reviews below: Some interpret the film as anti-slavery, some as exactly the opposite. The fact of the matter is, Michael Curtiz was either unable to make up his mind, or, more likely, wanted to avoid putting off an important group of customers by taking a clear stance. On the one hand, there is a scene where a black family on the Underground Railroad is recaptured by a group of slavers. They are clearly traumatized, but not one of the witnesses stands up for them. The way blacks are shown here is a world away from how I have seen them portrayed in other films of the period. On the other hand, somewhat later in the film Curtiz has a female black actor say, 'if this is freedom, that's nothing for me. I want to get back to Texas' (or words to this effect), and another former slave next to her agrees. Cringeworthy. Errol Flynn seems to sum up the message of the film when he suggests that the South should be left to free the slaves in its own time. If Curtiz had had the guts to place moral fibre over box office revenues, he might have turned 'Santa Fe Trail' into a classic. As it is, the film is no more than a lukewarm piece whose rightful place is in the footnotes of cinema history.

While Luc Besson's 'Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets' has none of the charm of Christin and Mézières's comic books, it is a fast moving space adventure that offers lots of colour and excitement. The film is dragged down by at least two things. First, the acting is abysmal. Cara Delevingne is spectecularly miscast. She has just one facial expression: ill-tempered and full of disdain, as if she was still on the catwalk. There is not a single moment when she even begins to do justice to the Laureline of the books. Even Dane DeHaan is a better actor, and that says a lot. Another thing is the convoluted plot that I found hard to follow. Perhaps it will become clearer when I get around to watching this film again at some point (not very soon, probably), but Besson evidently sacrificed clarity for pacing. There are more issues (character development is something that did not even come to the mind of the authors), but le's leave those aside. If you manage to overlook the two main weaknesses I outlined above, you will find this a reasonably entertaining sci-fi.

Well, I decided to watch 'Mad Max 2' because it is such a highly regarded film and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I must confess, when watching it this did not become immediately obvious to me. Later, reading the wikipedia entry was not particularly enlightening either. I am of course aware of the fact (and perfectly willing to acknowledge) that 'Mad Max 2' is competently made: The camera work is great, the plot moves fast, and the film is cut well. However, is it suspenseful? Not for me, I am afraid. The characters are far too underdevloped (and could not be more developed, given the almost total lack of dialogue). The film is focused on the 'road warrior' who makes decisions which remain enigmatic. For example, why does he chain up that guy with the gyrocopter? And why does that guy later call him 'partner'? The upshot is, you just cannot root for any of the characters (for want of a better word) in this film, which is why it left me cold. On top of that, the constant violence was becoming increasingly grating. Are there people out there who seriously find non-stop car crashes fascinating? I found them irritating and was getting bored, annoyed, and relieved when the whole thing was finally over.

This ecapist piece of crypto-propaganda - it came out when Nazi-Germany had just lost Stalingrad - does have its good sides, but there are aspects I definitely did not like. Let me first get the negatives out of the way. I don't mind so much that the film was produced on Göbbels's orders and that it offered audiences a respite from the mounting bad news from the front. What is worse is that the plot is episodic, with the episodes following each other in a way that feels clunky. In other words, there is no proper narrative arc where suspense builds up and problems sketched at the outset are being solved toward the end of the film. The framing story set in the present is probably intended to provide something of this kind but largely fails to do so: To make it succeed, it would have been necessary to flesh out its characters far more. The one redeeming thing about the plot is its ending: I won't tell, but it lends the film some gravitas. All other aspects are fine. The acting is good (Hans Albers is in top form), photography is excellent, and the production values are impressive (the Nazis were, after all, trying to outdo 'The Thief of Baghdad'). Moreover, the lack of prudishness feels refreshing if you are used to films produced under the Hays code. All in all, my impressions of 'Münchhausen' are somewhat mixed, but the positives outweigh the downsides by quite a bit. Hence 7 stars.

I am generally wary of Hollywood's take on ancient Rome, so this flick was a pleasant surprise. Unlike for example Ben-Hur (1959), which is fantasy dressed up in more or less Roman-looking costumes and as such an insult to history, 'Demetrius and the Gladiators' does make an effort to place its material in the actual context of the early to mid-first century. Moreover, this effort is quite successful, especially where the film draws on the characterisation of individuals as given, for example, in Sueton's slightly later (but well-researched) biographies of the early Roman emperors. Caligula (Jay Robinson) is spot on: mad in a threatening way. Claudius (Barry Jones), Caligula's uncle and successor, is drawn equally well, but perhaps in a way that owes more to Robert Ranke-Graves than Sueton. I was surprised by the sympathetic portrayal of Messalina (Susan Hayward), who does actually have a believable character, but this fits the plot. Also, who knows whether what Tacitus, Sueton etc. Said about her amounts to anything but an entirely unjustified case of character-assassination? As for the plot, this is perfectly fine: it moves fast enough (the whole film takes no more than 100 minutes) and is suspenseful. Acting is good throughout, even in minor roles (e.g. Ernest Borgnine as trainer of the gladiators - again, not a one-dimensional character). The sets are well-made, and the Christian theme, which is of course central to the plot, is not too much in-your-face. All in all, not a bad movie at all!

'Jailhouse Rock' offers a couple of good songs by Elvis, but fewer than I had hoped for given that it takes more than one and a half hours. In this respect, the film disappoints just as well as regarding pretty much any other criterion I can think of. The plot: there is a kind of story arch, but every turn and every event is predictable. Suspense? Ok, I assume no one watches 'Jailhouse Rock' for the suspense. Pacing: uneven, with a very short introduction and two main parts (the first set in jail, the second outside) of extremely uneven length. Characters: Initially I thought Elvis was playing someone who just had a few interesting rough edges. In fact, he plays a lout. Unpleasant from start to finish. His redemption or whatever it is in the last minute is unconvincing. His prison mate Hunk (Mickey Shaughnessy) is a marginally more interesting character. Why Peggy Van Alden (Judy Tyler) is supposed to fall in love with him remains her mystery. The acting: Elvis had an interesting voice but he never was a great actor. Here, he is convincing when he dances or bashes other people up. The rest is painful to watch, and the supporting actors are not much better. Photography: in no way outstanding. All in all a disppointing film.

Elia Kazan's 'Viva Zapata!' is a worthy film. It is steeped in good intentions. Kazan and John Steinbeck, who wrote the script, definitely had their hearts in the right place. Whether 'Viva Zapata!' is a good film is an entirely different question. For me, the picture had two revealing moments. The first is the scene where Zapata (Marlon Brando) has become a high official in the Mexican government and receives a delegation of peasants. The scene pedantically - really painfully - mirrors the opening of the film, where Zapata is a member of exactly this kind of delegation and voices exactly the same kind of complaint to the then president Porfirio Diaz. Now, Zapata behaves in exactly the same way as Diaz did back then. This is so overdone, and the parallel is driven home with such insistence and lack of subtlety, that I was really irritated. The second moment is the last scene of the film, where a group of campesinos fantasise about Zapata being not dead but hiding in the mountains, waiting to come back when he is needed (like old Emperor Barbarossa). This is so kitschy and overdone that it negates everything the film has tried to express before. Acting is uneven. Marlon Brando was a strange choice as Zapata. His heavy makeup is pretty evident, and his languid performance never convinces: He definitely looks as if he did not get enough sleep while working on this film. Jean Peters as his wife Josefa is much better, but the best performance is Anthony Quinn's as Zapata's brother Eufemio. When Brando and Quinn appear in the same scene, there is never any doubt about who dominates and who is the better actor. Photography is good, but the pacing of the film is as uneven as the acting. I can't say I found the whole thing exciting or particularly suspenseful. All in all, mixed impressions.

When 'So ein Flegel' came out in early 1934, the film was hit by all kinds of restrictions. In particular, it was barred for non-adult audiences, with the censors arguing that it 'endangered public safety', 'violated religious and moral sentiment' and 'damaged Germany's reputation'. This tells you more about how nervous censors were in the early stages of Nazi rule - perhaps because they did not want to fall foul of their new superiors - than about the content and quality of 'Flegel'. It also explains why the film suffered in the theaters, which may, in turn, be one reason for why it is so little know today. Not that there are no other reasons. There is no denying that the remake from 1944 ('Die Feuerzangenbowle') is better, with a more focused plot and better acting and pacing. Nevertheless, the original does have its moments. For example, there is one charming scene where the students dance in the classroom while their teacher is out, and then the returning teacher begins to dance, too, and finally the director of the school, who observes this, begins to dance on the corridor. Also, the characters are drawn quite convincingly. Hans and Erich Pfeiffer (both played by Heinz Rühmann) both change and develop when faced with new circumstances, with Hans becoming more relaxed and Erich more serious. Hans' girlfriend Marion (Ellen Frank) has a bigger and more sympathetic part than in the remake, and his secretary Ilse Bundschuh (Maria Seidler), which the remake dropped entirely, plays an important role, too. 'So ein Flegel' is by no means a great or important film - far from it. But I liked it well enough.

'Zulu' is a war film that shows how a troop of about 100 Britons face down several thousand Zulu warriors in an incident that happened in 1879. It is obvious why the film was a smash hit in the UK in the 1960s and became a TV staple: It was balm for the British soul, wounded by humiliations such as Suez 1956 and the imminent loss of what remained of the Empire. I suppose this is why the film is still popular in certain circles in the UK. Seen from the perspective of the 2020s, anyone will acknowledge that it is well-made, with good acting and a fast moving plot that offers a lot of suspense. It is also beautifully photographed. Still, 'Zulu'' has one central weakness that makes it impossible to rate it higher than 7 stars: The cartoonish characters. There is the snooty aristocratic officer (Michael Caine) who calls a socially inferior officer 'old boy'; there is the level-headed lieutenant who saves the day (Stanley Baker), there are the lovable rankers with their funny accents, including the habitual shirker who eventually surpasses himself etc. Etc. All staples of British war films since the genre was invented. That celebrating colonial exploits of this kind does not go down particularly well in the 21st century goes without saying. All in all, Zulu' is an interesting film, but it is mainly interesting not because it shows something that really happened but because it tells you a lot about how the British wanted to see themselves in the late twentieth century.

'Outcast of the Islands' is a slow-burner: The mood of the film is as sultry as the climate of Indonesia, where it is set, and tension builds up like the atmospheric oppressiveness ahead of a thunder storm. The storm actually breaks twice, first in an episode of shocking violence, and shortly thereafter as an actual downpour during which the tension is finally released. The plot concerns Peter Willems (Trevor Howard), a fraudulent company clerk in Makassar who loses his job and is taken by his old acquaintance captain Lingard (Ralph Richardson) to a trading outpost somewhere on the coast of Batam. There Willems is to support Lingard's manager Almeyer (Robert Morley). He quickly begins to succumb to the languor of the climate and the charm of Aissa (Karima), the daughter of the local chieftain. I have never watched any other film that shows as compellingly as 'Outcast of the Islands' how a person can completely go to pieces, losing not only their moral compass but also any vestiges of the esteem of others and self respect. It is entirely fitting that in the end, Lingard refuses to shoot Willems, preferring to leave his former friend to the hell he has created for himself and Aissa. Acting is good (excellent in the case of Howard), and the film has been beautifully shot in black and white (presumably colour would have been available, but black and white was a good decision). 'Outcast' is not an easy film to watch, which perhaps accounts for the fact that it is relatively little-known today, but it is still highly recommendable.

A small settlement in wintery Wyoming, riven by the conflict between a rancher and the newly arrived farmers, is occupied by a troop of outlaws who threaten to wreak havoc if not kept happy. 'Day of the Outlaw' is an all in all quite well-made B-western that offers a lot of suspense and very good acting from actors most of which are relatively little known. It has also been beautifully filmed: Black and white suits the wintry landscapes just as well as the bleak and somewhat claustrophibic interiors where most of the action takes place. The central weakness of the film that kept me from rating it higher than 7 stars is the plot. The film takes what seems an eternity (actually about 20 minutes) to set the scene for the conflict between the rancher Blaise Starrett (excellently played by Robert Ryan) and the farmers, who are led by Hal Crane (Alan Marshal). Crane buys that periennial symbol of this kind of 'war' (barbed wire), Starrat has his forman buy petroleum to burn the wagon where the wire is being stored. Then there is the back story of Starrat's unrequited love for Crane's wife Helen (Tina Louise). All this material for conflict and suspense is discarded without compunction when the outlaws arrive. The film changes tack and never returns to its original theme. From now on, the only issues are how the keep the outlaws from ripping apart the settlement, and eventually how to get rid of them. Strange. But as I said, in all other respects 'Day of the Outlaw' is very good and eminently watchable.

'Die englische Heirat' straddles the line between comedy and drama, and does so very well. Renate Müller plays Gerte Winter, an amazingly emancipated mechanic and driving instructor who has built her own car (a machine that looks more like a rocket on wheels) out of parts cannibalised from older models. She falls for her English student driver Douglas Mavis (Georg Alexander) and accepts his proposal. The problem is his snobby grandmother lady Mavis (Adele Sandrock) back in Britain, who has other plans for her grandson. When Douglas (whom the others call something sounding like 'Döck') proves too much of a coward to tell the old lady of his marriage, complications ensue. Acting is good, with Müller, Sandrock and Anton Walbrook, who plays the family lawyer of the Mavisses, standing out. The plot offers a few interesting turns and funny moments and moves fast - there are no dull moments whatever. 'Die englische Heirat' was of course filmed in Nazi-Germany, but the regime is nowhere in evidence. In fact, Gerte's role as a female mechanic could be read as implicit criticism of the Nazi-government, which had just enacted a law that penalised female participation in the labour market (the aim was freeing up jobs for men and reducing unemployment, with women who lost their work because of this law being expected not to register as unemployed). To some extent, the film does make fun of the British aristocracy, though the Mavis household will remind you a bit of Downton Abbey. All in all it is good, harmless entertainment, very watchable even after almost nine decades.

Viktor und Viktoria is a witty musical comedy of errors: The core idea is that a girl plays a man who plays a girl. Aspiring actress Susanne Lohr (Renate Müller) meets out of work actor Viktor Hempel (Hermann Thimig) while queueing at an agency. Viktor initially boasts about his success on stage, but Susanne pretty quickly sees through him, and from then on they develop a more honest friendship. When Viktor develops a sore throat and can't do his drag act at a vaudeville, Susanne steps in and becomes a huge, international sucess. Complications ensue... 'Viktor und Viktoria' is perfectly charming. It gives us a glimpse of how German cinema might have developed if it had not been taken over by the Nazis - a process that began in the year when this film came out. No wonder it proved influential over decades, inspiring several remakes (none of which I have had a chance to see so far). The plot is fast paced and the gender bending issue is handled with a lot of charm. Dialogues are mostly sung; amazingly, this sounds perfectly natural after a few minutes. Acting is excellent; Müller and Thimig have great comic timing. So have the other actors, of whom Adolf Wohlbrück deserves special praise (he changed his name to Anton Walbrook a little later and emigrated to Britain, where he had a great career). Still, for me the discovery of this film was Renate Müller, whom I had not seen or heard of before. She is simply fantastic as 'Mr Viktoria'. I read up on her and found that while the Nazis courted her for her looks, she refused to seperate from her Jewish boyfriend and to appear in propaganda films. In 1937, she died under suspicious circumstances, falling from an upper floor window soon after the Gestapo had entered the building. I don't know why she did not leave the country like Walbrook did - perhaps she did not trust her English, perhaps she had family in Germany. If she had emigrated, I am sure today she would be as well-known as Marlene Dietrich.

Germany has produced its fair share of westerns, most of which appeared in the 1960s based on the books of the popular late-19th-century author Karl May. Compared to that kind of stuff, 'Der Kaiser von Kalifornien' is pure gold. It is of course a Nazi film. There is a clear, if relatively subtle element of propaganda: Every positive character is a German (the main protagonist Johann August Suter (Luis Trenker), who really was Swiss, appears as a German, too), whereas every negative one is an American. Moreover, the rule of law in the US is presented as a sham. There is also an (admittedly relatively unobtrusive) element of racism, which is directed not against the Indians appearing in the film but against blacks and Chinese. Leaving these issues aside, 'Der Kaiser' is excellent. Photography - strongly influenced by German expressionism - is far ahead of that of American 1930s westerns. Watch out for the dream-like sequences where Suter is shown the world and the future by the strange, ghostly character he meets at the beginning and the end, or for how the scenes in the prairy and the desert have been filmed (on location, by the way). The mass scenes are impressive. Indians are shown in a positive light. The acting is good, and the plot is exciting (it does of course deviate from what really happened, but Hollywood mythologized the past no less). All in all, 'Der Kaiser von Kalifornien' easily holds its ground next to other westerns of the period. I was impressed.

"Der Kongreß tanzt" is hugely entertaining despite its weak plot and mostly non-descript acting. That is mainly due to the lavish sets and the score. But let's begin with the beginning. The plot concerns Viennese glove maker Christel (Lilian Harvey), who meets Czar Alexander I (Willy Fritsch) on occasion of the Congress of Vienna in 1814/15. Christel and Alexander fall in love, and complications ensue (in part because the czar has brought a double, also played by Fritsch) that end only with Napoleon's return from Elba. All this is closely followed by the Austrian chancellor Metternich (Conrad Veidt), who is busy turning the country into a police- and surveillance-state and intends to distract the czar from taking an active role in the congress. Harvey is charming; Fritsch has nothing more to do than look good, and Veidt does well as scheming politician. The sets and costumes are stunning (imagine this in technicolor!), allowing German audiences in 1931 to indulge in their passion for uniforms and the monarchy. But as mentioned above, what makes this film special is the music. There are some tunes that are so catchy that they are popular to this day: I never realised that 'Das gibt's nur einmal' was from this film before watching it last night. The whole scene, where Christel sings this song while riding the carriage out of Vienna into the countryside is utterly enchanting. To summarise: In part this film is obviously fluff intended to distract the viewers from the Great Depression. However, as such, its quality is outstanding. 'Der Kongreß tanzt' works brilliantly.

'Clive of India' follows the career of Robert Clive (Ronald Colman) from East India Company clerc to military leader and Westminster politician; his wife Margaret (played by Loretta Young) has very little to do except being the patient, faithful and child bearing woman at his side. The sets and costumes are fine - in part even lavish - and the acting is mostly alright. What mars the picture are the poor script, the awkward dialogues and even more the uneven pacing. The structure is episodic: we get a glimpse of what Clive did here and what Margaret or someone else said there, but these scenes do not follow each other like in a coherent story. Rather, the film uses either title cards (a lot of them) to explain what went on in between, or forces Colman to make pompous statements that serve the same purpose. The result is a picture that fails to stir much interest in either its plot or in its characters. You sit through it and somehow it feels like a relief when you have reached the end.

There are several reasons why 'Ladies They Talk About' does not work. For one thing, the romance or whatever it is that links the female and the male leads (Barbara Stanwyck and Preston Foster) is beyond weird. She violently dislikes him, shoots him, and a moment later accepts his marriage proposal? Seriously? What is that supposed to be about? Then, there is not a single character in the film about which the audience can care. Nan Taylor (Stanwyck) is a scheming criminal with a violent streak and David Slade (Foster) is a preachy, self-righteous wimp (the sole exception is perhaps Lillian Roth, who looks and sounds fun). Finally, I found the way the film uses racism to generate laughs really irritating. There are a few coloured actors and actresses in 'Ladies They Talk About', who are regularly made fun of and put in their place: even in jail, their proper role is that of servants. Of course it is common to see black actors in servant-roles in 1930s films, but it is less common to see them in roles where they are humiliated for fun. 'Ladies They Talk About' is of course a competently made film. The plot moves fast, and Stanwyck's acting is good. Still, all in all I found watching it irritating.

Hitler liked to gaze into the mirror of the past and see himself reflected in the guise of Frederick II of Prussia. This reflection is nowhere clearer than in Veit Harlan's 'Der große König'. Purportedly, the film sticks closely to actual history, but in fact it is a propaganda piece that distorts the past at every turn of the way. The aim was preparing the German population for a long and desperate war without allies, which is why for example the British contribution to the Prussian war effort of 1756-63 is not mentioned (in fact, about one-third of the Prussian costs of the Seven Years War war were borne by Britain. Another third was covered by debasing the coinage, and the rest by squeezing the Prussian population and looting occupied territories such as electoral Saxony). One relatively subtle piece of propaganda is provided by Kristina Söderbaum, who plays the daughter of a miller. She is initially heavily critical of the war and its leader but develops into a proper, good, German 'soldier's wife'. The way the film uses every chance to allow its main character Frederick II (Otto Gebühr) to engage in lengthy propaganda tirades is less subtle. In this context, I found one thing particularly striking: At one point, Frederick is faced with the political and military criticism of his brother prince Henry (Claus Clausen). He throws a tantrum that vividly reminded me of Bruno Ganz's famous tantrum in Hirschbiegel's 'Der Untergang' (2004). My first idea was that Ganz must have modelled his performance on Gebühr's in 'Der große König', but the link may be less direct. After all, Hitler was a passionate admirer of Harlan's film. It is entirely possible that he modelled his performance in the bunker under Berlin on Gebühr's, acting out his fantasy of being a reincarnation of Frederick II. Technically, 'Der große König' is a well-made film. The plot moves fast and is engaging enough, and the acting is good. There are some impressive mass scenes, and the photography in general is excellent. I am of course prepared to recognise all this, which is why I am rating the film - a disgusting piece of Nazi junk, after all - 6 stars.

Director Johannes Meyer and writer Walter von Molo draw a portrait of Frederick II that is equally ahistorical and kitschy. The film shows an episode from the Seven Years War (1756-63) where the Prussian army is at the end of its tether. But of course, King Frederick (Otto Gebühr) saves the day: He finds a way out of the encirclement by the Austrians, and he has the guts to send his 'Kerls' into one last desperate battle that they win. Frederick is not only a military genius but is simply overflowing with love: He loves his sister 'Mine' (Hilde Körber), he loves his peasants, and he also loves his soldiers (his 'children', as he calls them at one point). That is about as far removed from the actual person (the bitter, misanthropic cynic who Frederick II had become by the end of the 1750s) as can be imagined. Acting is good. Gebühr looks the part and does what can be done withe the material given him. Bernhard Minetti (as count Wallis) is impressive. The plot is clunky and unevenly paced. Sets and costumes are fine, and there are even some open air shots. One scene surprised me: Having visited a village that the enemy has looted and burned down, the king orders a lieutenant to take a platoon of soldiers and retaliate by looting the manor house of an Austrian sympathiser. The lieutenant refuses to obey this order, telling the king that he enlisted as a Prussian soldier and not as a murdering marauder. Frederick immediately makes him a captain. I wonder how this bit - evidence of von Molo's liberal leanings - got past the censors: The Wehrmacht did not normally encourage independent thinking and would of course go on to commit far worse atrocities than those shown in 'Fridericus'. In any case, the scene is one of the few redeeming features of what otherwise is a pretty mediocre picture.

I am fully prepared to acknowledge that 'Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari' is a masterpiece of expressionist cinema. The sets are true works of art and the lighting is great. However, does the film deliver as entertainment? I am afraid it does not. Let's face it: Watching 'Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari' may occasionally be visually satisfying, but on the whole it is boring. Plain boring. The plot takes a while to set up the problem (murders in the town of Holstenwall), but once it has done so it is immediately obvious who the murderer is and how the crimes have been committed. Neither does the way the murder mystery is being solved offer any interest or suspense. For that, you would need to be able to see things from the point of view of one of the characters, but neither Jane (Lil Dagover) nor Franzis (Friedrich Feher) or Alan (Hans Heinrich von Twardowski) are ever properly introduced as individuals. Mind you, I am not comparing the film with modern thrillers. I am comparing it with other films made at roughly the same time. 'Nosferatu' (1922) is a good example: it is visually stunning, well-acted, suspenseful and scary. 'Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari' is none of this. I for one was disappointed.

This classic 'Quo Vadis' production is immensely entertaining and enjoyable almost throughout. I am saying 'almost' because the film does have a few weak points. There is the Christian theme that is of course central to Sienkiewicz's novel and that is here treated in a way that borders on bigotry. At the very least it is kitschy. Then there is a couple of glaring historical inaccuracies, especially with regard to Roman culture in general and religion in particular. Also, the topography of Rome as shown in the film in no way matches the actual layout of the Palatine and the Forum. But whatever. All this is outweighed by Peter Ustinov's fantastic, unsurpassed, and killingly funny performance as Nero. Ustinov is the high point of 'Quo Vadis'. He steals the film, effortlessly dominating every single scene in which he appears. Leo Genn as Petronius is almost equally good, though unfortunately he does have fewer scenes. Watching these two makes you imagine that the real Nero and the real Petronius did behave in this way. The other actors are doing much less well. Deborah Kerr as Lygia is fine, but Robert Taylor is no more than alright. Costumes and sets are lavish, the plot is fast paced and the finale is stunning (despite the liberties the film takes with Nero's death). I have recently watched a couple of more modern films set in ancient Rome ('Pompeii' 2014, and 'The Eagle' 2011). Regarding entertainment value, 'Quo Vadis' beats that kind of stuff. Easily.

'Pompeii' contains more clichés than I can list and worse acting than I can describe. On top of that, it is stuffed to the brim with cringeworthy historical absurdities. The romance is unconvincing, the villain is a cardboard character, the dialogues are banal and the plot is designed to appeal to people who find non-stop violence attractive. No wonder the film deviates widely from the classical Bulwer-Lytton story by focussing almost exclusively on gladiators and their combats. Are there any upsides? I liked some of the CGI reconstructions of the town, though in my memory the actual arena is much smaller than the one in the film, which looks almost as large as the Coliseum in Rome. And Kit Harrington brings the same kind of brooding charm to his role as he does in 'Game of Thrones'. Despite this, 'Pompeii' is a clear candidate for my 'Horrible Histories' list of films. If you want to watch something decent that covers the topic, I recommend the excellent TV miniseries 'The Last Days of Pompeii' directed in 1984 by Peter R. Hunt.

Ok, so I know this film was designed to distract German audiences from the impending defeat in WWII - escapist propaganda kitsch, no less, as Göring realised at an early screening in Hitler's headquarters. And I know that Heinz Rühmann (who plays the lead role) was a slimy opportunist who led a cushy life under the Nazis. Decent German actors left the country once Hitler took over in 1933 (Marlene Dietrich did, for example, which is why people spat at her in the streets when she returned to post-war Germany). But what the hell, this film works. It works at all levels. The comic timing - Rühmann's as well as that of the other actors - is impeccable; the acting in general is very good, the plot moves quickly, and the gags follow each other nicely. Moreover, there is a sentimental undercurrent, which I can't remember having noticed in contemporary British or American comedies but which goes down very well in Germany. It does so to this day: 'Die Feuerzangenbowle' is a cult movie, especially among students. In short, it is a very good film, up there with the three or four best German comedies ever. Recommended viewing!