Invincible

Rating:
Summary: Allegorical Story of One Strong, Kind-Hearted Guy in 1932
Review: "Invincible" is directed by German director Werner Herzog, who is known for his very unique films like "Aguirre" and "Fitzcarrald" all visually stunning, but not for everybody's taste (some say too slow-moving). Here he comes back with a strongly allegorical tale loosely based on truth about Hanussen and Zishe Breitbart in the time before the Nazi and WW2.

In 1932, Poland. During this unstable time, there was a gentle-hearted Jewish blacksmith named Zishe, who is living with his smart young brother and family. Having a big body and incredible strength, he is invited by a travelling agent to come to Berlin to work there. He agrees, and leaves the family to meet Hanussen. self-appointed master of clairvoyance and prophet of the time. Hanussen likes Zishe's physical appearance, so hiding his identy, Hanussen dresses him up as hero Siegfried, showing him on stage before the Nazi troopers. During this unhappy period, he meets a pianist girl named Marta "employed" by Hanussen, and finds his only comfort in her.

The story, if written down like this, might sound trite and banal, but the reality is different. Herzog presents the story like a Greek myth, underlining its allegorical meanings found in the life of Zishe, whom you might find one biblical figure. As he undergoes joy and agory, he realizes what he has to do for his people back in Poland, but the tragic events are, as we know, soon to come. Though the film refuses to show the plights of Jewish people inflicted by Hitler, we sense it is coming there, and Herzog's sometimes bizarre but striking images -- see red crabs, lots of them -- are very effective in reminding us that.

As to Hanussen, played by Tim Roth, he also successfully shows the fragile and tragic aspects of humans under the mask of greedy entrepreneur. The relation beteen him and Zishe is strangely attractive, both having nothing in common except one (that will be revealed at the end). But keep this in mind; he plays rather a suporting role, not the protagonist.

Not everything is perfect, I must say. It is obvious that Jouko Ahola as Zishe and Anna Gourari as Marta are both amateurs as far as acting is concerned. Ahola is really the "strongest man" and won the contest, and Gourari is also really a concert pianist. For the director like Herzog, it is only natural that he cast the real strong man and real pianist into the roles of the strong man and the pianist. But before the professional like Tim Roth, the contrast is too much to ignore. You cannot say this, but you might really miss Klaus Kinski here.

But I was curiously involved in the story, which is not told in a sophisticated fahion, but still always remains strong. And there is an impressive cameo of character actor Udo Kier as Count Helldorf, which is too deghtful to watch.

About Hanussen and Zishe, this film is, I think, Herzog's own version, so you might try to find some books on these interesting people (I actually know another version of story, which tells that they are not partners, but rivals.) And acclaimed Hungarian director Istvan Szabo once made a film about Hanussen (the title, "Hanussen"). If you're interested in this historical person, try to find that one.

Rating:
Summary: Werner Herzog's Ecstatic Truth
Review: 'Invincible' is an unbelievably powerful film. After an eleven year absence from feature films 'Invincible' proves that Werner Herzog is the greatest living film-maker. Although far from being his best film ('The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser' and 'Aguirre the Wrath of God' are his greatest films) this film has an amazing power and is reminiscent of 'The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser'. Jouko Ahola's performance as Zische Breitbart is the most innocent portrayal I've ever seen given by an actor. The final scene in this film had me crying uncontrollably. This is the second best film of 2002 behind Polanski's 'The Pianist'.

Rating:
Summary: The state of cinema today
Review: Compared to the standard fare in American (or any English language) cinema, this is superlative; however, for those who are looking for a valedictory work or magnum opus from Werner Herzog after so many years between feature films, this is not it. While there are a few flickers of the old fire, this comes very close to being a Hollywood movie. This, I suppose, punctuates the difference between the art of cinema of the 1970s when I first became familiar with Herzog's work and the film industry today.

Rating:
Summary: The Return of Herzog
Review: Herzog's return has definitely made me realize how desperate I am to see a movie by a director whose main focus is to explore in films rather than simply entertain an audience. I don't think criticizing the "slowness" of the movie makes any sense, because anyone who's seen Herzog movies knows he doesn't nervously speed through his films, and personally, this is what I admire about him. Patience is something that a film can help us regain, or at least remind us that it is still possible today to be patient. If there is something to criticize, it is the dialogue in certain scenes, which the actors had trouble bringing to life (not Tim Roth). Some of the lines were a shade too sentimental and simple. To be honest, the beginning of the movie was a bit cliche-strong, but by this I mean the first thirty minutes or so. Eventually though, the imagery of the film , and the greater allegory (which wasn't calculated allegory) of Nazi Germany, make up for these minor flaws. The dream sequences are amazing, as well as the set of the clairvoyant, equipped with a tank of jellyfish. I hope that there will be more from this genuine filmmaker in the future, and soon. It is one thing to be patient while watching a movie, and another while waiting for the arrival of another film by a master. It seems patience in the latter case, today, among so many cinematic failures, is almost impossible.

Rating:
Summary: Questions of identity and assimilation in Herzog's near-miss
Review: I saw Werner Herzog's would-be comeback movie in it's English-language version, although it actually appears to have been shot in English as per most of the bigger budget European films. The film found little favor either with critics or at the box-office, but it still has much to commend it.

Although a significant supporting character rather than the titular lead, it's a far more accurate portrait of famed German psychic-showman-conman Erik Jan Hanussen, the 'prophet' of the Nazi Party, than Istvan Szabo's Hanussen which, like Colonel Redl, took ample liberties with the facts to make dramatic capitol albeit with less success. Herzog's film has it's historical failings to - in truth Hanussen's downfall was linked to his prediction of the Reichstag Fire and the large number of IOUs senior he collected from senior Nazi Party members, including Goebbels and Himmler. But by linking his fate to that of the Jewish strongman he promotes as the Aryan Siegfried (in real life the two men were professional rivals), Herzog does offer a convincing portrait of the dilemma facing Jews in the early days of Nazi Germany: do you hide and assimilate to earn their approval or do you assert your identity all the stronger?

For Hanussen, the answer is to latch onto the rising star of the Nazi Party in the hope that money and power can insulate him (and in truth he was Hitler's personal clairvoyant and, shortly before exposed as a Jew by the communist press, in line to head the Nazi Ministry of the Occult: Hanussen privately wrote that he thought Nazi anti-Semitism was mere electioneering and that Hitler could be swayed by 'good Jews'). Ultimately he fails because underestimates the savagery and severity of the baser instincts he taps into. For the innocent strongman Zishe Breitbart, things are not so simple. As he awakens to the danger and rebels, he finds himself unable to rouse his people and is ultimately brought down by little more than a scratch. Both find themselves unable to control events, merely to predict the inevitable outcome of the terrible movement of history that will allow neither assimilation nor resistance.

It's great raw material, but it's never quite there. As a film it's intriguing and Hanussen's stage act is compellingly recreated through Tim Roth's unsympathetic playing (unlike Brandauer and Szabo's version, this Hanussen is ultimately a cruel victim of his own hubris and self-deception), but Jouko Ahola is not a strong enough pair of acting shoulders as Zishe - he may be able to carry an elephant, but he can't carry the movie. His performance isn't especially bad and it's probably an accurate reflection of the real man, but there's a lack of star quality that enables Roth to walk away with the film and for his absence in the last quarter to add not just an air of futility but of 'Where do we go from here?' padding to it.

Some of the early Shtetl scenes are a little awkwardly paced, the fledgling romance doesn't really work and the script is over-reliant on the audience bringing pre-existing knowledge about the characters to the film (for example, it is never explained that Udo Kier's Count Helldorf was the infamously corrupt and perverted head of the Berlin SA who ultimately murdered Hanussen) so a non-German or less-informed audience will definitely get less out of the film. There's also a lack of context - we see very little of what is happening on the streets with much of the action confined to Hanussen's lavishly recreated Palace of the Occult. But despite it's shortfalls, it's still an intriguing film that, while it never engages the emotions, has more than enough compensations to make it well worth catching.

Rating:
Summary: Great story and Script, but the acting ?????
Review: I was a bit confused at the start of this film when I thought I detected what sounded a bit like a Swedish accent by a Jew living in a Polish schtetle who was being idealistically lectured by a suspiciously non grizzly looking blond hair little boy with a bit of a Brittish accent. - - Though the story is great, throughout the film its apparent that Herzog may have gotten a bit carried away with his genius as a director as if almost to say, "I'm such a great director, I could take anybody and make them look like great actors... !" - - uhhhhhh, not so. - - Likewise, maybe he thought that by having real people, the film would have a more realistic feel ? - - Though Tim Roth gives an OUTSTANDING performance (the evil of his charactor gushes through) and a few other actors as well, one begins to wonder through the film "What's going on here ?" - - Keep in mind, I saw the film without realizing it was a Herzog film, so I was wondering if maybe it was a good film but a director who... well, just wasn't quite there yet, but still, had a good story to tell. - - Still, scenes that should have been climatic (The Jewish Samson announcing before a room of Nazis that he was indeed a Jew) and others, turned out to be... drab, whereas others (virtually any scene that Roth appeared in) were full of passion and energy in comparison. - - The end result, I felt the true significance of Zeisha's charactor was lost... If you read his actual biography, you find out that he became a mythical folk hero to the Jews of Europe... he wasn't just an unintentional symbol, but called himself the Jewish Samson and lectured avidely on behalf of the then budding Zionist movement. In contrast, his charactor in the film doesn't seem to be the shapest knife in the drawer. - - In the film, though a hero to the Jews of Germany, when he returns to the Schtetles (where the real Zisha was a true folk hero) he's made into a virtual laughing stock with his predictions as to the rise of Nazism. (*And is it just me, or do some of those beards look rather fake...?) - - Not to spoil the end of the film if you haven't seen it, I'll only say that the real Zeisha died in 1925 from blood poisining as a result of an injury from a stage stunt.

All in all... great story... Werner Herzog, despite being a great film director might have done better to hire professionals... because virtually every element of the film BUT the acting reflects his greatness... unfortunately wouldn't one expect a director of Herzog's callibre to realize that acting... ummmm... does count...

Rating:
Summary: Great story and Script, but the acting ?????
Review: I was a bit confused at the start of this film when I thought I detected what sounded a bit like a Swedish accent by a Jew living in a Polish schtetle who was being idealistically lectured by a suspiciously non grizzly looking blond hair little boy with a bit of a Brittish accent. - - Though the story is great, throughout the film its apparent that Herzog may have gotten a bit carried away with his genius as a director as if almost to say, "I'm such a great director, I could take anybody and make them look like great actors... !" - - uhhhhhh, not so. - - Likewise, maybe he thought that by having real people, the film would have a more realistic feel ? - - Though Tim Roth gives an OUTSTANDING performance (the evil of his charactor gushes through) and a few other actors as well, one begins to wonder through the film "What's going on here ?" - - Keep in mind, I saw the film without realizing it was a Herzog film, so I was wondering if maybe it was a good film but a director who... well, just wasn't quite there yet, but still, had a good story to tell. - - Still, scenes that should have been climatic (The Jewish Samson announcing before a room of Nazis that he was indeed a Jew) and others, turned out to be... drab, whereas others (virtually any scene that Roth appeared in) were full of passion and energy in comparison. - - The end result, I felt the true significance of Zeisha's charactor was lost... If you read his actual biography, you find out that he became a mythical folk hero to the Jews of Europe... he wasn't just an unintentional symbol, but called himself the Jewish Samson and lectured avidely on behalf of the then budding Zionist movement. In contrast, his charactor in the film doesn't seem to be the shapest knife in the drawer. - - In the film, though a hero to the Jews of Germany, when he returns to the Schtetles (where the real Zisha was a true folk hero) he's made into a virtual laughing stock with his predictions as to the rise of Nazism. (*And is it just me, or do some of those beards look rather fake...?) - - Not to spoil the end of the film if you haven't seen it, I'll only say that the real Zeisha died in 1925 from blood poisining as a result of an injury from a stage stunt.

All in all... great story... Werner Herzog, despite being a great film director might have done better to hire professionals... because virtually every element of the film BUT the acting reflects his greatness... unfortunately wouldn't one expect a director of Herzog's callibre to realize that acting... ummmm... does count...

Rating:
Summary: poor man's Herzog
Review: i've long been a die hard Herzog's fan but i think this one is just
too commercial unlike other old good Herzogs. it looks like it is for
sale and not for in-depth views of human psyche. superficial, easy
conclusions. the big boy hero performed just fine, it's a pitty the
talented magician actor was not exploited more (Kinski used to be used
better). not bad, after all, but you have been warned.

Rating:
Summary: This is not the same Herzog...
Review: If you are an admirer of Herzog's great films (Aguirre, Heart of Glass, Nosferatu, Fitzcaraldo) I would like to caution you against this one - that is kind of a Hollywood picture (though it is pretty good for Hollywood standards). It lacks the experimentation of other Herzog films - and is shot in a very unlike Herzog way - this is the first Herzog film that really feels like a film - like it is on a set instead of in the wilderness or in a seemless period cottage. I do not think this is a bad movie - but a bad example of Herzog...

Rating:
Summary: Herzog has passion!
Review: INVINCIBLE is as important a cinematic statement as THE PIANIST or SCHINDLER'S LIST.