Der Totmacher

Basically that film is just about one long dialogue between the killer and his psychiatrist in a german prison (or psychiatric clinic?) in the 1920s or 1930s that spans over some days before the killer's death penalty. The other actors barely speak a word in this movie. That sounds rather dull but the compelling performance of the two main actors made me sit through the whole film. On the other hand, if you don't like dialogue movies the avoid. There's no action at all, only language and expressions... I'd give it a 7 out of 10..

this film can be enjoyed, but it's nothing too special. much-praised acting is no better nor worse than one would expect from professional performers. as for direction, maybe i missed it... there didn't seem to be any at all. this is by no means a film to be watched in the cinema. on tv, on a snowy winter evening, okay. better still, watch it performed onstage in a small, intimate theatre, where it belongs... the dearth of good german movies is highlighted by the fact that this very unexceptional effort garnered so much attention and praise in that country, which produces so much, but so little of note. keen to see "manila," though what i've heard thus far is anything but encouraging...

Would a different translation have made it chillier or scarier? Are the subtitles too compact to convey the nuances of the original language? Does it even matter? You may have heard that great actors can make reading a phone book exciting. Well, this is an opportunity to judge for yourself.

If this isn't about homosexuality, murder, dismemberment, psychopaths, insanity, deviant psychology, then it is about acting - acting helped along with lots of dialog, So, enjoy the acting or muse about how titillating the dialog actually is.

For English speakers, "Twelve Angry Men" might be a better choice. There's a bit more interaction, and you can judge if the acting is consistent with the dialog. You don't have to wonder if you're missing something.

I would recommend Andy Warhol's "Empire" to those who like this film.

IF you want to know how Fritz Haarmann was thinking George as Fritz Haarmann is just amazing ... he plays his role absolutely amazing ! IF you are interested in this subject (Fritz Haarmann and his crimes) you need to watch this movie. Very much adapted to the interviews with Fritz Haarmann in the 1920ies. Disturbing ... of course .. but if you want to understand his mental understanding you need to watch this movie or read one of those interview books. Götz George manages to play this role without doubt ... Please watch it if you hace the possibility ... Great movie (more documentary like) ... Not to be missed !

If you're interested in real-life-crime films, then this film is a pure recommendation. However, keep in mind, this film is structured more like a chamber-play, carried by two actors: Götz George as child-murderer and cannibal Fritz Haarmann and Jürgen Hentsch as police-psychologist Prof. Dr. Ernst Schultze, who tries to peek into the mind of a monster in human-shape.

Don't expect intricate psycho-games like in "Silence of the Lambs". Don't expect any action; 99.9 percent of the scenes take place in one room alone. And if you're looking for gory murder, move on; there are none. However, when Haarmann talks about his crimes as casually as a butcher would about preparing cattle for consumption, I can guarantee you that you'll be grateful that those scenes are "only" in your head.

Some people have pointed out that George would have deserved an Oscar for his performance and I couldn't agree more. George had been best known as TV-policeman Schimanski, probably the most iconic character from the whole "Tatort"-Series. But as is often with such cases, George had grown sick of been typecast and wanted to break the mold. With "Der Totmacher" (and around the same time with the TV-Thriller "Der Sandmann") he managed to do just that and establish himself among the great actors of his generation.

Within seconds the memory of Schimanksi, the tough street-cop with a heart of gold, is forgotten and there is only Fritz Haarmann: A seemingly harmless figure, at times even timid and child-like, intellectually and mentally retarded, plagued by a bad childhood and at times unable to understand what's going on around him. But since the story is based on the original files, we know that this is a cunning psychopath, convicted of the murder of 24 boys (there may have been more), whom he killed often by biting their throats and turning their flesh into sausage, often offering his neighbors some of his "home-cooking". As Haarmann and Schultze grown more comfortable (for the lack of a better word) with each other, there always looms the question of how much Haarmann actually plays the fool (Haarmann had worked as a snitch for the police prior to his arrest and was often described as by no means as simple as he presented himself during interrogation).

Jürgen Hentschs performance is no less impressive. He plays the sober, proficient psychologist, who tries to maintain the necessary professional distance from his "subject", but being only human, cannot always conceal his emotions and personal opinions about this monster he has to work with. These range from suspicions to disgust and at times, even pity and sympathy. In other words: Hentsch is almost a catalyst for what the viewers will feel.

I often wondered: Had some director attempted a similar cinematic "experiment" with the Thomas Harris figure Hannibal Lecter, would it have been accomplished or interesting as "The Totmacher"? Probably not. "The Totmacher" shows that reality often is much more horrific than anything an author can come up with and that it is very possible to create something great with only two human beings and a room. However, like me and many other critics have stated: you have to bring along a little patience and an interest in the subjects rather than the action.

8/10