CKDexter-4

The movie of Edel and Eichinger is fine when it comes to sets and costumes. It seems to catch the mood of the late Sixties and Seventies very well. Also the lead actors Bleibtreu, Wokalek and Gedeck have delivered outstanding performances. Too bad, that they don't get a chance to really explore their characters: Too much else is going on in this movie, that completely loses its focus during the last hour. The closer we get to the end, the more it resembles a documentary with a few scenes of play cut in now and then.

The viewer is presented with a lot of facts - and violence - but the movie fails in decoding the often cited "myth" of the RAF. For example, I've always wondered, whether Baader was just a criminal or really politically motivated. Well, in the first half of the movie, Baader is portrayed as an outlaw, who enjoys provocation and fast cars. Later he delivers sophisticated political statements. A good movie should at least try to explain this development. DER BAADER MEINHOF KOMPLEX doesn't.

It's true, Kirk Douglas' Spartacus is one of the strongest and most convincing heroes in movie history (maybe second only to his performance in PATHS TO GLORY, also directed by Stanley Kubrick).

Still, there are two characters stealing the show: Peter Ustinov's slave dealer and especially Charles Laughton's Gracchus. Their scenes together are a rare gem. Never have serenity and tragedy been blended so perfectly. What a fine actor Laughton was!

P.S.: Don't you ever compare this one with the dreadful GLADIATOR. It's an insult. In GLADIATOR the focus is on endless and cruel fight sequences. In SPARTACUS, in spite of 10,500 extras, the focus is on the actors.

THE UNTOUCHABLES is an enjoyable movie and I rated it 7/10. Although it lacks character development, it includes enough suspense to keep you involved for nearly two hours. I particularly admired the sequence in the railway station. But there is one thing I cannot understand: It's the fuss everybody makes about the performance of Sean Connery. One former comment stated that Robert de Niro didn't play the role of Al Capone but the role of Robert de Niro. I think de Niro did the best out of the few and short scenes which the script provided for him. But Connery? I would say that Connery played Connery. Or even worse: He played James Bond, disguised as a Chicago cop. Once again the script is to blame: It doesn't give us the slightest hint, why an ordinary cop, who is doing street patrols, should suddenly become the leader of a "gang", which challenges the all-mighty villain Al Capone and his unscrupulous hitmen. Connery's character must be one man with an interesting past, but we don't get any information about it.