Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Steffi_P Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.

Snow Leopard This second half of Fritz Lang's epic filming of the Nibelungen Saga has many of the same strengths as the first, with memorable characters and interesting, atmospheric settings. This part of the story continues with many of the same characters, but the story itself is of a much different nature. There is less complexity but more action, with the entire focus being on Kriemhild and her inflexible desire for revenge. This part of the story does not have such interesting relationships amongst the characters as did the first part, but instead provides first and foremost an unforgettable portrait of the obsessed Kriemhild.She, Gunther, and Hagen are now thoroughly defined characters who have chosen where they stand, and so there is not the kind of dramatic uncertainty and tension that the first part held. Instead, there is a more straightforward battle of wills, but with an added wild card in the person of Attila, portrayed memorably and with great energy by Rudolf Klein-Rogge. Attila and the Huns are depicted in a way that most likely has little basis in history, but it is certainly interesting to see the bizarre fashion in which the Huns and their world are portrayed. As events unfold, the developments are not always fully plausible, but the stakes and the pressure on each side steadily rise, building to an intense climax.What you remember most after the film is over is the remorseless, implacable Kriemhild. With her costume obscuring almost everything else, Margarete Schön portrays the depth of Kriemhild's emotions and determination using only her face and, especially, her eyes. It is about as memorable a portrait as you will find in cinema of the madness and destructive fury of revenge. While "Kriemhild's Revenge", as a whole, does not have the thematic depth of "Siegfried", it succeeds in establishing this central image in a manner not easily forgotten.

zetes In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.

David Atfield Like grand opera, this film and its predecessor, "Siegfried", are a little too slow in pace, but the visual treats are unforgettable. It is best to see the two films together, but the sequel is not as good, mainly because there is not very much story left. Most of the time it's just Kriemhild wandering around looking vengeful, but Margarethe Schoen does it so well! The performance of Rudolph Klein-Rogge as Attila the Hun is wildly energetic - he is magnificent. But you can't help thinking why don't they just kill Hagen Tronje and get on with life, especially after he murders the baby. Something to do with Teutonic loyalty apparently.But who can forget the rabbit-warren Hun village, and all those grubby Huns running about. Of course the film is racist as the Teutons somehow survive against overwhelming numbers of Huns - no wonder Hitler liked this film. "Siegfried" was very fascist too, with the glorious Aryan impregnable and very gorgeous (thanks to Paul Richter). But "Kriemhild's Revenge" lacks the wonderful fantasy sequences of "Siegfried" like the dwarves kingdom and especially that superb dragon fight - but at least here Kriemhild herself gets some balls - she seemed so stupid in "Siegfried".