PodBill Just what I expected

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

TheOtherFool Instead of Triumph of the Will there's surprisingly little politics and propaganda going on in this first part of Riefenstahl's Olympia. Riefenstahl is documenting the athletics in the Olympic Stadium, and yes, Hitler is there, but that's about it. Sure, the German athletes are the best and heroic, and there's a piece in there when the commentator says something like 'the best white European runners against the black giants', but that's about it.Jesse Owens was the star of this Olympics in many ways, and Riefenstahl isn't reluctant to show his big smiles after winning yet another gold medal. Although a lot can be frowned upon in Germany in those days, 'Olympia' isn't as charged as many people believe it to be.Having said that, this first part of Olympia is basically just showing us who won the medals in the Olympic Stadium, and although some of the images are great and there's a beautiful use of slow-motion, it's not really that interesting...6/10.

bullfrog-5 I've read that this film, which portrays human beauty and athletic success, serves to justify euthanasia of the weak and infirm. If so, does not Da Vinci's David do the same?My belief is that without the historical context, there would not be a single viewer who would suggest that this is propaganda fostered to support the atrocities of the Nazi Regime. As another reviewer suggests: this is no better than an NFL highlight film.Actually, this is better than an NFL highlight film. Highlight films focus only on isolated moments of peak action. Do most of us prefer to just see the winning basket or the last touchdown? It's the game, the show, the story which gives us pleasure - not just the ending or spectacular feat.The beauty of this film and its companion lies in its crafting. The lighting, the camera angles, the sequencing, the pace - everything is blended to produce a thing of beauty. It's like the chef who creates a feast with the same ingredients we manage to render a barely palatable meal. Leni produces a feast - a beautiful feast!

gbheron I must admit I don't get it. Reviewers and commenters lavish praise on the brilliant cinematography employed by Ms. Reifenstahl in filming the 1936 Olympics. She is supposed to have poured years of her life into her two-part documentary (this film is part one). Nowadays the NFL puts out weekly and yearly highlight films, and the only difference I see is that one is black and white, the other in colour. For me this is standard documentary, and that's all. My recommendation is that if you do not consider yourself a highbrow film connoisseur or are not interested in the 1936 Olympics this movie may bore you.

bigboy-8 I first viewed this film at the Museum of Modern Art 35 years ago;I now own it and the years have only added to my astonishment of what a genius Leni is. She took film to a new and higher art form. The Nazi noise does get in the way, but the epic scope and feel of the finished product make it worth viewing. And yes, part one is far superior, but part two is certainly a work of art also. It is a masterpiece. Would that she had done more. She is a most fascinating artist.