Watch Der Schinderhannes For Free

Pretty Good

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

"Der Schinderhannes" or "Duel in the Forest" is a West German color film from 1958, so this one will have its 60th anniversary soon. The director is Helmut Käutner and writer is George Hurdalek and these two are certainly among Germany's most impactful filmmakers in the 20th century, even if the name probably won't ring familiar to many today anymore. And with the cast, it does not look too different. Curd Jürgens plays the title character and Maria Schell is the female co-lead, his love interest for the entire film. The movie is pretty long for back then, comes close to two hours and shows us the fate of the Schinderhannes Johann Bückler, who really existed. The one main problem I had with this film was that the main character is known today mostly for his crimes being one of the most successful criminals in German history and looking at how little we know about when he lived, his reputation today is even more impressive. But in this film, almost half of the action is romance-themed. Of course, Maria Schell was a huge star back then and they obviously wanted to give her as much screen time as possible, but it's not good if it goes to the expense of realism that they otherwise included nicely, for example with the people helping the Schinderhannes and belonging to his gang or with the protagonist's change in mind that he gets tired of being a criminal near the end or with the ending itself of course. It also is not a problem that Jürgens is about twice the age of the Schinderhannes (at the time of his death) in this movie. I think both lead actors do a good job, but I just wish they could have toned it down a bit on the romance. That's why overall I give this movie a thumbs down, it should have run for 95 minutes max only and then it also would not have dragged too much on some occasions. Still it's not a failure, but also not good enough so that I would recommend it.

Critics and fellow reviewers have said it very clear and precise: the story drags on a little, the landscape is splendid but the mass-scene almost appear as if this was produced for TV, Maria Schell is a little too innocent-looking to be taken serious as a tough 'robber's bride' and Curd Jürgens slightly too old to portray the youthful bandit Johannes Bückler, better known as "Schinderhannes", who would have been around 25 at the time of the story.The story is simple and straight-forward, essentially a German variation of British Robin Hood and French Cartouche: Napoleon's army is occupying parts of Germany, supported by opportunistic royals, who see the occupation as another fine word to exploit the simple peasants even more. One of the sharpest opponents of both the occupiers and the royals is the bandit Johannes Bückler, who fights the French, robs the rich and shares his spoils with the poor, which soon makes the "Schinderhannes" (Bücklers Nickname, since he comes from a family of animal-skinners / renderers) a folk-hero. At first it would seem that neither army nor police has much of an edge on the cunning, clever Schinderhannes. But eventually Schinderhannes is played into the hands of his enemies through treachery and ends under the guillotine, though the surviving gang-members are able to take vengeance upon the traitors.Apart from the mentioned flaws, the film does have its merits. Said landscape-photography for one and even though he is a little too old for the role, Jürgens and his steely, defiant glare is convincing as a Robin-Hood-figure out for vengeance and justice. The rest is pretty swashbuckling routine and a romance that's not entirely convincing, but both pros Schell and Jürgens do their best. Like above mentioned variations of the "noble bandits" (Robin Hood, Cartouche, Klaus Störtebeker or Fanfan la Toulipe), one shouldn't take the story on face-value. The real Schinderhannes did not only steal from the rich, but also the poor and whether he shared his loot with anybody but his own cronies is historically doubtful. But never let history stand in the way of folklorist lore and legends. It must also be mentioned that this version of Schinderhannes has over the years been repeatedly aired on German television, so that many from my generation have grown up with the film and are usually quick to overlook the flaws.Despite all flaws, I'd give it 7/10 (technically six with an added point for nostalgic reasons).

England had Robin Hood .France had Fanfan La Tulipe.And Germany found a hero like theirs:Schinderhannes ,the big-hearted thief ,fights against the rich owners who collaborate with the occupying army,Napoleon the First's :in 1802 he 's still "Premier Consul" .Like Robin,Schinderhannes steals from the rich and gives to the poor..But unlike Robin,he will not marry Lady Marian (Julie in this movie),although,in some respects ,the final scene can be considered some kind of happy end .Cürd Jürgens and Maria Schell are reliable actors,but you'd better choose "die Ratten" instead if you want to appreciate their talent.The French Catholic Office of Cinema did not appreciate the role of the clergy ,who is part of the oppressors.

The best directors sometimes make the most boring films once in a while and Helmut Käutner contributed to this statement with this film. The film looks very well taken care of and pictorial, but these are the main attractions. The story telling is no more than dutiful and drags itself from one scene to the next with no tension or excitement, though some individual scenes are very good. The passing of time is sometimes depicted rather poorly; when Maria Schell says to Curd Jürgens that "three years have passed" (somewhere in the middle of the film), the viewer looses his orientation as this passing of thime is not made clear within the story.Talking of Schell and Jürgens: the couple is a total mismatch and not one spark of passion that is supposed to exist, is felt. Both are miscast as well. Schell is too much the neighbour-next-door type to be believable as a free living woman; she is simply too nice. And based on a vague idea Käutner decided on Jürgens for the part of Schinderhannes; the vague idea was that he wanted an older Schinderhannes (the real one and the one in Zuckmayers's play was about 25) to concentrate on the wrong choices a man can make apart from other problems connected with being young; he did not want to tackle the problems of the 50's Halbstarken (teddy boys) as well. Of course by this choice he more or less undermined the crux of the play and in this film we see Jürgens (with silly hair cut, by the way) as an older gang leader of whom we wonder why he acts the way he does. Käutner did not, at any rate not sufficiently, adapt the play to conform to his idea. In short: Käutner's intention does not work.It is reported in a biography that Käutner more or less fell in love with the landscape in which filming took place. Was that may be the reason that the film gives the impression that Käutner was not really concerned with the film? 4000 extras were involved in the mass and war scenes, but it never shows. We see battalions far away in the landscape, but it is a lifeless view.Of the first production of Schinderhannes (1927) I only saw a photo with in it Hans Stüwe as Schinderhannes. This photo alone is more exciting and spirited than this film.