User reviews

I saw this film when I was in Germany in '92. Naturally, I didn't get a lot of the jokes, but to judge from the way the audience was laughing, it really struck a chord with them. However, there were many parts of the movie which even for me were very funny, indeed. I suspect that the less familiar American viewers are with German culture and recent history, the less they will appreciate this movie (which has hardly made a ripple here, not surprisingly).

I was a kid when this incident happened. I still know the turmoils when the Stern magazine reported about the Hitler diaries, which were faked by the forger Konrad Kujau (in the movie: Fritz Knobel). The Stern Magazine payed 9,3 million Deutsche Mark for the faked diaries and made a big repotage, which short after turned out to be a canard, careless enquiered. The journalist who pushed the story was to fixated to his career to better check the authenticity of the diaries. So this is a movie about a real incident that happened nearly like the movie describes it. (1983 we didn't have the Euro as currency; 1 Euro was 1,95 Deutsche Mark).

'Schtonk!' shows how the incident happened, but also shows it a little overdrawn in a naive and sober way of storytelling. On the other hand the acting is very good, the production used some of the best German actors. I like the red line that goes through the storry, which is easy to follow. I like the increasing escallation of the story, step by step. It's a clear recommendation for people who want to know about that incident and also for people who like good press stories. This one is authentic.

Almost 2 hours is a bit two long for its basic story material, hence a film that has wonderful moments and scenes and plenty of satire, but also moments of boredom in which nothing (new) happens. Certainly successful in portraying the circumstances in which a forger could produce the notorious Hitler Diaries (it happened in 1983 and not only German press but the press world wide walked into the trap), the film shows that the yellow press and its sensation-hungry reporters made use of the curious fascination of the public world wide with the Nazi past.; as Harald Juhnke's character says to his chief-editor: "(with Hitler) we never had such a famous writer writing in our magazine ever before!".

For Germany the most painful aspect of the film might be the support for the publication from former Nazis represented by a character played by Karl Schönbock (82 years old here!); as a former intimate friend of Hitler he knows that the diaries are forged but gives full support: the end justifies the means. One of the memorable scenes is the arrival of the guests at the rally of former Nazi's and supporters: a memorable image when the guests walk to the house in the rain under their umbrellas illuminated by torches.

The cast is very good, with Götz George and Uwe Ochsenknecht outstanding. Both have scenes that are side splitting funny: George when he for the first time reads from the diaries and Ochsenknecht when he begins to think, talk and look like Hitler.

But as said, the film is too long for its own good. There are more memorable scenes than the those I have mentioned already, but for instance does the viewer really need to see all 60 diaries made? The use of the old song "La Paloma" in the scene on the boat is a nice idea, but it also takes too long. And what to think of the first scene (before and during the credits); it does not add anything to the things to come and is not funny either.

The for this film composed music itself is mediocre, but the use of recordings of Zarah Leander and that of a small yodel-theme are very clever. All in all: unbalanced, at moments very amusing and certainly worth a view.

I don't understand why this German satire, which was nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Film, has never been released in NTSC video format. There are numerous lesser foreign films available on video in the US and Canada, but mysteriously not "Schtonk!". I've wanted to see this movie for years and seized the opportunity the other day when I found it at a movie lover's video store (Scarecrow Video, Seattle, WA) in PAL format. This required me to rent a machine that converts the PAL signal, and as I paid the $800 deposit to the store clerk for said machine I joked, "This better be worth the wait" (and the deposit).

The success of the comedy in "Schtonk!" is due to the fact that it is based in fact. If it weren't for this being an actual event in German history, the ludicrous story would seem just too stupid to be funny. The idiocy of the characters actions is of course embellished, which is why the movie is so good. The magazine reporter desperate for a scandalous scoop is brilliantly played like a man who wants the big story so bad he will believe anything. And he does. Once he stumbles on to the Hitler "diaries" he and the rest of the press can't get enough. This movie obviously works on several levels, some of which I don't quite appreciate being I am not German, but one universal statement is that of the press having the role of gatekeeper, the ability to decide what is a "story", and the consequences when that ability is misused.

I've seen Uwe Ochsenknecht in a couple of Doris Dörrie movies and found him to be a talented comedic actor. His portrayal of the "diaries" forger is one more great performance. The farcical telling of his role in the hoax serves as a vital display of how absurd and fascinating a story this con was. Such details as his reasoning for using the initials F.H. and his taking on the characteristics of Hitler the deeper he got into his work are hilarious subtleties that play an important part in the greater humor of the entire film. The story did seem to drag on in a couple places, perhaps a little more editing could have been implemented, but that won't deter me from recommending this fun satire or seeing it again and again myself. I've been looking forward to seeing "Schtonk!" for the last 12 years, and now that I've seen it I can honestly say I am not disappointed.

Dietl´s movie is based on real events, in 1983 a forger called Konrad Kujau made millions of dollars by writing the bogus diaries of Adolf Hitler. Although the movie has a poor start it developes into a

pretty good comedy, The most amusing parts are the wordgames, and the performances of Uwe Oschenknecht as the slick antique salesman/forger and Götz Georg as equally

slick journalist.

I real life the Stern magazine which bought the diaries had a proper lesson when they received a letter written (in Hitler´s handwriting!) by an anonymous German humorist:

"I hereby confirm that my diaries are real"

Signed: A.Hitler

This is one of my all time favorite comedies. It only works if you manage to see the irony behind it, though. (But it's so obvious that it's hard to miss). It is easily the best of Dietl's works I've seen so far and addresses topics such as responsibility of the media, coming to terms with the past (or rather not coming to terms with it?), greed and ethics in journalism. The acting (especially Götz George) is awesome. It's one of those few movies that I can watch over and over again and still keel over with laughter at some scenes. Konstantin Wecker's score is one of the best I know and perfectly supports the plot.

Based on the true case (!) of master-forger Konrad Kujau who, in 1983, fooled the renowned German magazine "Stern" by selling it his faked Hitler diaries for millions of Marks. Kujau was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison but was released after 3 years because of cancer. He became so famous through this affair that, in 2006, faked Kujau fakes were sold on ebay.

Against the backdrop of these true events Dietl develops his story of greedy men who bring out the worst in each other and who are going blind to an extend that it borders delusion.

It's a straight 10 out of 10!

How could someone fool so many people ... and make them believe he had Hitlers notes/diary? Actually thinking how people spread disinformation nowadays and how some (former) leaders are still doing it ... it may not be that far fetched.

And while the movie is fiction, it is based on a true story. Something that really happpened and went on to become one of the biggest scandals in journalistic history. Right now it is tough to find good journalism ... it also tough to get through to certain people who believe any conspiracy (lie) they read online ... someone wrote it, is must be true ... which I reckon was something that made the "words of Hitler" also believable to those who wanted to be fooled ... overall a really good movie/comedy, that heightens what happened to add a lot of comedy relief ... how else would someone be able to stomach this madness?

As usual, it shows that humour is personal. I think the movie is great. The joke-density, visually, musically and verbally is high, and it is superbly performed. Gotz George is a revelation in this role, as he plays mostly rough, real, troubled men. Jokes are painful as well as light-hearted, the musical score is brilliant, and the still present awe for Hitler is prominently presented as well as ridiculed. The drama unfolds in a fast pace, and is over before you know it. I think, the dislikers expected a very much different approach to the theme, e.g. the commentator who promoted the English version of this journalistic farce. I think it is simply not interesting enough to show that Trevor Roper was sorely misled. The whole point of this German movie is that it shows that the whole affair is largely due to the still present enormous awe of the person of Hitler, and that not only in Germany ! The bizarre notion that "history had to be rewritten, with this discovery" is of course nonsense, which was believed by German journalists as well as foreign experts (or should i say "experts" ). For me this movie is a great German achievement!

Eventually, somebody had to do a film about the Hitler diaries forgery, and of course it always should have been the Germans. It was theirs to do it. But to be honest, I was afraid of it happening, as the German film industry has all too often proven to be a botcher of good premises. But anyway, the Brits did it fist with their series 'Selling Hitler' (which I haven't seen yet), and boy am I glad that the late Helmut Dietl made this wonderful film. It's German to the core, but without selling out to the usual German comedy audience. All the better that it managed to be a huge success in Germany. And one has to admit the courage Dietl had in doing it as a comedy. At the time, Germany's conflicting with its own past still was problematic. Anything to do with Hitler was only to be seen in rationalistic documentaries and TV magazines - which is not wrong at any rate, but anybody knows that looking at such things from a satiric angle has also its value. But for German media this was long out of the question. Before 'Schtonk', being humoresque about Hitler had never really made it into German mainstream.

Anyway, I won't go into 'Schtonk''s plot details, and unfortunately and obviously some of the humor will be lost on you if you don't speak German; but let me point you to a certain aspect of the film: The acting. Dietl really managed to direct his actors in a way that at the time was not commonplace in Germany. The most blatant example is Götz George's Hermann Willié. My fellow Germans are going to hate me, but I always found George a bit overrated. Yea, he WAS a terrific actor, but not in the way Germans thought (if you want to know more about my stance on German actors, feel free to read my other reviews on German films). George was good when he played himself, which he basically did in his iconic role as Commissioner Schimanski in the long running German 'Tatort' crime TV series. Schimanski's name was basically synonymous for Tatort cops during the 80's in Germany. But once he had to play someone completely else, he was lost. He either drifted in theatre overacting mode or couldn't shake his Schimanski mannerisms (which is why typecasting is not such a bad thing anyway). I think Germans always had a problem recognising that. They just just didn't get it. For example, George was highly praised for his role in 'Der Totmacher', but I was one of the few people who thought that his acting would have been great on the theatre stage but just did not do the film very good. In 'Schtonk' there is also a great deal of overacting across the board to be found, but Dietl uses it in an absolute fitting manner. He especially gets such a fantastic performance out of George that I will always remember it as his best. The mannerisms, the way he utilises George's clipped speaking - it's just perfect for the character. Let me point you to the scene where he confesses to the priest. Just hilarious. And not for a moment you are distracted by any Schimanski residues.

Now, all that praising of George should not take away from the other actors, nor from the film as a whole. It's just worth a watch, and to quote my own review title: Still one of the best German comedies - never unintentionally cheesy, but not too brainy.

This film is a must see for everybody who heard of the Hitler diary affair. Although the real affair is larger then life, and, according to many even more absurd that the movie, it is a must see.

The DVD is excellent, and I have watched it over and over again. Scenes are excellent, the way Christiane Hörbiger is addressed by Götz George, over and over again by the title of her late husband. His obsession for detail in restoring the ship he bought and finding Nazi `nick-nacks' It is all just too much to mention. One thing though, the better you know German, and Germany, the better you will understand the in-jokes. A lot of the humour is very subtle, and even in the comments here is misunderstood. Karl Schönböck for instance just claims to be an intimate friend of the Führer, he never was really, he is an fake, just like the diary's. He is brilliant at it. When Uwe Ochsenknecht is selling a painting of Eva Braun he just painted, as an original, Karl Schönböck claims he was there when Hitler painted it. The film just goes on and on like a rollercoaster and it is just unbelievable that Stern fell for this one. When something sounds to good to be true, it is, is a wisdom many people do not seem to have. However, like in House of Games, David Mamets brilliant movie on how scams work, you cannot cheat an honest man.

See this movie, buy the T Shirt, read the book, and never trust somebody who wants to make you rich.

Whoever thought of that film title? It makes no sense. The film is one of the best of Director Dietl. Wounderful farce about the Hitler Diaries. George sometimes a bit over the top, but just marginal. Ochsenknecht is on top of his career. Too sad it doesn't translate well into english

And actually it is. If you have never heard about the scandal it is based on, don't continue reading. This is the slightly embellished and exaggerated story of how the forged diaries of Hitler were to get sold by some German newspaper as a sensation, just to have to admit that they were all wrong. The story is full of people wanting to believe that they had a gigantic scoop just to realize it was full of something brown.

The fake was so good, that it took a few weeks to get found out by an expert over the used paper. Having seen the movie now, I realize that it might have been a major inspiration on "Shakespeare in Love". The guy forging the books is using his real life condition and events to be included in the diaries.

Besides that I am too young to really assess whether the movie was correct with so many old nazis still being active in the 80ties.

A horribly heavy-handed attempt to turn the real-life case of the forged Hitler diaries into a German comedy (a contradiction in terms, if you ask me, and I am German), this schtinker is an unabashedly broad, strictly one-note stab at what director Dietl probably takes for satire. Based on a pedestrian script which provides no laughs at all (except if you're a die-hard fan of fart jokes, that is), it features sleazy, grotesquely over-the-top performances by basically everyone involved (although George and Ochsenknecht stand out as particularly hammy), ugly, overlit photography and an unnervingly blaring score. Dietl not only proves that he has no sense of timing whatsoever - each and every punchline can be seen coming round the bend a mile away and is milked to the last drop when it finally arrives - but also displays a disturbingly childish penchant for "dirty" words which, quite obviously, he thinks are funny by themselves. To top it all off, at nearly two hours running time, the whole affair is so interminably drawn out it'll bore you to near-death. Avoid at any cost - and please do yourself a favor and give Dietl's other films (especially "Late Show" and "Rossini") a very wide berth, too: they're even worse.