With much good will 6 out of 10. Why so strict? Because the film already exists and in a much better version. The film with the same title from 1997 with Steffen Wink, Franka Potente, etc. is simply incomparably better, more credible, more witty/fun, and more charming. The rating 6 out of 10 is because the performers try hard, however, they can't do much against the partly much too exaggerated characters (Didi, Sam - who came up with the idea to disfigure handsome Bruno Eyron? - , even Tom, and even small roles like the unnecessarily nasty taxi driver), moreover, Aylin Tetzel is lacking charm, which F. Potente had tons of in the first movie (without exaggerating and without having to bring on a severely sick granny), and Ken Duken -although having a great talent- is completely not credible as a homosexual. If you steal everything, from the title to the idea to the story down to almost every detail from the first version, you should improve it/add something. However, since the first attempt was already perfect and not that old/outdated that a modernization was mandatory, one can only say: hands off of this bad copy and choose the wonderful original instead. If you do not get enough of the idea, you can consider this second attempt as a supplement, but do not expect it to be as great as the first one. It's a nice idea, but this version here is only a lukewarm repetition - well-meant 6 points for that, just because the idea is so nice, but it would have definitely deserved a better execution, even for the second time around.
6 Reviews
Getting in(to) light comedy
kosmasp26 June 2015
It may seem a bit to suave for some, but the movie is just what you might think it is: A light comedy, that shouldn't be taken too seriously. And it's not a message movie, that you can "change" anyone into something else. Though they do avoid a lot of heat, by making the male lead homosexual and therefor not getting under attack by a certain group of people who'd read to much into this.
Again this is a romantic comedy. If you really want to see or read a message, make it about not putting boundaries up. About letting people decide their fate and about life in general (being open minded). These are things you can read into this freely, but you can also just enjoy the "story".
Again this is a romantic comedy. If you really want to see or read a message, make it about not putting boundaries up. About letting people decide their fate and about life in general (being open minded). These are things you can read into this freely, but you can also just enjoy the "story".
Gay to straight conversion? Straight for you? Really?
Perse_phone26 October 2016
The premise alone could (very well) be perceived as problematic if one looks too closely. Namely, if one wanted, one could take the message from the film that homosexuality isn't part of who a person is, that people actually "can change".
Or, more precisely, it could be assumed that nobody has to actually be homosexual. Because one has to merely find the (one) right person of the opposite sex somewhere out there. Et voilá, cured.
Yes, open minded people who don't give a bloody fu** about a person's sexuality, their religious background or whatever won't actually be, let's call it affected, by the aforementioned "message", but people with certain prejudices, might they be internal, external, big or small, might do so. And that is what I find problematic here.
Sure, the film aims to be a lighthearted, silly, romantic comedy that mustn't be taken too seriously. And it does achieve that. Partly. Maybe even mostly, depending on who you ask..
It's a love story. And in the end, it doesn't matter who you love, who you're with. Be that man or woman, the important thing is to be happy and not to care about other people's opinion. Love conquers all. And isn't that a nice sentiment? I certainly prefer my fiction to be of the happily ever after variety.
So one should just lean back, chill and enjoy the film for what it is, for what it's supposed to be.
And if you can watch it this way and enjoy yourself, great! I really mean that.
I, however, can't do so, not fully at least... Because fact is that homosexuality still is perceived as wrong or unnatural on some level in many countries. Politically, legally and socially there's still prejudice and discrimination to some degree (in most western countries) and to an extreme degree in others. Even in Germany, with anti-discrimination laws in place and everything, homosexuals can still not marry! Sure they can enter into a registered partnership, but that is still miles away from a "real" marriage, legally speaking. (And isn't that discrimination in itself?)
Considering all this, I still think that making a film like this (however lighthearted and silly it is meant to be, even done by a supposedly very gay friendly, gay supportive film team in general) is problematic. Maybe even more so, because the director of the film, Marco Kreuzpaintner, is gay himself.. I really can't understand what he was thinking, making this film. Because fact is heterosexuality and homosexuality are not on the same level (legally, socially etc.), are not considered to be equally okay or normal. Because fact is there are still desperate people trying to convert, to pray the gay away, or are bullied, or forced into such "measures". If that wasn't the case, if there was total equality and no discrimination whatsoever, then sure go ahead. Make that film.
And why the hell not make the lead bisexual? Or, let him discover that he wasn't 100% gay, but bi? This film however very carefully avoids bisexuality (like so very many other films in this and most genres) altogether. Because the protagonist, Tom Herzner, himself says very clearly and colourfully that he is, in fact, very gay. He identifies as gay. Not as bi. Not even a little bit prior to this sudden heterosexual relationship. Why? Maybe because bisexuality and bisexuals are sometimes (or more often than I'd like) perceived as neither here nor there, or as greedy. There seems to be the misconception among some people (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) that bisexuality equals playing the field, not being able to commit to anyone for good, because there'll always be the question "Is he/she faithful? Is one gender enough?"... Maybe it was explicitly excluded to avoid that very question, to avoid doubts whether this actually is (or can be) a HEA.. Yes, that whole box of issues is neatly sidestepped here -- remember: Tom is not bisexual, after all.
SO, to clarify, I don't negate that this plot could happen in real life. People are not always simply gay or straight. Sexuality can be fluid. The Kinsey-Skala is a thing. Bisexuality is a thing. What I am trying to say is that this film is problematic in a society in which homosexuality is still seen as something "lesser". In which teenagers commit suicide because they're gay, because they can't change however hard they try, because they simply want to be "normal" and feel that they aren't. And such a teenager seeing this film? I really can't (don't want to) imagine the damage this could do!
Another problem I had with the film was that every character is totally clichéd. Over the top so. It's boring to say the least. And has been done like a 100 times before. And sometimes it's even offensive (against women, against homosexuals (& bisexuals), against lower-income people etc.). In my opinion, the film lacks charm and wit, the kind that would have made all the aforementioned clichés and issues less problematic, even funny.
_______________________
ETA: Here a very good ("official") review of "Coming In" that I stumbled across after writing this review and wholeheartedly agree with also. It points out some other very good problems I had with this film as well. If you're interested, just google "Andreas Scholz Coming In Siegessäule", it's the first link. (That review is even in German.^^)
Or, more precisely, it could be assumed that nobody has to actually be homosexual. Because one has to merely find the (one) right person of the opposite sex somewhere out there. Et voilá, cured.
Yes, open minded people who don't give a bloody fu** about a person's sexuality, their religious background or whatever won't actually be, let's call it affected, by the aforementioned "message", but people with certain prejudices, might they be internal, external, big or small, might do so. And that is what I find problematic here.
Sure, the film aims to be a lighthearted, silly, romantic comedy that mustn't be taken too seriously. And it does achieve that. Partly. Maybe even mostly, depending on who you ask..
It's a love story. And in the end, it doesn't matter who you love, who you're with. Be that man or woman, the important thing is to be happy and not to care about other people's opinion. Love conquers all. And isn't that a nice sentiment? I certainly prefer my fiction to be of the happily ever after variety.
So one should just lean back, chill and enjoy the film for what it is, for what it's supposed to be.
And if you can watch it this way and enjoy yourself, great! I really mean that.
I, however, can't do so, not fully at least... Because fact is that homosexuality still is perceived as wrong or unnatural on some level in many countries. Politically, legally and socially there's still prejudice and discrimination to some degree (in most western countries) and to an extreme degree in others. Even in Germany, with anti-discrimination laws in place and everything, homosexuals can still not marry! Sure they can enter into a registered partnership, but that is still miles away from a "real" marriage, legally speaking. (And isn't that discrimination in itself?)
Considering all this, I still think that making a film like this (however lighthearted and silly it is meant to be, even done by a supposedly very gay friendly, gay supportive film team in general) is problematic. Maybe even more so, because the director of the film, Marco Kreuzpaintner, is gay himself.. I really can't understand what he was thinking, making this film. Because fact is heterosexuality and homosexuality are not on the same level (legally, socially etc.), are not considered to be equally okay or normal. Because fact is there are still desperate people trying to convert, to pray the gay away, or are bullied, or forced into such "measures". If that wasn't the case, if there was total equality and no discrimination whatsoever, then sure go ahead. Make that film.
And why the hell not make the lead bisexual? Or, let him discover that he wasn't 100% gay, but bi? This film however very carefully avoids bisexuality (like so very many other films in this and most genres) altogether. Because the protagonist, Tom Herzner, himself says very clearly and colourfully that he is, in fact, very gay. He identifies as gay. Not as bi. Not even a little bit prior to this sudden heterosexual relationship. Why? Maybe because bisexuality and bisexuals are sometimes (or more often than I'd like) perceived as neither here nor there, or as greedy. There seems to be the misconception among some people (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) that bisexuality equals playing the field, not being able to commit to anyone for good, because there'll always be the question "Is he/she faithful? Is one gender enough?"... Maybe it was explicitly excluded to avoid that very question, to avoid doubts whether this actually is (or can be) a HEA.. Yes, that whole box of issues is neatly sidestepped here -- remember: Tom is not bisexual, after all.
SO, to clarify, I don't negate that this plot could happen in real life. People are not always simply gay or straight. Sexuality can be fluid. The Kinsey-Skala is a thing. Bisexuality is a thing. What I am trying to say is that this film is problematic in a society in which homosexuality is still seen as something "lesser". In which teenagers commit suicide because they're gay, because they can't change however hard they try, because they simply want to be "normal" and feel that they aren't. And such a teenager seeing this film? I really can't (don't want to) imagine the damage this could do!
Another problem I had with the film was that every character is totally clichéd. Over the top so. It's boring to say the least. And has been done like a 100 times before. And sometimes it's even offensive (against women, against homosexuals (& bisexuals), against lower-income people etc.). In my opinion, the film lacks charm and wit, the kind that would have made all the aforementioned clichés and issues less problematic, even funny.
_______________________
ETA: Here a very good ("official") review of "Coming In" that I stumbled across after writing this review and wholeheartedly agree with also. It points out some other very good problems I had with this film as well. If you're interested, just google "Andreas Scholz Coming In Siegessäule", it's the first link. (That review is even in German.^^)
Okay premise, but the execution is complete garbage
Horst_In_Translation18 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Coming In" is a German(-language) movie from 2014, so this one was released roughly 2 years ago. The writer and director of these 100 minutes is Bavarian filmmaker Marco Kreuzpaintner, whose most known work is the gay-themed drama "Sommersturm" and with this more recent work here, he once again enters the world of LBGT films, even if it is really almost all about the comedy for this one. The central male character is played by Kostja Ullmann and the female protagonist is played by Aylin Tezel. I cannot really say anything too bad about the latter. The material she has to work with here and the way her character were written are simply ridiculously bad, but here and there she still manages to give the film some moments of honesty and authenticity which is quite an achievement. Ullmann, however, proves once again that he is not a mediocre actor. He is not an actor whose performances you just consider completely forgettable and don't memorize one day after you see them. This is not what he is. What he is is an actor who is so bad that he destroys entire films with his completely inappropriate performances. It is very easy to see here, even if it is tough to say if he is worse than the script he was given here. Too close to call. Supporting characters are played by actually a handful of pretty well-known and successful German actors, but all of these characters are just too insignificant to save the film or they are just bad as well in terms of how they were written. I will not mention the names in detail, just a quick note on Katja Riemann because I wondered totally why she is first credit for this film because her character as well as performance are entirely forgettable overall.
The story here is about a young famous homosexual hairdresser and what happens when he actually falls in love with a woman. The way the film deals with this subject gives gay people a really bad name as it implies that they want gay icons to "stay gay" instead of living in accordance with their real sexuality, exactly what they criticize about homophobes. I have no idea to what extent this is true, but the film tries to tell us it is. And then, out of nowhere, at the very end, this approach is completely gone and everybody wants Ullmann's character just to be happy. Oh well, sacrifice all plot developments, all realism, everything for a gooey disgusting happy ending. And as if that isn't (bad) enough already, lets just include a gay marriage proposal for the sake of it so that the homosexuals are satisfied again as well. Truly cringeworthy stuff and this film here has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Looking at how prolific Kreuzpaintner was in the 15 years before this film, I find it shocking how little he apparently understands about quality writing. I cannot comment a whole lot about the direction. It wasn't particularly good or bad I guess, but got overshadowed by the abysmal screenplay and terrible lead actor casting decision. Overall, Tezel is really the only somewhat shining light in here that keeps the film from being an even bigger disaster, even if the fact she falls for Ullmann's character is not helping things either, but yeah you cannot blame her for the script I guess. Overall, a definite contender for weakest German film from 2014 and you need to stay far far away.
The story here is about a young famous homosexual hairdresser and what happens when he actually falls in love with a woman. The way the film deals with this subject gives gay people a really bad name as it implies that they want gay icons to "stay gay" instead of living in accordance with their real sexuality, exactly what they criticize about homophobes. I have no idea to what extent this is true, but the film tries to tell us it is. And then, out of nowhere, at the very end, this approach is completely gone and everybody wants Ullmann's character just to be happy. Oh well, sacrifice all plot developments, all realism, everything for a gooey disgusting happy ending. And as if that isn't (bad) enough already, lets just include a gay marriage proposal for the sake of it so that the homosexuals are satisfied again as well. Truly cringeworthy stuff and this film here has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Looking at how prolific Kreuzpaintner was in the 15 years before this film, I find it shocking how little he apparently understands about quality writing. I cannot comment a whole lot about the direction. It wasn't particularly good or bad I guess, but got overshadowed by the abysmal screenplay and terrible lead actor casting decision. Overall, Tezel is really the only somewhat shining light in here that keeps the film from being an even bigger disaster, even if the fact she falls for Ullmann's character is not helping things either, but yeah you cannot blame her for the script I guess. Overall, a definite contender for weakest German film from 2014 and you need to stay far far away.
Romeo&Juliet-like drama
ivoschwiete13 August 2015
First of all, I can't agree with the 5,5 voting I've just read here. I've been complaining about 95% of German movies, but this one stands out and, in my opinion, comes close to a Hollywood standard because it moved me to tears.
I therefore wouldn't call it comedy but drama. It has parts of Romeo & Juliet, with a love between two "worlds" (gay and hetero) that seems to stand above the characters who just fell in love.
The gay star barber -who is in a successful relationship with his business partner- falls in love with a female Barber while promoting his own hair product line. His own gay friends go against him as they've become as excluding to heterosexuals as they've experienced "the others" themselves.
In a nutshell: I'm neither into homosexual-oriented or love movies, but I'm loving this one. Watch it
I therefore wouldn't call it comedy but drama. It has parts of Romeo & Juliet, with a love between two "worlds" (gay and hetero) that seems to stand above the characters who just fell in love.
The gay star barber -who is in a successful relationship with his business partner- falls in love with a female Barber while promoting his own hair product line. His own gay friends go against him as they've become as excluding to heterosexuals as they've experienced "the others" themselves.
In a nutshell: I'm neither into homosexual-oriented or love movies, but I'm loving this one. Watch it
great adventure film
dabet-4099619 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
In Christopher Nolan's climactic film Intent, Dominic Hobb, a dream-stealing expert who specializes in corporate espionage, is given the opportunity to return to his family as a reward for completing the seemingly impossible task of introducing an idea into someone's mind. At the same time, Hobb must contend with secrets that lurk in his own subconscious. Frankly, I was expecting a lot more from this movie. But it took me about 10 tries to see it through to the end. Not only is "Inception" long, we aren't introduced to all the key characters until about the 50th minute, and it takes 90 minutes to bring the epic plot into action. To stay enthralled by the film, you'll have to watch it in company. Your fellow viewer will have to keep you focused, because it's all too easy to drown in what seems like a clunky, massive information dump (in the first act). The overabundance of information throws off the pace of the narrative, which is so hard to keep track of with all the dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams... The talented cast played great, and Gordon-Levitt is a personal favorite of mine. The best thing about the editing and cinematography of "Inception" is that most of the visual effects were shot virtually and were admittedly terrific. And although the third act is a bit lengthy, it is by far the best part of the film. The action sequences became more coherent. It was great to see the team in action rather than the team in conversation. To say the least, "Inception" is WAY over-hyped, has an acquired taste, and didn't exceed my expectations. In true Christopher Nolan fashion, this film is accompanied by an avalanche of too much information to stick to your brain, which rushes at you at snail speed. But when it comes crashing down on you and destroys everything in its path, it's something worth watching... I think. 68%.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
