The Deathmaker (1995)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Pretty Good

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

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.

If you're interested in real-life-crime films, then this film is a pure recommendation. However, keep in mind, this film is structured more like a chamber-play, carried by two actors: Götz George as child-murderer and cannibal Fritz Haarmann and Jürgen Hentsch as police-psychologist Prof. Dr. Ernst Schultze, who tries to peek into the mind of a monster in human-shape.Don't expect intricate psycho-games like in "Silence of the Lambs". Don't expect any action; 99.9 percent of the scenes take place in one room alone. And if you're looking for gory murder, move on; there are none. However, when Haarmann talks about his crimes as casually as a butcher would about preparing cattle for consumption, I can guarantee you that you'll be grateful that those scenes are "only" in your head.Some people have pointed out that George would have deserved an Oscar for his performance and I couldn't agree more. George had been best known as TV-policeman Schimanski, probably the most iconic character from the whole "Tatort"-Series. But as is often with such cases, George had grown sick of been typecast and wanted to break the mold. With "Der Totmacher" (and around the same time with the TV-Thriller "Der Sandmann") he managed to do just that and establish himself among the great actors of his generation.Within seconds the memory of Schimanksi, the tough street-cop with a heart of gold, is forgotten and there is only Fritz Haarmann: A seemingly harmless figure, at times even timid and child-like, intellectually and mentally retarded, plagued by a bad childhood and at times unable to understand what's going on around him. But since the story is based on the original files, we know that this is a cunning psychopath, convicted of the murder of 24 boys (there may have been more), whom he killed often by biting their throats and turning their flesh into sausage, often offering his neighbors some of his "home-cooking". As Haarmann and Schultze grown more comfortable (for the lack of a better word) with each other, there always looms the question of how much Haarmann actually plays the fool (Haarmann had worked as a snitch for the police prior to his arrest and was often described as by no means as simple as he presented himself during interrogation).Jürgen Hentschs performance is no less impressive. He plays the sober, proficient psychologist, who tries to maintain the necessary professional distance from his "subject", but being only human, cannot always conceal his emotions and personal opinions about this monster he has to work with. These range from suspicions to disgust and at times, even pity and sympathy. In other words: Hentsch is almost a catalyst for what the viewers will feel.I often wondered: Had some director attempted a similar cinematic "experiment" with the Thomas Harris figure Hannibal Lecter, would it have been accomplished or interesting as "The Totmacher"? Probably not. "The Totmacher" shows that reality often is much more horrific than anything an author can come up with and that it is very possible to create something great with only two human beings and a room. However, like me and many other critics have stated: you have to bring along a little patience and an interest in the subjects rather than the action.8/10

"Deathmaker" is an outstanding movie. It's psychologically intense and very well played, BUT...The major problem of this feature is that the director chose the wrong medium for his project. The story told in "Deathmaker" would fit better into a (classical) theater. The whole setting is placed in one room only, there are less than a dozen actors needed and no (!) optical and only few sound effects are used. Nothing indicates that this story needs all the technical possibilities of cinematography. So this movie is - in my eyes - nothing more than a theater play filmed for distribution of the piece beyond theaters The story itself is quiet slow - many will find it boring or too long. There is nearly no action at all in it. Majorly three people sitting on chairs in a room together and talking. If you can sympathize with this kind of storytelling, then you should watch this movie. Else I can not recommend it.

Basically that film is just about one long dialogue between the killer and his psychiatrist in a german prison (or psychiatric clinic?) in the 1920s or 1930s that spans over some days before the killer's death penalty. The other actors barely speak a word in this movie. That sounds rather dull but the compelling performance of the two main actors made me sit through the whole film. On the other hand, if you don't like dialogue movies the avoid. There's no action at all, only language and expressions... I'd give it a 7 out of 10..

In "Der Totmacher" Götz George basically just plays a murderer during a cross examination. Several sessions are shown. I am certainly not George's biggest fan on the planet, but what he did in this movie is what I have to call the greatest performance ever as he does not have any virtual assistance by effects or anything, it is just him. People who like to see movies where it is the actors who create the atmosphere must not miss this incredible performance of George.