Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
kontakt-68481
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Grey Wolf: Hitler's Escape to Argentina (2012)
A poorly made work of fiction
I hated this film. Why? Well, let's dive into it, shall we??
First, 95% of this film consists of reenactment by people who down't look like the real people at all. It all looks and feels like a bad C-grade movie with voice overs telling presumed testimonies or (even more vague) "stories" by people who are very sure they saw Hitler in Argentina after WWII.
So, Hitler is there and Eva Braun (sorry, Eva Hitler) is there too. While Hitler plans to build up a Fourth Reich, Eva records everything like she did on the Obersalzberg (remember those color images?).
The whole time I wonder: "Yeah, okay, but why should I believe all that? Where is the evidence? Where is a source, even a face of one of those witnesses?" And then, at one point, one of those witnesses, a maiden who says she served food to Hitler, tells us "Hitler ate sausage and ham like all the other people".
Really? He did? That's strange, isn't it. Because Hitler was a proclaimed VEGETARIAN. So, maybe they just got this wrong? Maybe she didn't remember correctly? (The filmmakers did neither, since they show us how Hitler eats a chicken or something.)
The further this "documentary" (if you want to call it that) goes, the more fictitious stories pile up. Nothing is backed up by some evidence, nothing feels any more real as the wet fever dream of some Neonazi who really does not want to believe, "the Führer" committed suicide.
Is it that what this film is all about? To cash in on the fascination on Adolf Hitler? give Hitler fans some hope, their idol might have survived? show some new images from a happy, yet determined Führer accompanied by Eva Braun (sorry, Eva Hitler), their dog and their daughter (because of course they have one)?
I can't tell you, only the filmmakers could.
All I can tell you is, I felt irritated, offended, disgusted - and probably most problematic of all - highly bored by this nonsense. Do not watch.
Patterns of Evidence: Exodus (2014)
A very weak affair
This is either religious propaganda disguised as a scientific documentary or moneymaking by the use of spectacular titles and themes. Don't get me wrong, technically, this film is pretty well made and you will probably only see the big problems with the theories shown in this film, if you have some experience in science and/or archaeology.
If you have, you will have a hard time sitting through this. To not make this review too long, I'll concentrate on the problems I was offended by the most.
First off, the filmmaker and the scientists he interviews and bases his views on are highly biased. They want to find evidence of the exodus in the first place and then find it by ignoring context. This is not only openly admitted by the filmmaker speaking off screen, it is also very sloppy scientific work - if you can call it scientific at all.
An example: They find Semitic ruins in Egypt and say it cannot be proved that these were inhabited by Hebrews, only that these people seem to come from Syria and Canaan. But this was irrelevant, because we couldn't distinguish them from the Egyptians culturally anyway. So, by ignoring the fact you can't say they were Hebrews they spin it to "it might be Hebrews", which is scientifically very sloppy.
I also literally face-palmed when David Rohl explains why there was no corpse in the supposed tomb of Joseph. The biblical answer would be that the Jews took the mummy/corpse and brought it to the "Holy Land" - as it was written in the bible. So, this must be it, Rohl says. When the filmmaker asks what about grave robbers, Rohl answers no grave robber would be interested in mummies at all. They would take the jewelry, but not the bones as those would be worth nothing.
This is just wrong. Mummies and their bones were used as medicine during European medieval times, f.e. which is part of why we don't have the mummies of many famous Pharaoes despite having found their tombs. Grave robbers could have made good money with the corpse and this might be the reason it is not there. Sadly, nothing else is said about this in the documentary: Were there signs of grave robbers at all? If so, do we know when they broke into the tomb? This would be interesting.
But sadly, no real other views than those of the defenders of this "theory" are given much room in this film... And why should the? To falsify the weak statements made in this film?
My opinion on this film is: Just watch the beginning, when Manfred Beitak says: "It's a very weak affair." Because that basically sums up this film.
4 stars for good editing and the overall interesting topic. Only watch it if you've made up your mind about it anyway and believe in this. Or watch it while being highly critical and do some additional research as hobby detective work to debunk it. Everything else is a waste of time.
My advice for the filmmakers: read the bible as what it was supposed to be: a religious text. Not a historical one. (And no, Moses was not the first historian as proposed in this film.)