The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick (1972) User Reviews

Handke and Wenders explore patterns of thought and their relation to reality.

[Frank_Z · 8/10 · 2 November 2002]

The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick (In German with English subtitles), a film by Wim Wenders and Peter Handke from a novella by Peter Handke (1971).

The Goalie s Anxiety at the Penalty Kick is the first collaboration of Wim Wenders and Peter Handke, a collaboration which produced Wings of Desire in 1987. In The Goalie, Handke and Wenders explore patterns of thought and their relation to reality.

The main action of the film occurs in the first minute, where we get one view of how the Goalie misses blocking a penalty kick and loses the game for his team.

Later, we get to hear him describe the action and we also get a view of the way it really happened, the videotaped highlights on the tv news. They are three wonderfully different plausible representations which each explain the result just as well. While only one explains the goalie's anxiety before the penalty kick, all three allow for his anxiety afterwards.

The night after the game, the goalie goes to see "Red Line 7000." This was James Caan's first starring role, a movie about wild young stock car racers getting hooked up with women drawn to them for their romantic image, yet making them settle down once hooked. A Film about moving away from the action and into mundane adult life. So it is that the goalie's anxiety concerned with the end of playing for a living and the beginning of a mundane existence.

Then the goalie sees a film called "Die Zitten der Faelschers" (Faelschers > counterfeiters) and he makes a joke about it. Our hero picks up the ticket girl at the theater and they end up in her apartment, where he kills her as she prepares to leave for work the next day. I suspect Wenders & Handke intend for us to imply that he is killing in this film the thing that got Caan in "Red Line 7000." Several sequences later, the goalie sees another movie, "Gross Mandel," which I cannot identify.

Now Wenders plays with our patterns, our expectations. While critics complained that the plot was disjointed, I think Wenders actually is aiming for this. He is trying to get the viewer to evaluate his/her own preconceptions and expectations about plot.

Several portentous scenes play out to nothing, in the end. A boy disappears, the goalie is a stranger in town, he should be a prime suspect. Nothing. (In the novella, the goalie sees the missing boy s body float by in the scene on the footbridge). The goalie sees a movie "Nur Nach 72 Stunden" ("72 Hours to Go," the pilot for the tv show "Madigan"), what a build up for the goalie as a prime suspect being caught or shooting it out. All for naught.

Patterns... Concepts... But only possibilities, all equally probable. The goalie's explanation: Until the shot is made, all possible plays are equally real to the goalie, he must decide which play to defend (which probability is real).

Which is real? Well, this is art: It makes you think.

Best film about goalkeepers!

[imdb-12400 · 7/10 · 14 January 2011]

While most reviews state the arc of the story well, it seems the details of what happens to the goalkeeper in the opening scene are not well understood. He is clearly sent off for dissent, kicking the ball away in protest after it has been placed in the centre circle after the referee awards a goal. He has not committed a foul, and he isn't dismissed because he fails to save the shot on goal, something which is not a rule of the sport. Nor is he substituted.

He approaches the referee and protests that a player was clearly offside when the goal was scored. When the referee ignores his complaint, the goalkeeper walks over to the ball in the centre circle and kicks it away. The referee immediately signals that he is sending the goalkeeper off. Although the referee isn't seen to produce a red card, he is heard to say something (in German obviously) about red, all of which clearly tells us the referee sent him off for the act of dissent.

As for the goal scored, we do not see a penalty kick being taken, and the way the scene is shot, as well as the fact that he protested that an attacking player was offside when the goal was scored, suggests more that the goal is scored in open play rather than from a penalty kick where by definition no-one could be offside if the goal was scored from a direct kick (rather than say after the goalkeeper saved the initial effort and normal play resumed -- to satisfy the even more pedantic!).

While it would be interesting if we saw the goalkeeper face a penalty, then see it "as it really is", an anti-Rashomon, on TV, it doesn't seem to me (at the risk of being too literal-minded, perhaps) that this is what Wenders filmed or intended. The TV footage does not seem to show the match in which the goalkeeper played. The stands are essentially empty in his match, but in the televised match, you can see it is pretty much a full house. And once again, there is no penalty kick in that televised match, but the goal is instead scored from open play with defenders crowding the 18-yard area. It does not feel like this is a detail we are intended to connect to the match he played. If anything, the brief TV clip is just another thematic demonstration of goalkeepers being on the losing side of their psychological battle with players taking shots at them. In the final scene, we see another goalkeeper actually save a penalty kick by guessing correctly which way to dive, finally showing us the alternative outcome of a confrontation which the sport takes for granted is heavily stacked against the goalkeeper.

There is a surreal, dislocated quality to the goalkeeper's behaviour in the opening scene. He leaves the field of play while his own team has possession in the opposition's final third, and addresses some children behind the goal. He casts a glance back at the pitch and we see that possession of the ball is now being contested in the midfield. He then turns his back on play again, still standing off the field. At this point in play, with no goalkeeper defending the goal, it would have been natural for the opposition to take a long distance shot on goal, so any normal goalkeeper would have got back on the field immediately to discourage that. Any normal goalkeeper probably would never have left it in the first place, of course, but this is 1970s New German Cinema after all and clearly his angst is greater than the instincts which propelled him to the position of professional shot stopper: he doesn't return to the field until what seem to be the last seconds before a goal is scored, and he stands there rooted to the spot as the ball hits the back of the net.

His actions prior to the goal suggest he's suffering from apathy prior to his dismissal, rather than that his dismissal so profoundly affects him that this alone accounts for his subsequent state of mind and actions.

The Camus references -- goalkeeper; inexplicable, passionless act of murder -- are entertaining.

Why Does Herr Bloch Run Amok?

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 6/10 · 25 April 2013]

Maybe the trick is in the title. Accidental or intentional? A goalie without a goal which equals a movie without a goal. "Die Angst Des Tormanns Beim Elfmeter" ("The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick") is a story about things falling apart and no one paying attention to them, people acting as if everything was OK while living in a disintegrating world. The goalie of the title is Joseph Bloch (Arthur Brauss), an unsympathetic and ruthless man who was kicked out of a match after a foul play who goes out on a rampage of murder for obscure reasons (possibly none) by killing a female cashier - whom he spent the night with - and a deaf boy - still unclear to me if he has part on his assassination, later on ruled as an accident.

What goes on is Bloch's sort of escape going from place to place, hotel to hotel, being rude with people and other times he's beaten by strangers after provoking them, or he's robbed by muggers, not knowing how to react, and develops relations with other women. Sometimes there's few bits of information about his victims in the news, and he seems preoccupied with those, always wanting to read the papers. So what does he want to do? What's his goal? At my view, none except escape - but who's after him? Who knows about his mysterious acts? So, he just keep on randomly walking and putting things out of order.

Easily one of Wim Wenders weakest, and one of his toughest watches of all since he doesn't make anything appealing, sometimes even not worthy seeing, filled with empty actions, poorly presented situations and mundane acts that doesn't add anything to a plot that has very few to show. There's few things which Wenders got it right while making his wrong presentation. He doesn't offer motive, reasons why his main character goes out killing people. Who could give reason to a murderer? Who would consider a crime something reasonable? It's not, it's simple abominable, unexplainable just like the movie.

Those who manage to get to the ending get a surprise, but only the wise will truly get it. The very last scene, when Joseph casually watches a soccer match, chatting with another guy, he tells the whole movie in an almost poetic manner. He makes a metaphor which shines a light on us in the audience. He explains to the man why the viewers focus on the game must be on the goalie instead of being in the player or the ball. The man proceeds in such and responds that it is too difficult, to which Joseph replies: "You get used to it. But it's ridiculous!". Same thing with the movie. There's plenty of indications that this man is a murderer, he goes from one erratic behavior to another, almost to the point of getting caught by the police and he even helps one officer with a minor problem, yet everyone around fail to notice him or his actions. People simply trust him all that much. We, as audience, can't fail with that, we keep our eyes on the goalie. That scene has plenty of depth, too bad the movie isn't just like that moment.

Distractive (and not in a good way), a little misguided but somewhat engaging, "The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick" worths as an imaginative way of breaking storytelling conventions with its fragmented narrative repleted of ordinary dialogs and some expectation when everything is silent. Difficult, unpredictable and strangely not menacing as films about psychos tend to be. Also worths a view due to its soundtrack in the many jukebox scenes, with pop and rock classics. I hated the main theme from the original score though, it was quite annoying. I don't get the reviewers who compare it to the brilliant Camus novel "The Stranger" since the main character from the novel has more explained (in the unexplainable) reasons for murder than the goalie. A little good but Wenders has so much better. 6/10

A Powerful and Unnerving Film

[howard.schumann · 2 September 2002]

Based on the novel "Die Angst des Tormannes beim Elfmeter" by Austrian existentialist writer, Peter Handke, The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick is a powerful and unnerving film by the great German director Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire, Paris, Texas). As the film opens, the goalie, Joseph Bloch, (Arthur Brauss) is suspended from a soccer game in Vienna for missing a penalty kick. Seemingly not upset, he goes into town, then commits an unplanned and seemingly unmotivated murder of a cinema cashier.

Presenting us with a world that does not fit our picture of what constitutes rational behavior, Wenders refuses to explain the goalie's senseless action. Bloch simply continues his life in a matter-of-fact way, although a great deal of emotion seems to be churning under the surface. He retreats to a country inn to find his old girl friend. Nothing much happens. He goes to the movies, converses with the local residents, drinks a lot, gets into a fight, and ostensibly waits for the police to close in. His expression remains the same no matter what he is doing. As stated by Adam Groves in his review in The Cutting Edge, "He may be a homicidal sociopath, but Joseph seems to fit in quite well with the world around him, which seems to be the whole point"

Bloch talks about his life as a goalie throughout the film. At the end, he wanders into to a local soccer game and explains to a visiting salesman the thoughts that go through a goalie's mind during a penalty kick, for example, how the goalie must outguess the shooter. Perhaps dramatizing the dehumanizing effects of modern society, Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick is a strange, intriguing, and complex film that definitely deserves repeated viewing to unlock the puzzle. A possible hint involves a repetitive theme of a lost boy who drowned because he couldn't communicate.

Dark commentary about the human condition

[gbill-74877 · 6/10 · 30 December 2022]

Spoiler alert, this is not a film about soccer at all, and there is no drama surrounding a penalty kick. Wim Wender's first film is a rather ponderous foray into the randomness of violence and suffering in the world. The anxiety here, the terror, is in just how senseless it is, as senseless as that goal scored while the goalie is barely paying attention in the opening scene. The anxiety is also in knowing that ordinary people wandering around have that in them, or could have committed such an act in the spur of the moment, and then gone on with their lives.

In addition to a critical point of violence that the film rests upon, we see smaller references, such as the goalie getting beaten up in the street a couple times, a reference to the murder of Sharon Tate, and a story in the papers is that a young boy has gone missing, presumably harmed. We see it in the goalie's case as being completely unplanned, which is shocking in itself, but it's also disconcerting when what follows is not a traditional crime drama, with a detective then trying to track him down. Life simply goes on.

In a minor key, I felt the usual kinds of questions, e.g. Will he do it again, and will he be caught, but those were not the main things causing tension. It was more like, why did he end up doing that to the young woman and not one of the other women he meets while traveling around? Does the world even care, listening to the buoyant music from the 50's and 60's? Is the veneer of civilization so thin that there are other sociopaths we see (in the film or in real life), who have done such things? These are haunting, existential questions. We wish for life to make sense and be fair, but oftentimes it is neither. Those big moments in soccer, or our favorite sports, as much as we get wrapped up in them - they seem trivial by comparison - but even there, we see randomness, the goalie guessing to dive left or right at the penalty kick.

I liked the concept for the film and how it managed such brutal statements about the world in such a low-key way, but I have to say, watching it was not terribly interesting. The dispassionate feeling of the killer and the disconnected events which follow don't make for a compelling story, and the film moves along very slowly. It doesn't escalate and there is little to no transformation, so what we're left with is this dark commentary, which felt as flat as it was depressing. It's worth seeing if you're a Wenders fan, but it's tough to recommend without reservations.

The randomness of murder

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 20 March 2016]

"Die Angst des Tormanns beim Elfmeter" or "The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick" is a 100-minute movie from almost 45 years ago and it was the breakthrough for German filmmaker Wim Wenders. He directed here and also worked a bit on the script, even if the main effort in terms of screen writing (according to the credits) comes from Peter Handke, who also wrote the novel that this film is based on. You could call this movie here a film during which really nothing happens at all apart from one scene (and the very first scene maybe as well). Joseph Bloch is a professional athlete and I personally see him as a man hungry for recognition and power. When his ego cannot take a referee's behavior, he commits a horrific act in order to restore the belief in his own power.

He is also a sociopath. After the act, he lives a life just like he did before. No remorse, no fear nothing. One great example of his self-confidence is when we hear another character mention that the killer probably has a mustache by now, but Bloch did not even think about it. He also won't go into hiding or anything. In the end, the question for the audience arises if he gets away with it. Apparently, police come closer to catching him, but we do not find out definitely if they do, which is a bit surprising as they get closer and closer while the film continues. In the last scene, Bloch makes a cat/mouse reference that applies to goalkeeper and the one who shoots the penalty as well as to him and police without his conversation partner understanding the latter.

I thought Wenders and Handke made a pretty good film here. This is certainly a very atmospheric watch and I believe Arthur Brauss (who turns 80 this year) was a really good choice for the main character. He brings a ruthlessness and cold-blooded approach to the role that fits the mentality of a killer and goal keeper really well. Physically, he looks like a mix of Daniel Craig and Matthias Schoenaerts, which certainly helps at well. I cannot say there were any truly great moments here, but this may also have to do with the base material. With Handke in charge of the screenplay, it was certainly very close to the novel. I cannot go further into detail as I have not read this one. About the movie, however, it was a really solid watch and I recommend it. Thumbs up.

Maybe the best movie I've seen in my life

[lunacomputacion · 10/10 · 29 March 2006]

I just want to say that this movie, when I watched it first time long ago, opened the doors of what cinema could say, in which ways, and how it could go as far as possible from a typical theatrical or literary (linear,logical, rational) treatment of its artistic matter; pursuing a more "musical" or "harmonically oriented" approach.

Wenders develops this work as a series of "climates" or ambiances(we're talking "street" climates and ambiances, sometimes ugly or ridiculous; not that silly "grandeur" that spoils so many artworks) that contain valuable, almost satirical remarks on the "cheating" that our expectations and concepts are constantly playing to our minds.

The particular sense of humor and drama of the script writer and the director just hit a string on me; as did the musical score. I only regret that is very difficult to find plays or to purchase any copies, in any format, of this strange gem here in Argentina. I could watch it only twice, in cultural centers at Buenos Aires, which is not my hometown. This is a movie that you can enjoy over and over, as if it were a musical masterpiece. I'd like to point out that I'm not a native English speaker, so I apologize if my writing style is not quite correct.

Foul play

[Prismark10 · 3/10 · 24 August 2019]

The Goalkeeper's Fear of the Penalty is a great title but an odd underwhelming film from Wim Wenders, his cinematic debut.

I only wish it was about a goalkeeper who went all wobbly when about to face a spot kick.

The film does display some of Wender's cinematic tastes. A liking of Americana, being on the road, a character being a person of few words maybe alienated and a languid pace. There is an existentialism about this film.

Joseph Bloch (Arthur Brauss) is a goalkeeper who gets angry when a goal is not called offside. It is a strangely shot sequence as Bloch does not concentrate on the play and makes no attempt to even save the shot. In fact we do not even see the build up to the play.

Bloch gets sent off and as his team was playing away, he makes his way to the city centre where he watches a film. Later he spends a night with the cinema cashier and he than strangles her. Bloch then leaves the city and spends times with an ex girlfriend in the countryside. Bloch constantly reads the newspaper to see what is happening about the murder, there is also a mute boy who has disappeared. Bloch spends time with his ex, listening to American rock n roll and getting involved in bar fights.

If Bloch is upset about the murder we do not get to know about it. The movie is bookended by a football match, at one point Bloch tells a spectator about the various thoughts that go through in a goalkeeper's mind when a penalty is about to be taken.

The lead character is an enigma, he goes about his normal life but he is a killer, maybe he has killed before, maybe he is a fantasist with his interest in American music and carrying US currency. It could just be that Bloch is contemplative about his existence.

In terms of tension, there is not much at all. Bloch gets on with his life, he is never in danger, no one is closing in on him. Critically lauded, age has not been kind to this film. Slow moving and boring.

How do we communicate with each other?

[emgasulla · 10/10 · 1 October 2002]

It is difficult to comment on such a brilliant movie without having read the book first, or even better, being familiar with Peter Handke's narrative works. While it may seem evident (to us, accustomed to Hollywood's conventional plots) that the main character of The Goalie... is a madman, it is not evident at all. Handke's approach to narrative is to reflect exterior signs, rather than enter the character's inner thoughts. See The Lefthanded Woman for example: while it may seem, on the surface, that the woman does not have a reason for divorce, in fact she might have a lot, only she does not reveal what is on her mind. Same applies to the goalie: he would not speak his mind, therefore we, and even Handke himself (or Wenders) can not enter his own intimate realm. Whatever his reasons are for what he does (and murder is only one of his unexplained acts) we can not know them. The film is about communication between people more than murder. It is funny that most of us would assume he is mad just because we can not find an account of his acts: if you think about it, in the real world outside the movie realm, most people -and even our closest friends- would not tell us why they do what they do. And it does not necessarily mean they are mad.

kind of interesting but ultimately pointless

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 5 February 2006]

This movie reminded me very much of Albert Camus' book THE STRANGER. In it, you have a main character who you know nothing about and could care less about simply commit a murder for apparently no reason. This book is considered an existential masterpiece, but when I was forced to read it in college, I just thought it was a pointless book. Well, when I watched this film, it felt like a case of Déjà Vu--the main character, who you never really understand and could care less about kills a woman about mid-way through the movie for apparently no reason. Because there is absolutely NO CONTEXT whatsoever, you don't know WHY or what sort of a person he's been--is this his first, does he make a habit of it, etc. None of this is revealed--you just watch this guy over the period of a few days go about his terribly boring life (that is, apart from killing women). Frankly, after watching the film I just found myself not caring one bit one way or the other. There were certainly better ways I could have spent my time than watch this video.

In a class by itself

[liehtzu · 9/10 · 21 May 1999]

"The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick" is a unique experience. Alternately strange, boring, and fascinating, it's the story of a professional German football goalie who simply walks off the playing field one day and proceeds to roam the city idly, stopping to pick up newspapers (to check the scores), watch movies, loiter around, and commit the random murder of a ticket-girl at the cinema he frequents. This is the first half of the film. The second half of the film is a journey to the country to attempt to reconcile things with an old girlfriend. He does not commit another murder. His homicide is never explained. He just does it and moves on, and it is in this respect Wenders' film is in a class by itself. Did the guy hate women? Did he have a s***ty childhood? Who cares? With its unwillingness to rationalize or justify the main characters' actions, this film completely sets itself apart from the dull psycho-serial killer genre and offers a new way to depict a man gone mad. It's a great film, though not for the attention-span challenged, and has a chillingly effective minimalist score. The ending is sublime.

The music works wonderfully.

[iamme312 · 25 June 2004]

This is a detective film, but it's not really a film noir or cop drama like we're used to in the U.S. However, there are lots of references to America's overwhelming cultural presence throughout.

For me, Jurgen Knieper's score serves the story well; the tune still comes back to me all these years later.

It's a simple monotonous tune, the main parts being just two notes that the small chamber group works back and forth. It may not sound like much, but in reality it becomes mesmerizing, almost like a 2nd main character, and something that won't release you, like fate.

The film, of course, is genius.

The understated music matches the film's lack of much excitement or development.

The visuals and music work to produce a profoundly unsettling look at the monotonous life of the murderer.

The Ennui of Evil

[howardjaeckel · 1/10 · 31 March 2023]

Famously and very controversially, Hannah Arendt wrote of the "banality of evil." Banal maybe, but who would have thought that evil could be so stupefyingly boring?

Anyone doubtful of the capacity of evil to evoke ennui might test his skepticism with a viewing of "The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick" (at his or her own risk, of course, of thoroughly wasting time).

The hero of our film is named Joseph Bloch, the goalkeeper on a professional soccer team playing a game in Vienna. We are first introduced to Bloch's utter disengagement from life, which seems to be the theme of the movie, during an opening scene on the soccer pitch. When the action is at the opponent's end, Bloch does not even bother to watch, instead wandering distractedly around and behind his net. When the other team attacks, Bloch makes no effort to stop a shot he believes has been made in violation of a rule. The referee is of a different opinion, and when Bloch pursues the official in aggressive protest, he is ejected from the game.

Bloch is then seen wandering aimlessly around town during the course of which he sequentially picks up two women. The viewer may wonder at his success, since he is not especially good looking and exhibits, to say the least, a minimum of charm. The first encounter passes without unexpected incident but, after spending the night with the second woman, he casually and without emotion or any apparent motive strangles her, after she seems to suggest some very mild sadomasochistic play.

And that's about it, folks. The rest of the movie simply follows Bloch over the next few days as he continues his aimless wandering, gets beaten up by a few thugs after needlessly provoking them, and visits an old girlfriend who owns an inn in a nearby town. At no point during these doings, if they may be called that, does he exhibit any emotion about the murder he has committed or any anxiety about being caught, even when he sees a newspaper sketch of the suspected perpetrator who looks remarkably like him.

The movie ends when Bloch wanders into what appears to be a soccer game between two youth teams and engages in a brief conversation with a travelling salesman seated next to him. A penalty is called, and Bloch takes the occasion to explain to his companion the mental duel between the goalie and the kicker, as they try to psych each other out as to where the kick will be aimed. If this disquisition was intended to convey some philosophical point, or to impart meaning to what has gone before in the movie, it escaped me.

Leaving the spontaneous and offhand commission of murder aside, nothing much happens in "The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick." The only thing that kept me watching was my concern about missing something that might shed some explanatory light on this bizarre piece of film-making. That never came, and I felt a mighty sense of relief when the final credits began to roll.

Read less.

Mesmeric, under-the-microscope probing of a psychopath

[Joseph_Gillis · 10/10 · 18 October 2018]

Wim Wenders was always the most cerebral, the most cinematic of the three Giants of New German cinema (albeit Giants enough to bear favourable comparison even to cinematic Giants-For All-Ages such as Fritz Lang, and FW Murnau). In his hands, even a work so clearly of its maker as Ripley's Game became a perhaps even greater work, even more clearly of its maker such as The American Friend was, or as the Sam Shephard-scripted Paris, Texas was. And perhaps, too, this adaptation of a German bestseller likely is. This film, despite the directors acknowledgements of the influence of Alfred Hitchcock - evident throughout - is A Masterpiece of control and content - admirable in a mature work by an established director, astonishing as a feature debut.

The title is relevant only in a later, casual, conversation the eponymous character has with a provincial policeman, where the policeman innocently spills out his m.o. when confronted by a criminal, but such is the nature of this study that we can't immediately be sure the psychopath is taking everything in. The murder itself isn't even shown in its grisly intensity, merely its foreplay and aftermath. And there's nothing to forewarn us of the killer's intentions: no taunting, no leering looks, no stalkings. (I saw parallels in the murder scene with a similar scene in Hitchcock's underrated 'Frenzy', but only in the way it was shot, and the aforementioned foreplay).

His scanning of every subsequent news report might suggest he's worried, that the noose is tightening around him. But his immediately subsequent actions suggest otherwise. Like the prototype psychopath, compassion is conspicuous by its absence from his every thought and action. But yet, in best cinematic tradition, what 'he' doesn't know is that we can see his every action, can scrutinise his every thought. Can condemn him for his indifference.

Only by giving every frame of this masterly film your full attention will you get to truly 'enjoy' its final frame.

Inside the mind of a footballer stroke killer!

[RatedVforVinny · 8/10 · 27 November 2019]

Another skilful german director Wim Wenders, started off with this little gem of a movie and with the most unusual coupling of subjects, sport and murder. This must have been a very odd film on its release and remains today a largely undiscovered obscurity. The picture has little to do with either of the subjects mentioned apart from the central character being a professional football player (in a lower league), who for some unknown reason commits an unprovoked and despicable act (of rape and murder). There is little comparison to anything else from it's time (or since), though Jim Jarmusch, later specialized in pictures where something and nothing happens (simultaneously). A fascinating study of a cold blooded killer but without the usual moral judgment attached. Go figure.

Great character study

[alansabljakovic-39044 · 8/10 · 21 May 2020]

Huh that Wenders guy really knows how to make a good movie. Who would've thought...