First of all, I will review both titles here, not because they belong together but because - and this is the big BUT - part two offered nothing new and was a bit of a let down. We also cannot speak of part one and two here but of companion pieces, because both parts tell the same story from a different point of view. Also both parts were shown at the same time on different stations and the respective other part after that. Yet for some reason I think "Gegen die Zeit" would work on its own and the other part "Das Geständnis" (The Confession) would not. Maybe I only think that because I watched "Gegen die Zeit" first.
Before we start here is my table of content:
1.Acting 2.Writing 3.Plot
1. Bjarne Mädel I did not like before this and now I know why. I did not like the characters he played in Stromberg (German version of The Office) and Der Tatortreiniger (Crime Scene Cleaner). In Stromberg he played a shy stuttering jerk and in Der Tatortreiniger I do not know what the character was. Because of that, I did not like the actor. And I do not mean to say it was bad acting. Here the character he plays is good and Mädel is good. Very good? No. Why not. The courtroom scenes. As a cop, Mädel's character is pretty tough but in the courtroom scenes he is not. I understand of course that people are intimidated when on the stand but here Mädel playes the character so differently from the rest of the movie. And he plays him shy and a little stuttering just like his other characters in Stromberg and Tatortreiniger. That difference was too much. The other crinchworthy scene that substracted from the overall strong performance was after the waterboarding scene when he cried. My wife and I laughed. That should not have been. It was good to see Brandauer again and he delivered. He is very good as always and his character is interesting. Because of him the film is better.
2. The writing was not bad. But two things were not good and did not make sense structurally: First, during the courtroom scene the topic of torture is brought up long before it is actually revealed to the court that it was torture that made the subject confess. Of course it was the elephant in the room, for us, the audience, but why talk about torture for so long without it being the issure. Structurewise this should have been reedone. Secondly the only reason why they were dancing around the topic of torture for so long in the court scene especially in the second part was the fact that the kidnapper did not tell his lawyer that it was torture that had made him confess. Yes, the cop threatened him not to reveal that. But come on, the kidnapper was shown to be extremely intelligent and resourceful. Don't tell me he did not know that torture was forbidden and that telling his laywer would only help him win his case. The bad thing here is that not telling his lawyer about the torture and the lawyer having to find out about it does not make sense for the above mentioned reason and the scenes that show the lawyer investigate why his client had confessed without a real reason is almost the only new stuff we get in part two or should we say the companion piece. But since we already know there is no point watching it.
3. The plot is also not bad but has its faults: A girl gets kidnapped. A cop has a hunch that a certain suspect might be the kidnapper and because there is no real evidence, only a hunch, the cop decides to torture the suspect into revealing the location of the kidnapped girl. He succeeds but the girl is already dead because of reasons. During the trial the torture is revealed and the kidnapper is released. My problem here is that the "second" part "Das Geständnis" is only there because the kidnapper was afraid to reveal the torture and the lawyer had to ask why his client had confessed. That was very contrieved. Other than that the lawyer is fleshed out more which was good because it gave Brandauer screentime. The rest of the story is the same as part one. Maybe they should recut everything as one part and then it would be better.
In conclusion, the advertising of those two parts was always about "Watch both sides of the story" only then can you judge. I did not get that, because why would I root for the kidnapoer. Then again, maybe I just do not get it. But it was alright.
Before we start here is my table of content:
1.Acting 2.Writing 3.Plot
1. Bjarne Mädel I did not like before this and now I know why. I did not like the characters he played in Stromberg (German version of The Office) and Der Tatortreiniger (Crime Scene Cleaner). In Stromberg he played a shy stuttering jerk and in Der Tatortreiniger I do not know what the character was. Because of that, I did not like the actor. And I do not mean to say it was bad acting. Here the character he plays is good and Mädel is good. Very good? No. Why not. The courtroom scenes. As a cop, Mädel's character is pretty tough but in the courtroom scenes he is not. I understand of course that people are intimidated when on the stand but here Mädel playes the character so differently from the rest of the movie. And he plays him shy and a little stuttering just like his other characters in Stromberg and Tatortreiniger. That difference was too much. The other crinchworthy scene that substracted from the overall strong performance was after the waterboarding scene when he cried. My wife and I laughed. That should not have been. It was good to see Brandauer again and he delivered. He is very good as always and his character is interesting. Because of him the film is better.
2. The writing was not bad. But two things were not good and did not make sense structurally: First, during the courtroom scene the topic of torture is brought up long before it is actually revealed to the court that it was torture that made the subject confess. Of course it was the elephant in the room, for us, the audience, but why talk about torture for so long without it being the issure. Structurewise this should have been reedone. Secondly the only reason why they were dancing around the topic of torture for so long in the court scene especially in the second part was the fact that the kidnapper did not tell his lawyer that it was torture that had made him confess. Yes, the cop threatened him not to reveal that. But come on, the kidnapper was shown to be extremely intelligent and resourceful. Don't tell me he did not know that torture was forbidden and that telling his laywer would only help him win his case. The bad thing here is that not telling his lawyer about the torture and the lawyer having to find out about it does not make sense for the above mentioned reason and the scenes that show the lawyer investigate why his client had confessed without a real reason is almost the only new stuff we get in part two or should we say the companion piece. But since we already know there is no point watching it.
3. The plot is also not bad but has its faults: A girl gets kidnapped. A cop has a hunch that a certain suspect might be the kidnapper and because there is no real evidence, only a hunch, the cop decides to torture the suspect into revealing the location of the kidnapped girl. He succeeds but the girl is already dead because of reasons. During the trial the torture is revealed and the kidnapper is released. My problem here is that the "second" part "Das Geständnis" is only there because the kidnapper was afraid to reveal the torture and the lawyer had to ask why his client had confessed. That was very contrieved. Other than that the lawyer is fleshed out more which was good because it gave Brandauer screentime. The rest of the story is the same as part one. Maybe they should recut everything as one part and then it would be better.
In conclusion, the advertising of those two parts was always about "Watch both sides of the story" only then can you judge. I did not get that, because why would I root for the kidnapoer. Then again, maybe I just do not get it. But it was alright.
