User Reviews

"Terror" is a German 90-minute movie from this year (2016). It was made by writer and director Lars Kraume together with Oliver Berben and Ferdinand von Schirach, so if you know a bit about German film, you will recognize immediately how prestigious this project is. As a consequence, the cast here includes really many stars from German films these days. The main character is played by Florian David Fitz, for the other ones just check the cast list. One of them is Burghart Klaußner with whom Kraume worked on his very successful previous project too. The story is pretty simple. We are told we are jury members during a session of court proceedings when a man is accused of having murdered over 100 people. These people were inside a plane hijacked by terrorists and he shot the plane against the instruction of his superior because the plane was approaching the football stadium in Munich where a much bigger tragedy was about to happen. We find out about the circumstances of what happened in detail during these 1.5 hours. If you have seen Reinhard Hauff's "Stammheim - Die Baader-Meinhof-Gruppe vor Gericht" from the 1980s, you basically know what to expect. Of course, the terrorism parallel is only very vaguely similar, but both films take place 100% at court, even if this new film is entirely fictitious and the one I previously mentioned a re-enactment. This new film here reminded me a bit of a more pompous version of the old television courtroom shows here in Germany, such as "Streit um Drei", where audiences' opinions also played a major role, even if they had no impact on the actual judgment like they do here. Eventually, you have to decide yourself if you are interested enough in the subject to check this film out. I would say for me it was a rewarding watch. There was a great moment here and there and also a weak moment here and there, but the majority of scenes were fairly well-done and interesting. I myself recommend the watch and this film shows that small screen entertainment is not far behind the big screen right now looking at all the big names in here, not only in the United States, but also here in Germany. Go see "Terror", you will most likely not be disappointed.

I only saw the "body" of the movie, not the result of the vote or the final verdict. I didn't choose to do so, the television channel showing the movie simply didn't include this second chapter. Still, this absence didn't hurt or diminish my enjoyment of the work - we're talking about the result of a vote, not about a denouement or a resolution.

"Terror" is a fine movie. The acting, while decent, doesn't sparkle, but that doesn't matter : the focus lies on a slow and careful examination, worthy of a philosophy seminar, of difficult moral and ethical questions. The various topics include subjects such as the relationship (or conflict) between law and morality ; the relationship (or conflict) between an order and personal conscience ; the problem of choosing between a greater or lesser evil ; the question of defending the "Polis" against an obstinate enemy ; the difference between fighting a threat which is certain and a threat which is probable, and so on.

The movie is also inspired by the atrocities and enormities committed under the Nazi regime, and by the heartrending lessons learned from this epoch. This gives the work a special resonance for a modern and democratic Germany faced with daunting challenges.

This is a film made by thoughtful adults for thoughtful adults. It's a welcome, a most welcome, breath of fresh air.

I heartily recommend the movie, although I've got to warn you that I've got a very high tolerance for courtroom scenes. People who aren't all that fond of courtroom dramas might feel less enthusiasm...

A german movie that tries to show the consequences of the twist between the military and politics. The Movie plays with the mind game of what if to stop terrorists but to have kill a lot of innocent people to save a lot more human beings. The movie treats two scenarios : guilty and guiltless.

From my point of view, the film just sends an inconsistent pledge for keeping the military within the legal framework. As the latter is a human construction, the message's strength is unconvincing.

The outcome of a terrorist attack not only violates the current law, but all involved in its contention (including the Minister), who turned frozen and dumb - even the pilots intercepting the civilian plane -, as nobody thinks about the obvious basic measures to reduce damages. Only the prosecutor is smart enough to point it out, wants to punish the shooter, whilst doing nothing to press charges against the high ranks (mild message indeed).

Now, every homo/femina really sapiens knows that the law is a compromise to keep society within some limits its own culture considers as mutually desired to live within an agreed social and justice framework. This compromise is set by a majority of people in Congress, judges and lower and upper courts. Unanimity is rare, norms are fallible, not always strictly fair, changes as time goes by, and sometimes (in dictatorships) even turn out unbearable. It just maintains the community fabric within desired premises. Albeit we must recognize and honor its advances as one of the major achievements of humanity.

But also, every really sapiens knows that it is possible he or she may face an undesirable situation where their dignity, honor, beliefs or moral precepts collide with the rule of law. Then, they must prior decide if breaking it and, if so, they must acknowledge and accept the potential consequences. You trespass a red light and pay the fine, it is childish to argue that missed an important meeting or so.

From the very beginning the defendant is guilty before the law; you cannot change this fact, and there is no news putting him on trial. He broke the law and, that is the only issue of interest because apparently there is neither any valid common law precedent nor a minor damage excuse in Germany's law. Therefore, the trial is irrelevant as all is regulated in advance.

So, a not guilty judgement would be against the rule of law (not against a moral or any other philosophical principle). And, if you decide the defendant should be acquitted, maybe you should admit you were reasoning out of the legal box. That is the movie's best value offer, which basically justify my rating.

Nevertheless -and somewhat weird-, the plot has flaws. There is only one civilian witness (a passenger's griefing widow), and a disrespectful defense attorney who did not prepare his defendant properly, provoking an untenable and flimsy claim to involve all passengers in the airplane as co-responsible (extensible to buses, taxis, stadiums, theaters... and your own home). He is doomed but, no matter how smart he looks, did not realize that he would bear the costs.

A bit deeper and more credible plot is expected from von Schirach, while Klaussner and Gedeck have much more memorable performances. Kurz gesagt, anspruchslos.