Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Die Mörder sind unter uns" or "The Murderers Are Among Us" is a German black-and-white film from 1946, so this one has its 70th anniversary this year already. Writer and director is Wolfgang Staudte and he sure did not waste any time in trying to begin the German coming to terms with the events of the last 10 years. This one is about a man who fought in World War II, but it plays after the war already and the core of the movie is the man running into one of his commanders from the days of war, a man who instructed him and other soldiers to kill many innocent people, including women and children. In theory, this is a very interesting plot, but somehow I was not too well entertained by this story, not half as much as I hoped I would be.And then there is, of course, also the story of Hildegard Knef's character. Knef is certainly the most known actress from the cast here and still a name people now in Germany of the 21st century. I am afraid this cannot be said about Staudte or lead actor Wilhelm Borchert. But back to her character: She plays a woman after the war who comes back home from a concentration camp and tries to live a somewhat normal life again. Her character is mostly included to soothe the emotional pain of Borchert's character, but honestly, she did almost absolutely nothing for me. Her story could have been so much more interesting with her character's background and early on she seemed as much of a lead as Borchert, but the longer the film ran, the more her character disappeared out of the focus, only to get in fully again, pretty much out of nowhere, at the climax scene in the end.I believe the story of these two people had a lot more potential than the filmmaker managed to deliver us here. This could have been one of the truly great films made right afterward World War II, because it was so spot-on with the life at this period and the political impact it had. I also believe the actors, especially the lead actor were better than they could show us here because of the baity script that eventually lacks depth though. This is not a problem of the runtime. The film is fairly short, barely makes it to 80 minutes, but yet lacks focus considerably. I do not recommend "Die Mörder sind unter uns". Thumbs down for this great idea lost in execution.

k-kotynski The film The Murderers are Among Us was the first film to be produced after the Second World War and was also the first film during that period to evaluate the sense of collective guilt among the German people for the atrocities committed in WWII. This film focuses on the character Dr. Mertens, who is a returning soldier after the war. He is plagued by guilt derived from an execution order given by his superior officer, Brückner, which resulted in the death of many women and children. Dr. Mertens eventually finds out that Brückner is still alive and attempts to kill him, however, in the end decides that personal revenge is not the best option, and that wartime offenses are best left punished by the law.This ending is slightly different from the original (in which Dr. Mertens follows through with Brückner's murder), because the Russian occupying power in Germany at the time of its production called for a more constructive approach. The Russians were the only occupying power in Germany to give consent for this films production, because the other occupying powers felt the German people needed to undergo much more post war re-education before they would be ready to produce films free of propaganda. This film was a great first example to show that the German's were capable of producing a film after the war that was both democratic and humanistic. This film also began a trend of "rubble films". Rubble films, such as this one, employ the use of Berlin's demolished buildings to evoke emotion and add a realistic edge to the setting.I personally really enjoyed this film, as the use of rubble throughout the film brought a piece of history to life. This film also successfully gave me another impression of Germany post WWII, that being of a more innocent side of Germany that felt guilt for the atrocities of war, and also a Germany that was taking lawful action against guilty parties. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in learning more about German history or WWII history, as it realistically portrays the physical and emotional damages of the war, and also, is itself a historically relevant film, marking the beginning of a new age of German cinema.

Karl Self This is a very strange movie. It starts with the text insert "Berlin, 1945", which translated to "the same place, but last year" at the time and place of filming. Although Berlin sure was in ruins at the time, everything seems so neat, cosy and tidy here -- it made me wish for those happy days of being bombed out and living hand-to-mouth. Susanne, the concentration camp survivor, is perfectly made up and groomed in every scene. When she returns from the camps and finds the alcoholic misanthrope Dr Mertens squatting in her flat, she naturally falls heels over head in love with him. Dr Mertens has the fetching characteristic of never having to worry about food or fuel, and being able to party every day in nightclubs despite being pennyless. Strangely, most films that came years later managed to paint a more realistic picture of the post-war chaos than the film that was filmed right in the thick of it. There is also a somewhat overwrought old man, Mondschein, waiting for the return of his son from the war.The movie finally gains momentum when Mertens encounters his former commander, Ferdinand Brückner, who on Christmas eve only a few years ago ordered the execution of a hundred civilians. Brückner is an unscrupulous, jolly bastard, who has always managed to stay on top and is now already a successful entrepreneur. Compared to the other rather ethereal characters of the story, he is truly creepy because he is realistic, remorseless -- and strangely likable. In the original plot, Mertens eventually avenges himself and murders Brückner, but in order not to promote lynch justice, the movie takes a more moderate and open ending.The movie is very courageous in that it doesn't aim to entertain or send out a positive vibe, but confronts the uncomfortable past head-on and dares to hold up a mirror at its audience, in a way that few, if any, movies have done since. For that, and for its historic value, it deserves twenty out of ten points. Sadly it lacks a bit in suspense. On a side note, its brilliant cinematography and especially the masterly use of shadows was reciprocated in another classic that was filmed two years later, with almost an overload of suspense: The Third Man.

peterpolaroid Having just seen this movie for the first time, I'll agree with some of the other comments.The acting seems theatrical, at times almost political. The movie would make a great double with "The Third Man".What struck me was the significance of this movie. That the Soviets are the ones that made it possible. That forgiveness (and legal justice) not revenge were the goals to move past the horrors of life, a message only brought about by the Soviets changing the ending. Not having known the history of this movie, I wondered about the soviet involvement, when in one street scene children were playing within a stones throw of a wrecked soviet tank. (Or was it wrecked?).It was made in 1946. I can only imagine the hardship for everyone overrun by the wars destructive path. This movie plainly shows that life does continue.