Ian (Flash Review)Imagine Hitler's attitude to creating a username for an email and "Adolf_Hitler@.x.com" has been taken. He would not be happy. That is a real scene in the film! He also fervently refused "Adolf_Hitler_8@.x.com". I've never seen a film like this. It brilliantly mixed irreverent comedy with seriousness in a very clever story that only the German's, maybe, would have the right to do. The story opens with Hitler, the Hitler from 1930's, awakening in a garden in the city, confused and interacting with everyday Germans. People's reactions range from expected anger at the image of Hitler to laughing, pointing and waving at what weirdo impersonates Hitler in full military dress. A local news channel discovers him and gives him airtime as an amusing Hitler impersonator who never breaks character. He gets lots of media coverage and begins to do what he did so effectively in the 1930's; where the story turns serious. I've never seen such a movie like this. It was totally captivating, funny and eerie. I highly recommend this!

edward fisher Let me start by saying I haven't read the book, which from what I've heard is far more intelligent than this film. I'm also a liberal, therefore my criticisms of this film have nothing to do with it's targeting of conservatives, but of the film's misrepresentation of it's subjects and ineptitude in the film-making. I also am not a person who gets offended, I LOVE the concept and wish a better creative team had handled this idea. "Look Who's Back" is clearly aping off the success of Sacha Baron Cohen's "Borat" and "Bruno", yet fails to realise what made those films great. 1st, the man who plays Hitler is mediocre, he is physically wrong for the part & not short as Hitler was, he towers over everyone else, which takes away completely from the comedy. He also lacks any improvisation skills, unlike Cohen, he never asks any challenging questions or manages to "trap" his victims, instead, the film heavily relies on cheap, dishonest editing. The editing is the worst aspect of the film. Not only is is poorly paced comedy- wise, but also dishonest and clearly misrepresents people interviewed. In his films, Cohen would stay with someone on screen for at least a minute, allow the viewers to become accustomed to them in unbroken, usually unedited takes, then Cohen would strike with a smart question perfectly tailored to that person. Here, interviewees are on screen for 10 seconds at the most, ensuring that all of their opinions are out of context. There is one man who literally says "I'd be willing to take a bullet for my Germany" and that's his only 3 seconds of screen time, because he is edited between 2 other people saying rather controversial things, the director is manipulating the viewers into concluding this man is a bigot, where he only said what anyone in the world would say about their country regardless of political persuasion. It's clear they had to resort to this choppy editing style due to none of their subjects were as horrible as they hoped; demonstrated by the montage, where we see snippets of dozens of improvised scenes, obviously not funny, that hit the cutting room floor.It's a tonally and stylistically confused mess. Whereas in the fore-mentioned films, the dramatised elements and mockumentary parts are interwoven perfectly. In "Look Who's Back", they constantly jump between styles, undermining our confidence in the realism of the supposed "true" moments. Because the leading role is a man playing Hitler, we can't trust answers given to him, as the vast majority of his subjects are being ironic as they give their answers, they're in on the joke, where Cohen's victims were not. There is a man early on who says that the solution to Germany's problem is "Labor Camps", which would be horrifying if there wasn't a probable chance he was taking the mickey, instead, he's on screen for 5 seconds, then never asked another question. There is nothing "sobering" or "eye opening" about anyone's opinion in this film, because everyone's opinion is tainted by the fact they are aware they are being interviewed by a comedian. The most egregious opinions are those of a few drunkards in a bar who are obviously playing up their "devotion" to "Hitler" as a joke, illustrated by the fact they are all laughing and taking photos of the actor, yet the film frames them as if they genuinely believe this. Also, every time they ask somebody about refugees, it frames every respondent that has a conflicting emotion towards the crisis as if they agree with a Hitler-Esque position. I hesitate to call any film morally reprehensible, but this film definitely rides that line in it's dishonestly and over-simplification. The non scripted scenes are the only ones that have an occasionally funny line, yet there's far too much, the side characters are dull, and it's unbelievable and contrived.The ending of the film is a ham-fisted "twist" where the message is crammed down our throats in the manner of a soap opera, as is most of the "points" the film is trying to make. The credits are particularly egregious, in suggesting Wilders and LePen are the modern equivalents to Hitler. While I dislike both those politicians, it is a reprehensible, simplistic and childish comparison from film-makers who are clearly virtue signaling. It's message is so melodramatic and self-important that it is unintentionally hilarious how pretentious it is. Tonally, "look who's back" doesn't know if it wants to be an edgy, a no holds barred offensive comedy, or a liberal think piece. It ends up as confused. I assume most of the positive reviews are from the kind of people who don't watch many foreign films, so whenever they see one, they praise it endlessly. P.S., the music in this film is all recycled from other better films (Dawn of the Dead) and uses THREE songs from A Clockwork Orange. Either use an original song, or use classical music that hasn't been so overplayed in the past. In so many respects, it feels like a film by a uni student.

BoomerDT Recently caught this on Netflix. I like satirical comedy about taboo subjects. Got hooked by the movie's original preposterous premise, that Adolf Hitler, of all people, has been resurrected and returns to life to Berlin about 70 years after his suicide. For the first half of the movie the director has fun with this notion, although much of it is the amazement any person would have from post 20th century on in returning 70 years after their death…the incredible inventions and technological breakthroughs that have come at a breakneck pace are mind boggling. There is also a similarity between "LWB" and "Borat" as this is done in a mockumentary style, as the citizenry in Germany react to the sight of a man who resembles and reacts as Hitler going through day to day like in modern Deutschland. Good enough and there are some funny and outrageous moments and Nazi Germany can be cleverly satirized, as Mel Brooks did with the "Springtime for Hitler" sequence in "The Producers" or as in the underrated 60's sit-com, "Hogan's Heroes." But "LWB" descends into a not so subtle comment into what the left perceive as racist xenophobia. That is the very real threat to Germany and virtually all of Western Europe of the invasion of Muslim refugees, who have absolutely no interest in assimilating into the prevailing culture. I might also add that if Hitler were to come back today he would find he shares a common conviction with most of the Muslim world. Absolute and complete anti-Semitism that can only be satisfied by extermination of the Jewish race.

Donald Buehler How to make a comedy out of very tragic events and characters? Adrian Brody did it in "Life Is Beautiful" about life in a concentration camp. "Look Who's Back" does it via the premise that Adolf Hitler returns to modern day Germany. Of course everyone believes that he is an actor - one who disturbingly never steps out of character. The audience knows that he cannot - as he actually is Hitler. Much of the film is humorous as Hitler tries to reestablish himself as "The Fuhrer" and tries to understand and cope with modern day technology and attitudes.Oliver Masucci is brilliant as Hitler -playing the role so straight that he became very scary near the end. The brilliance of Hitler was aptly demonstrated as people began responding to the hate - filled rhetoric he employed on various television shows. In real life the industrialists supported Hitler because they were sure they could control him - they could not. The church supported him because they thought he would be useful to them and that they could control him - they could not. Finally the German Army threw in with him because they wanted to get rid of their rivals - Hitler's "brown shirt" Army - the Sturmabteilung (SA). He got rid of Strasser and Rohm and thousands of others as he dismantled the organization which carried him to power. But alas the Army also could not control him.In the movie, he becomes a media star because of viewership and ratings. We see glimpses of the audience saying like "I think I agree with him, and he makes a lot of sense." The TV moguls are building their careers on his outrageousness and resulting popularity.His grasp on people is creepy, insidious and feels quite realistic. This film shows you how riveting he could be - and gives you a glimpse into how he came to power. So, beyond laughs - the message clearly is that this could happen again. We must be aware of potential dictators in our midst. A few people in the movie saw that he really was Hitler - and they were discarded at the end of the movie.This movie is not a condemnation of Germany - past or present. Hitler in the movie postulates at the end of the film that we cannot get rid of him - because he is a part of us. I hope that is not true.