Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

MartinHafer Among die-hard film lovers, Sam Fuller is like a god. This is especially true of those in the French New Wave film movement....who absolutely adored the man and his films. Much of it is because of the economy of his productions--with relatively low budgets and tough scripts. So, I was not surprised when I saw a review on IMDB that gave this movie a 10...and another one that absolutely hated it in every way. For those who love the man's work, he could do no wrong. As for me, I have enjoyed quite a few of his movies but am not a card carrying member of the Fuller cult...which is why I am saying I found this strange German concoction to be almost unwatchable. And, because of this, I am shocked that it's been carried on Netflix here in the States.The back story to "Tote Taube in der Beethovenstrasse" is unusual. There apparently was a German television show, "Tatort", and the folks responsible for it were able to get Fuller to write and direct an episode. It's more a stand alone episode...and also more like a movie, clocking in at over 100 minutes. Now here's the strange part....the American star (Glenn Corbett) speaks all his lines in English and most of the rest of the actors, who are German, do theirs in German! I assume they either dubbed or subbed the show...but, strangely, the captions on the DVD are poor and much of what the German actors say is untranslated on the screen and Corbett's character often explains (awkwardly) what they were saying in his responses! It's a mess...and I have no idea how well it went over in Germany but I strongly suspect most Netflix viewers wouldn't leave the film on for more than about 10 minutes. So, what did I like about the film? In the opening credits, you see not only the actors but technicians with their names and faces on the screen....a nice way to show how much they were all appreciated and how they all contributed to making this production. Other than that....well, I didn't like much.

winner55 Wretchedly under-budgeted, with second-rate actors - yet the film still delivers a powerful visual punch.There are two principle reasons for this: first, the script is uncompromisingly pessimistic, so much so that the finale remains shocking and yet wholly satisfying on some weird, existentialist level.Second, Sam Fuller, despite a crash budget, still uses what camera and editing clout his technology allows to pull us through the usual B-Movie set-ups into some very weird visual surprises - and again the finale is exceptional and completely to the point on this.This is a movie made by a man who just loved to make movies - and who knew how to twist our prurient interests in exploitative material against us. Fuller's films remain critically important, because they are both loving and critical of their audience. Fuller helped redefine the notions "noir" and "hardboiled' for the 1950s and beyond, and proved in this film that he could still pull it off in the jaded '70s.Admittedly dated, yet still well-worth the trip.

helpless_dancer This tale was low budget, had pitiful acting, and made no sense. It was a series of poorly set up scenes which looked set up, coupled with pathetic dialogue delivered by inadequately directed, wooden actors. The story involved an American P.I. who sets up several foreign dignitaries in faked sex photos: all this to protect an American politician. It was such a mishmash that it made little sense and left me bored out of my skull. A total bust.