"Schtonk" is a German movie that was released back in 1992, so it will have its 25th anniversary next year. The director is Helmut Dietl and he is also one of the pretty many writers that worked on the script here. This one was nominated for a Golden Globe and an Oscar and won also many other glories during all kinds of awards ceremonies. If you look at the cast, you will find so many known names if you have an interest in German cinema: George, Ochsenknecht, Ferres, Mühe, Hörbiger, Hoppe, Manzel etc. All you have to do is check the cast list to see who else is in here. No surprise to anybody should be that this film also received major glories at the German Film Awards, such as Best Picture, but also lead actor for George. And as a result, this is possibly the man's most known work today, just because of all the awards recognition. But it is just one great George performance from a stellar body of work. I cannot deny I am a fan of his and his performance here is one reason why. I am not sure if I would call it his best, but it's right up there with his finest.

As for the other player, some are solid, some are not. The biggest letdown is once again (not surprisingly at all) Veronica Ferres, who simply isn't a good actress and with somebody else in her role, this could have been an even better film I think. It is still fairly decent though. It is about fake Hitler diaries and greedy ruthless authors and journalists who don't care about the truth as long as they become popular. A whole lot of this film is over the top, but it still works somehow and George going pretty hammy at times is even not a problem at all I think. Overall, I believe the late George and the late Dietl make it work. It is nothing you should watch if you are in for a historically accurate film, but there are some pretty funny moments and this film will make you shake your head on more than just one occasion and with that I don't mean because the film is absurd or unrealistic (it is intended that way for comedic purpose),but exactly from a positive perspective about how good of a satire it is at times. Yet there are weak moments and weak performances (not just Ferres, but she stands out negatively) that keep me from giving this an even higher rating and consider it one of the year's best. George elevates the material a lot and makes up for some of the weaker stuff performance-wise too or for an occasional length (not too many),but it's not enough for greatness.

How could someone fool so many people ... and make them believe he had Hitlers notes/diary? Actually thinking how people spread disinformation nowadays and how some (former) leaders are still doing it ... it may not be that far fetched.

And while the movie is fiction, it is based on a true story. Something that really happpened and went on to become one of the biggest scandals in journalistic history. Right now it is tough to find good journalism ... it also tough to get through to certain people who believe any conspiracy (lie) they read online ... someone wrote it, is must be true ... which I reckon was something that made the "words of Hitler" also believable to those who wanted to be fooled ... overall a really good movie/comedy, that heightens what happened to add a lot of comedy relief ... how else would someone be able to stomach this madness?

Almost 2 hours is a bit two long for its basic story material, hence a film that has wonderful moments and scenes and plenty of satire, but also moments of boredom in which nothing (new) happens. Certainly successful in portraying the circumstances in which a forger could produce the notorious Hitler Diaries (it happened in 1983 and not only German press but the press world wide walked into the trap),the film shows that the yellow press and its sensation-hungry reporters made use of the curious fascination of the public world wide with the Nazi past.; as Harald Juhnke's character says to his chief-editor: "(with Hitler) we never had such a famous writer writing in our magazine ever before!".

For Germany the most painful aspect of the film might be the support for the publication from former Nazis represented by a character played by Karl Schönbock (82 years old here!); as a former intimate friend of Hitler he knows that the diaries are forged but gives full support: the end justifies the means. One of the memorable scenes is the arrival of the guests at the rally of former Nazi's and supporters: a memorable image when the guests walk to the house in the rain under their umbrellas illuminated by torches.

The cast is very good, with Götz George and Uwe Ochsenknecht outstanding. Both have scenes that are side splitting funny: George when he for the first time reads from the diaries and Ochsenknecht when he begins to think, talk and look like Hitler.

But as said, the film is too long for its own good. There are more memorable scenes than the those I have mentioned already, but for instance does the viewer really need to see all 60 diaries made? The use of the old song "La Paloma" in the scene on the boat is a nice idea, but it also takes too long. And what to think of the first scene (before and during the credits); it does not add anything to the things to come and is not funny either.

The for this film composed music itself is mediocre, but the use of recordings of Zarah Leander and that of a small yodel-theme are very clever. All in all: unbalanced, at moments very amusing and certainly worth a view.