Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Werner Herzog's Invincible tells the story of a Polish blacksmith in Nazi Germany who in his provincial integrity thinks he can protect his people after becoming the star at the Palace of the Occult in Berlin, which is overseen by a sinister man who dreams of becoming the Nazis' Minister of the Occult. Much of the movie's uncanny appeal comes from the contrast between the simple-mindedly innocent blacksmith-come-strongman and Tim Roth's wicked Hanussen, who trickles with studied malice. Standing between them is a young woman under Hanussen's mental force, who the strongman loves. The movie is supposedly based on a true story. I can conceive of various ways it could've been told unspectacularly, but Herzog has turned it into a movie in which we mostly have no clue what could possibly happen next.The movie has the evocativeness of a German silent film, bold in its expressionism and moralistic insistence. Its casting is critical, and intuitively right. Tim Roth is a menacing deceiver, posing as a man with extrasensory abilities, using hocus-pocus and theatrics as he hustles for position within the rising Nazi majority. There's a scene where he hypnotizes the strongman's love interest, and as he stares dauntlessly toward us, I wondered if it was feasible to hypnotize us as well. As for the untrained actor playing the strongman, the camera can look as closely as you like and never see anything insincere.Herzog always works to push us into the mythic and the mysterious. And here, there are shots of a stark, craggy seashore where the stones are covered with thousands of bright red crabs, all clambering away on their crustaceous errands. As with similar imagery in most of Herzog's other films, there can be no exact interpretation of this. And like most of his other films, Invincible is a unique experience. Herzog has gotten outside the tropes and confines of conventional movie storytelling, and confronts us where our sense of trust and belief keeps its skeletons.

The two major flaws in this are evident from the start: a hamfisted script and some wooden acting particularly from the lead, a muscle bound body builder whose performance makes Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Lawrence Olivier. Perhaps he should not be blamed since the script, by the director himself (not surprising really, this is very much a vanity project) is as clunking as could be and certainly would not have been made if anyone other than the director had written it. The dialogue is mechanical and obvious for the most part; the director is not a very skillful writer. That this piece is not completely without merit is down to the interest of the premise, although "Based on a true story" is somewhat stretching the facts. "Very loosely based on a character who actually existed albeit at a different time and place (he died in America)" would be more like it. The scenes in the club with Tim Roth as the occultist Hannusen (rather closer, though not really close, to the historical character) are the most interesting partially I guess due to the inherent fascination of Nazi occultism and there is a good feel for period here. But the plot gets jumbled up in vague ideas which do not go anywhere or lead to predictable outcomes: Jellies as souls and later crabs as...what? A feel good platonic (?) romance with a frustrated concert pianist leading to the inevitable performance. Tim Roth's obvious secret. I guess 'predictable' is really the word for this. Everything is pretty much spelt out in the script before it happens. There are some deft cinematic touches here and there, but not enough to sustain interest.

I bought this DVD purely on a lets-give-it-a-try basis, knowing only a few supporting actors, and of course, Tim Roth and Werner Herzog.I cant say I was disappointed with any of the two: Roth delivers a solid performance as usual, and Herzog manages (although barely) to display his straightforward, albeit compelling, style of telling stories, that keeps both the average movie-going folks, and his more artsy fans, happy and debating the qualities and faults.This movie would work much better in German, instead of English - a poor choice of Herzog, in my opinion. The awkwardness does add to the atmosphere, up to a certain point, but not all the way.The same goes for the acting: Roth may seem a bit over the top, but there wasn't really much more that he could do - Ahola and Gourari are below any acting standard, and without pushing his part to the limit, the movie would be as plain as its storyline. To a great extent, Roth carries the story and the movie on his shoulders, from his appearance, until his chilling monologue at the court.However, much of the rest doesn't really make sense, especially after the first half, when our "hum, how refreshing and original" tolerance has worn out. Anna Gourari and Jacob Wein cant act to save their lives, and some scenes, especially towards the end, like the confrontation at the boat, or the speech at the village, seem just cartoonish and laughable.The story is also to blame. Some people may leave this movie convinced that they have watched a "true" story, but as any small research will tell you, Breitbart died years before, never met Hanussen, went to the USA, and sold his strength method, Charles Atlas' style. Herzog chose to make a lively tale out of this, where Breitbart foresees the nazi horrors, etc, while living a 'simple' life - but even without knowing better, the final result looks oversimplified.A final word for Jouko Ahola - at first, I thought he was just some weightlifter, casted somewhat by accident (after listening to Wein and Gourari, one loses all faith in this casting), but he does fit this role with great merit. Extremely real and likable, one doubts that he is even acting - is Ahola playing Breitbart, or is Ahola playing himself, with a borrowed name? He does add to the movie's magic, despite falling short in all the moments that demand more from his acting, than his muscles. But like with his character, I wonder if thats really his fault, or Hanussen/Herzog's fault - like he says, he is «just strong». So strong, in fact, that the real Breitbart looks small in comparison, and so do all the other characters, with the exception of Roth, that he lifts in the air like a child, but without whom he would be lost - in the story, and in the movie.Too bad, that his strong arms cant lift this movie above its rather simplistic premises. Just the first half, Herzog's attention to detail (the shtetl, 1930's Berlin), Roth and Ahola's performances, each for its own reasons, and a few lasting scenes - Breitbart's first performance, breaking the chains and bending the sword, with the music - make this movie a hard 7.

I would number Werner Herzog in my favourite five directors. I love all he has done... till now. What was he thinking?!?! I had given up voicing my opinion here, but I've got to get this off my chest. I was looking so forward to this film. It has no pacing! It has atrocious acting! The script rings false, with some jaw droppingly bad dialogue! The dramatic arc is non-existent. Oh, Werner has directed many a masterpiece, and has nothing further to prove his place in the cinema stratosphere... but I got to call a spade a spade here. This is his first misstep in my opinion (that is said having seen virtually all his work leading up to Inincible, importantly, I haven't seen Scream Of Stone).