Giallo Fanatic In my opinion. It is one of the most influential movies ever made. A lot of the elements in this movie are used a lot in the James Bond movies. Handsome hero with a number as codename, beautiful heroine who originally had to manipulate the hero but ultimately falls in love. She was Russian by the way. Which Ian Fleming used a lot in his novels and which can be seen in the James Bond movies today. Even the villain in 'Spione' are copied in a lot of spy and action movies, a mastermind who has an eye for everything, always two steps ahead of his enemies. Indeed, those important elements are used in a lot of movies today. So much that it is almost ordinary but there really is no denying how important they are and how this movies has influenced many, many movies.Now, the story and plot reminds a lot of 'Casino Royale' so I am tempted to say Ian Fleming has seen the movie and taken the story and plot to write his "ultimate spy novel" (Great book, the movie barely does justice to the novel although it is a good movie). The movie's themes are moral and humanity. The moral is explored through the characters and the fight between good and evil. The movie was thorough with it and it is not hard to understand since many movies copy it. The humanity theme is explored by making the villains more humane and has as much screen time as the heroes. Usually the bad guys are portrayed as those inhuman monsters but here the main villain Haghi is very humane although cold and calculating, that made him scary. Which in turn gave him a very strong screen presence.The genre of the movie is thriller. That is what spy movies should be, thrillers. Not action movies full of Rambos. The movie is full of mystery and intrigue as well as suspense and tension. Which modern spy movies usually lack. Spy movies should be character and plot driven because that's where it is most exciting in my opinion, not fueled by car chases and explosions. It comes from a guy who prefers visuals rather than plot, story and characters. Because that is what makes this movie so grand and that is what makes 'Casino Rayale' so great, that is what makes them stand the test of time. Fritz Lang as usual was awe inspiring in his direction, unusually for its time (even unusual today) he spent as much time on his villain as much as he did on his hero. Alfred Hitchcock did that too and Dario Argento. I am not sure of how much influence Lang had on Hitchcock, but I know how much influence he had on Argento. Argento, like Lang spent a lot of time on his villains and being more of a visual storyteller. Argento's movies even have German Expressionism feel in their acting. Dario Argento has named Fritz Lang as one of his influences.Now it is a highly influential movie and one of the most important movies ever made so it should not be missed for movie enthusiasts. I would like to give the movie 12/10 but the limit is 10/10, I can't point out enough how strong and influential this movie is, because it really is the granddaddy of all spy movies. Awesome movie that only a few movies have matched.

wes-connors After an assassination attempt and the shuttling of secret documents, we meet scruffy but handsome Willy Fritsch (as No. 326 aka Donald Tremaine). Our hero is a spy, working undercover as a bum. We assume Mr. Fritsch is (or was) looking to stop attempted assassinations and secure secret documents. The villain is dastardly-looking banker Rudolf Klein-Rogge (as Haghi), who sits behind his desk in a wheelchair, looking absolutely wicked. This mastermind has killed several agents, and assigns beautiful Gerda Maurus (as Sonya Baranilkowa) to hit on Fritsch. Naturally, they fall in love and make things complicated. In fact, the plot (and subplots) of this spy drama are not easy to follow. The story was adapted from the likewise titled novel by Thea von Harbou (aka Mrs. Fritz Lang). If your mind wanderers, it may be because this film has been "restored" to a length reportedly greater than any previous edition. This is great for film historians, but could induce boredom for the uninitiated. However, the production is first-rate, and Mr. Lang's work is quite artful. You might need to watch "Spione" twice. So, prepare for a commitment and hang in as the final portions make it worth the watch.******* Spione/ Spies (3/22/28) Fritz Lang ~ Willy Fritsch, Rudolf Klein-Rogge, Gerda Maurus, Lien Deyers

vovazhd Spione (Spies) is a Fritz Lang film about spy espionage. The plot is strangely more complicated than more recent spy flicks (which is a good thing). The film focuses on No. 326, a spy that is responsible for investigating leads on a mysterious mastermind that controls a network of spies. The mastermind, known as Haghi, plots to steal an important treaty. It turns out that he leads a double life as the owner of a successful bank (which apparently makes him richer than Henry Ford). Things get complicated when Haghi sends a female spy, Sonya, to prevent No. 326 from interfering. Sonya falls in love with No. 326 while still under the supervision of Haghi, leading to the usual conflicts.The acting and characterization was wonderful. Haghi is the definition of bad guy: you know he is evil when you see the goatee. Confined to a wheelchair, he is the perfect blend of intelligence and deceptiveness. Agent No. 326 is an interesting character, although he loses some of his features as the film progresses. Sonya is beautiful and acted wonderfully. Among the side characters, I found that Colonel Jellusic and Doctor Masimoto stood out.Although a little overlong, the film is at no point slow. Mixing fast pacing with well-placed plot twists (which really build up towards the end), anyone with interest in the subject should have no problem enjoying it for the entire running time.I was not sure what to expect from Spione before watching it, seeing that it is a largely forgotten film. I enjoy Fritz Lang films, and this was no exception. It may not be the caliber of M, but it succeeds anyway. If you do not mind silent films and enjoy the spy/espionage genre (namely, James Bond), then you will enjoy this one.

Brandt Sponseller Fritz Lang is not a writer or director prone to following narrative conventions too closely. While that is admirable artistically, it can make his films relatively difficult viewing and risky. It's difficult because you can't expect Lang's films to have stories that unfold in a traditional way, so as a viewer, you have to work harder, and it's risky because the experimental nature doesn't always result in a successful finished artwork. Metropolis (1927) and Fury (1936) are two examples of Lang films with unusual approaches that work extremely well. M (1931) is an example of one that isn't quite so successful in my opinion, even though many people seem to love it. Spies is somewhere in the middle.Like M, Spies begins with more of a thematic collage. We're immediately dropped into a fast-paced, fast-cut sequence of spies stealing important documents and killing others when expedient. We also see news of this quickly filtering through both the spy world and the official media organizations. The sequence is impressive technically, but most viewers will be searching for the characters to latch onto. Also like M, Lang doesn't let viewers off that easily. He constantly introduces new characters for at least the first 40 minutes (of the 90-minute U.S. version). A number of the characters look similar, and most do not have much accompanying exposition to help viewers ground them. Making it more difficult, inter titles (this is a silent film) where characters' names are first presented often appear between two scenes with different characters, so that it's difficult to figure out which character the inter title is supposed to apply to.Additionally, the story is complex enough and hinges on small details to an extent where it can be difficult to follow on a first viewing. I had to watch the film twice to feel confident that I had a grasp on the plot. By the end of the first viewing, you know who the principle characters are, so on the second viewing you can focus more on them rather than the countless ancillary characters who keep appearing and disappearing.It might be difficult to count this as a flaw. There's no reason that films should be 100% accessible on a first viewing, and in fact, if you're someone who likes to watch a film more than once, a gradual unfolding on repeated exposures can be more desirable. But it's best to be forewarned. Expect to be confused unless you keep a scorecard, so to speak, and keep hitting pause.However, once you've sorted the film out, the basic gist turns out to be fairly simple and straightforward. An anti-government (the exact government isn't specified--it's rather left intentionally vague, except that we know it's somewhere in Europe) spy organization, headed by a man named Haghi (Rudolf Klein-Rogge), is after some important treaty. There are three copies of it, and Haghi is trying to intercept them all. Haghi's principle foe is the government's Secret Service Agency, which ends up putting a James Bond-like agent named 326, or Donald Tremaine (Willy Fritsch), on the case. Haghi sends his agent Sonia (Gerda Maurus) to gain information, and hopefully the treaty, from Tremaine. He also enlists the help of a convict whom he helped bust out of death row, Hans Morrier (Louis Ralph). Complications arise when Sonia and Donald fall in love. Haghi tries to get at another Secret Service affiliate, Doctor Masimoto (Lupu Pick) through another attractive female spy, Kitty (Lien Deyers). There is a lot of double crossing, and there are a lot of spy versus spy machinations. The film focuses on these and the difficult romance, as Haghi does the typical megalomaniacal "evil genius" thing of trying to take over the world (although just how he plans to do this with a treaty and his odd combination of public vocations remains a mystery).Lang is often thought of as a heavily visual director. In conjunction with infamous cinematographer Fritz Arno Wagner, who lensed such masterpieces as F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922), Lang doesn't disappoint on that end. There are a number of conspicuously "arty" shots, such as a complex of staircases in Haghi's bank, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)-like rooftops, or the marvelously fantastical imagery of the final clown performance (you have to see the film to understand why there's a clown in it), but Lang and Wagner are just as good with more subtle compositions.But there are flaws, too. Even viewing the film a couple times, the overly complex details of the plot can be hard to follow and many are left as dangling threads. The overall gist of the plot is good, and Spies certainly has influenced subsequent films in the genre, but there are script problems here.Although Lang is good at creating suspense when he wants to (for most of M, he didn't seem interested in it), and he does do effectively quite a few times here, he still directs and edits action scenes a bit awkwardly. Also, the U.S. 90-minute version is satisfactorily paced, which helps the suspense, but it is also obviously sped up. The film was shot at 16 frames per minute and IMDb lists the "original" version at almost twice as long. If Spies were slowed down to run close to 3 hours, the pacing would be off. The plot would unfold too slowly.For me, this is a middling silent film, as well as a middling Lang film, thus earning my 7 rating, or a "C", but worth watching for serious fans of thrillers, crime and espionage flicks. As always, Lang is a good "ideas" man, and this film can make you feel as if the whole world must consist of spies, or at least people whom you can't exactly trust.