The Weather Underground

What are your thoughts on this wild yet truly magnificent film?

official website

Trailer

IMDb

Rotten Tomatoes

Yahoo

Amazon

It’s confusing and all over the place. This attempt at mimicking modernist techniques—it really brings to mind Costa-Gavras's "Z"—feels aimless, serving no purpose other than cluttering the narrative and stripping the story of its impact. While the large-scale action sequences are well-shot, the characters drift in and out of the frame like commuters at a busy train station; you barely get a chance to know anyone, let alone actually care about them. Even the extreme, radical leaders of the group remain completely inscrutable—even to the director, who seems to waver constantly between sympathizing with them and distancing himself from their violence. You find yourself thinking, "Come on, just decide what they actually represent so I can form an opinion." And how did they even become this way? A traumatic childhood? Dysfunctional families? I have no clue—it's just relentless violence mixed with forced political lecturing. There might be some logic to the initial action-heavy segment, but once the focus shifts to prison cells and courtrooms, the film ends up trivializing the entire movement.

The decision to portray such one-dimensional, inexplicably motivated characters feels amateurish. To make matters worse, the actress playing Angela Davis is just plain terrible. Ted Kaczynski is depicted as nothing more than a typical playboy, and his glamorous companion—who is the only one showing any hint of a complex personality, especially during that scene bathing with a stranger—would likely have had a brilliant academic career given her sophisticated, political way of speaking. I honestly don't see what could have driven someone like her toward murder. There are plenty of other absurdities in this movie, but I'm running out of steam.

Roger Long67 said:The way they characterize one-dimensional characters with zero clear motivation is amateurish at best. To make matters worse, the actress playing Ulrika Meinhof is absolutely dreadful. They portray Klaus Baader as nothing more than some typical playboy, while his sultry companion—who is actually the only one showing hints of a complex personality, especially during that scene bathing with the unknown guy—would likely have a brilliant academic perspective given her nerdy political vocabulary. I honestly can't fathom what drove her to become a killer. There’s plenty of other nonsense in this movie, but I really don't feel like typing it all out.

It wasn't Klaus; it was Andreas. And frankly, I'm glad you're tired of writing, because it's baffling why you even sat through a film if "murderer" is your only metric for understanding urban guerrilla warfare. All in all, about 40 people joined the movement over a decade—that's roughly how many people perish daily in any American combat zone. But that's beside the point. Perhaps you're right that the film fails fundamentally because it requires outside context (something students were dealing with back in the late 60s too; did they just lose their minds? 😁), but man, if you're expecting the filmmakers to explicitly state "these guys are white, those guys are black," you're really overdoing it.

The film is flawed, sure, but it’s absolutely fascinating. If I can carve out a bit more time later, I’ll give you a full breakdown of why I feel that way.
I just have to say, in passing, that your comment about him being a playboy gave me a good laugh. In an era where Maxims would probably claim that if you sleep with the same person twice you're already part of the establishment, calling someone who stays that loyal to one person a "playboy" is truly a bizarre take.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a film open with such sheer audacity. It’s a massive middle finger to modern censors and all those ridiculous bans still active in various parts of the world: two naked little girls on a nudist beach—it borders on the predatory.

The sight of breasts and butts walking right past a father’s eyes serves as a sort of narrative trigger, a prop that essentially fires a shot across the bow. That shot lands in a quick, jarring montage of graphic sex, which effectively pivots the life trajectory of Meinhof from an already leftist journalist into a militant radical activist whose own daughters end up lost in some Palestinian refugee camp. The two leads (Baader and Gudrun Ensslin) also have children, though they seem to occupy zero space or hold any actual importance in their lives.

There’s nudity in the training camps in Jordan, too, where naked German comrades casually sunbathe their uninhibited bodies right in front of the eyes of Mujahideen fighters. A complete cultural and civilizational collision based on a shared vision of global justice.
Oh, and there's Ensslin in the bathtub—honestly the only scene worth watching for anyone who sat down expecting a standard action thriller and realized they'd made a huge mistake.

As improbable as it might seem, the entire film is practically saturated with tobacco smoke; it’s thicker than the smog in Los Angeles. Everyone is smoking constantly; there’s no room, no breathing space, and not a single moment where someone isn't lighting up. Whether it's a courtroom, a deathbed, or a gas station, the smoke follows.

The primary culprit behind the perceptual chaos is the sheer, overwhelming number of events and characters the film attempts to track. Ideally, one would want to step into a more documentary-style chronology—a full landscape of terrorist attacks during the decade of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. But then again, many political films play this chaotic card, usually while offering far less justification for it.

If we had a police force like that here in America, I think we'd see a lot less trouble on our streets...

Roger Long67 said:If you were to analyze him and his captivating partner—who is arguably the only one displaying any hint of actual depth, particularly during that scene where she’s bathing with that stranger—using some pedantic, academic political jargon, she’d certainly offer a brilliant scholarly perspective.

She actually wrote her dissertation, though she never quite got around to defending it, so there’s a certain truth to your point. Besides, she was the one who actually pulled Baader into politics, not the other way around.

Michelle Flores40 said:I haven't seen a film kick things off with that much guts in a long time. It’s a total middle finger to today's censors and all those restrictive bans we see popping up in various countries—it's incredibly bold. Seeing two young girls completely naked on a nudist beach... honestly, it borders on being borderline predatory, even if that's the setting.

Based on how things were kicking off, I actually thought I was finally going to sit down and watch something high-budget—something truly bold and provocative.

Michelle Flores40 said:When you see certain women parading their bodies right in front of a father figure, it’s almost like they’re using their sexuality as a prop—one that’s designed to trigger a specific reaction. It acts like a camera flash, capturing a moment of raw indulgence that ends up shifting someone's entire trajectory. Take the case of Ulrika Meinhof, for instance; she started as just another left-leaning journalist, but that sudden burst of radicalism turned her into a militant activist. In the end, her young daughters were left adrift in an orphanage in the Middle East. Even the movement's core leaders—Baader and Gudrun Ensslin—had children of their own, but those kids were treated as mere afterthoughts, having no real place or significance in their parents' chaotic lives.

So, we’ve hit our first major narrative hurdle with this film. In one intentionally emphasized shot, Meinhof declares that she could never, under any circumstances, abandon her children—only to later discard what she essentially viewed as her life's core purpose without so much as a word of explanation. How? Why? It remains a total mystery. Look, I get that people change their worldviews, but such a drastic pivot overnight really demands more elaboration than we're getting. The movie, however, stays silent on the matter. It offers nothing more than a vague hint that her bitterness toward her husband's infidelity—and honestly, what happened to our supposed American liberal attitudes toward sexuality?—perhaps caused her to lose faith in marriage as a pillar of a conservative, patriarchal society that she increasingly loathes due to escalating repression. But what does motherhood have to do with any of that? To make matters even more paradoxical, the film suggests this decision is actually made by the movement's most radical figure, Gudrun Ensslin, which seems to be silently accepted by Meinhof. What's the real story here? A latent lesbian inclination? Who knows. The film sticks strictly to an ideological framework for its character development, leaving any real psychological depth completely unaddressed.

Michelle Flores40 said:It’s honestly surreal—there’s nothing more than a training camp in Jordan where you see these German women just lounging around, completely unbothered, showing off their midriffs right in front of the Mujahideen fighters. It’s such a bizarre cultural clash—this total lack of modesty meeting a group defined by such rigid austerity—all while they're supposedly united under this singular, grand vision of global justice.

The scenes featuring uninhibited nudity serve a clear purpose—they act as a sort of manual for the audience, signaling that sexual liberation and pure hedonism are core pillars of this new radical leftist ideology. It’s all very calculated. Even M. Bleibtre can't wipe that smug grin off his face—he looks like he’s watching Tom Cruise in an action flick or something. And despite his supposed "devotion to one woman," it's pretty obvious that Baader was living his best life whenever he got the chance. I also have to wonder about one thing—why does every single woman in this movement (especially the ones caught sunbathing) look like a professional model? It feels incredibly staged. For a film that tries so hard to present itself as raw and authentic, isn't that level of sex appeal a bit dishonest and overly manufactured?

Michelle Flores40 said:Yeah, and that scene with Gudrun Ensslin in the bathtub—it’s basically the only moment worth watching for people who thought they were sitting down for an action thriller and realized they'd been misled.

Actually, I think it's the other way around—they showed up expecting a gritty political drama, only to be disappointed by what turned out to be pretentious, kitschy action.

Michelle Flores40 said:As impossible as it sounds, the film is practically saturated with cigarette smoke—more than even a classic noir. Everyone is smoking constantly; there isn't a single spare second where someone isn't lighting up. Whether it's the courtroom, the death scenes, or just fumes at a gas station, it's everywhere.

I agree, they definitely leaned into that too hard. It feels like Uli Edel was just itching to make a movie that could take a cheeky swipe at how much we've moved toward banning smoking in public spaces today.

Michelle Flores40 said:The real culprit behind the perceptual mess is the sheer number of events and characters the film tries to juggle. It really should have taken a more documentary-style approach—a complete chronological landscape of those terrorist attacks over the ten years following the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

That's putting it mildly.

Michelle Flores40 said:But plenty of political films play that chaotic card, usually without needing nearly as much justification.

Just mimicking the style of late 20th-century modernist political cinema to chase "artistic prestige" doesn't fly if it doesn't actually resonate with the era it was made in. A little hint of latent pedophilia, excessive smoke, and a few unpolished bars thrown in against a polished reality... it's just not enough to meet the level of subversiveness one would expect.

Michelle Flores40 said:She actually finished her doctorate, she just didn't get the chance to defend it—so you definitely have a point there. Besides, it was actually her who got Baader interested in politics, not the other way around.

See, that’s the thing—I really should have picked up on that detail from the movie itself rather than hearing it from you. If I had known, I think I would've had a much deeper respect for her choice to walk away from a comfortable, conformist life and what was likely a high social standing—especially considering her family background—to dive headfirst into an illegal terrorist struggle for her convictions. And, on a side note, I had no idea they only killed about 40 people in total; the film makes it feel like they wiped out at least 140.

Roger Long67 said:Here we go, stumbling right into the film's first major logical hurdle. In one deliberately emphasized shot, Ms. Meinhof claims she could never abandon her children. Then, without so much as a footnote, she casually walks away from what was essentially the core of her existence just yesterday. How? Why?

Ms. Meinhof wasn't actually as high up the food chain as the "Baader-Meinhof" moniker implies. They strictly referred to themselves as the Weather Underground, and the leading woman was Gudrun. The whole "Baader-Meinhof gang" label was actually something cooked up by the press at the time. I suppose they weren't immune to the fact that the narrative was being driven by their own reporting. Baader himself used to claim that the Weather Underground only gained such notoriety because of the media—their specific way of framing things is remarkably similar to today's 😁 Paris Hilton-style trashy tabloids and their descriptions of media terror
. I will concede that her portrayal in the movie feels incomplete. Her children were indeed the reason she was kept somewhat on the sidelines, but people change.

It’s also worth noting that the film completely glossed over the connection between the Weather Underground and the East German Stasi, despite there being a massive amount of documentation proving it existed... It's also widely known that the magazine Konkret was actually being funded by the GDR.

Michelle Flores40 said:Meinhof wasn't actually as high up in the hierarchy as the term "Baader-Meinhof" implies. They strictly called themselves the Weather Underground, and the primary leader was actually Gudrun. The idea that the group’s name came from them is mostly just media invention. I guess they couldn't escape being defined by the press. Baader used to claim that the Weather Underground only gained its notoriety because of the media—their take on things is pretty similar to how today's 😁 trashy Paris Hilton-style tabloids describe media terrorism
. I agree that her portrayal in the movie is a bit vague. Having kids was one reason she was kept on the sidelines, but people change.

Meinhof was the most visible member of the Weather Underground after joining, mostly due to her previous background. Between the unsolved mystery surrounding her death and the massive turnout at her funeral, she was always pushed into the spotlight. Not to mention her influence on Baader—though that went both ways.

Otherwise, the movie was a bit of a letdown.
Too much filler... like that pathetic scene in Palestine. Why bother?

Michelle Flores40 said:All told, the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon resulted in about 40 deaths over a ten-year span.

Why does the body count even matter here? Does the fact that they killed "roughly 40 people" suddenly transform them into ethical terrorists? 🙄I don't see the logic in obsessing over these statistics.🤷>

rapidbison42 said:The Manson Family girl was definitely the most high-profile member of the Weather Underground once she joined, mostly because of her history. The mystery surrounding how she died remains unsolved, and honestly, the sheer number of people who showed up to her funeral really pushed her into the spotlight. Not to mention her influence on the Manson Family—though I suppose that influence went both ways.

Otherwise, the movie left me feeling a bit let down.
There were just too many pointless subplots... like that pathetic scene involving the conflict in the Middle East. Why even include that?

That Middle East detail shows up in almost every deep dive on the Weather Underground. Don't worry, the director didn't just pull it out of thin air. I actually heard about it on a 'History on Thursdays' podcast.😁 As for why? Let's just say it was the breaking point that forced them to cut their training short.

Naturally, the Manson Family girl was the most visible figure to the public; she basically acted as their PR, wrote the manifesto, and all that.

Michael Ortiz68 said:Why does the body count even matter here? Does the fact that they killed, "all things considered, about 40 people," suddenly transform them into ethical terrorists? 🙄I honestly can't make heads or tails of this constant obsession with crunching numbers. It’s all just noise to me.🤷

The first murder depicted in the film involves a protester taking a stand against the Iranian dictator Reza Pahlavi during a visit to Germany. He’s gunned down by a police officer. As it turns out, the kid was just a literature student—his very first time ever stepping out to join a demonstration.
The second victim was the leader of the student leftist movement. Some nutjob who harbors a deep-seated hatred for communists opened fire on him, landing three shots. He didn't manage to finish the job, but he certainly left the guy in a vegetative state. He even turned the gun on himself, though apparently, he wasn't quite successful there either.
It isn't just the Weather Underground crowd that adds to the carnage in this movie. There’s even that scene depicting the police killing of Peter, their first casualty—just another one of those characters they toss into the plot, and honestly, it's pretty obvious why they're there.

I only mentioned that number because I was caught off guard; honestly, I expected it to be significantly higher.

Before I actually sat down to watch this, I didn't know much about the Weather Underground (though I’ve started digging into their history since then), but honestly, the film hits way harder when you view it through a modern lens rather than obsessing over whether every biographical detail is 100% accurate. What I really appreciated was how it doesn't shy away from the gray areas—it leaves room to condemn the killing of innocent people while simultaneously trying to unpack the actual roots of terrorism, which run much deeper than just some "evil uncle Osama" caricature. It’s a pretty radical departure from the typical mainstream American narrative on the subject... The nudity in the film felt like its own distinct subtext to me; it seemed to be attempting to decouple the raw human body from pure sexuality, which stands in stark contrast to how Hollywood usually handles it (unless you're looking at the old masters, I suppose). You guys totally overlooked that bathtub scene in that context...

The movie really hit home for me... not just because of the lead performance, but because of how it pulls back the curtain on that group's entire way of life. It’s expertly crafted, too; those 150 minutes flew by. Honestly, I’d go as far as saying there was enough material there for two movies, though you rarely see filmmakers get two shots at themes this heavy... (unfortunately)
It stays focused on the main characters without leaving the audience spinning, and the pacing is quick and engaging.
I noticed some people out there are conflating history with art—basically, who these people actually were and what they did doesn't change the technical quality of the film.
From my perspective, the historical aspect is fascinating in terms of seeing how far certain groups were willing to go for a "better" or more humane society... seeing just how extreme that revolt had to be to force change. We shouldn't forget that American institutions are generally much more organized than ours... especially looking at the state of our society today.
As for the people who committed killings... well, most of them were doing the exact same thing as an SS officer or those officials signing off on protocols that allow NATO to launch strikes against a country.

Roger Moore68 said:Personally, I found the movie deeply moving... not just because of the lead performance, but because of how much it let you into the mindset of that group. It’s masterfully crafted, and those 150 minutes just fly by. Honestly, I’d go as far as saying there was enough material there for two movies, though people rarely make sequels about topics this heavy... (sadly).
It focuses on the central characters without losing the viewer, and the pacing is fast and driving.
I noticed some people are conflating historical accuracy with artistic quality; who these people actually were or what they did doesn't change whether the film itself is good or not.
From my perspective, the history is fascinating because it shows how far certain groups were willing to go to push for a more humane society... just seeing how extreme that revolt had to be to demand change. We shouldn't forget that their societal structure was significantly more organized than ours... especially when looking at how things are run here in America today.
As for the people committing acts of violence... well, most of them were doing the exact same thing as an SS officer or someone signing off on protocols that allow NATO to launch an attack against a nation.

So, you're back to that age-old question we've always wrestled with here in the States: where exactly does the line between a hero and a villain lie?

I see you’ve started quoting stuff about the Weather Underground? If you want the real deal, there’s an incredible book by Pavao Kalinic... He actually picked up $6.75 recently.
He wrote one of the most respected books on the subject since it was the focus of his Master's thesis. It covers the rise of the New Left in Western Europe.

Here is my own deep dive and review of this film: http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/3319...f-komplex.html