Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Ver In den Gängen

In den Gängen is a movie starring Andreas Leupold, Franz Rogowski, and Peter Kurth. Christian begins to work as a shelf stacker at a supermarket and finds himself in a new, unknown world: the long aisles, the bustle at the...

Thomas Stuber
Steffen Scheumann, Franz Rogowski, Peter Kurth, Andreas Leupold

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Drama
Director Thomas Stuber
Writer Clemens Meyer, Thomas Stuber, Clemens Meyer
Stars Steffen Scheumann, Franz Rogowski, Peter Kurth, Andreas Leupold
Country Germany
Also Known As Une valse dans les allées, Un valzer tra gli scaffali, Στους διαδρόμους, In the Aisles, Walc w alejkach, 希望の灯り, Printre rafturi, En los pasillos, A la vuelta de la esquina, Muhtemel Aşk
Runtime 2 h 5 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description After the shy and reclusive Christian loses his job, he starts to work for a wholesale market. Bruno from the Beverage aisle takes him under his wing and quickly becomes a fatherly friend to him. He shows him the ropes and patiently teaches him how to operate the fork lift. In the aisles he meets "Sweets"-Marion. He is instantly smitten by her mysterious charm. The coffee machine becomes their regular meeting point and the two start to get to know each other. But Marion is married and Christian's feelings for her seem to remain unrequited, especially when Marion does not return to work one day. Christian slowly becomes a member of the wholesale market family and his days of driving fork lifts and stacking shelves mean much more to him than meets the eye.

Top reviews

Monday, 06 Jul 2020 00:50

Den Gängen is a rare German film that has at least two things going for it: first, it's a story from the POV of its subjects, but not necessarily the protagonists. Second, it's a true story. What makes a film work, is the fact that it is telling a story. As I said, it's a story told by one of its subjects, though we do see the subject from the perspective of other people, namely a friend of the man who recorded it. In this sense, there is no "bad guy" in the story, because the subject of the film was not a criminal, but a man who is a criminal. As the film opens, we see the title of the story that we're watching: It's a relationship film between two people. We first see a man with the camera, who records a lot of footage of the same man who recorded the film. Eventually, the man with the camera leaves the man and we follow him on his journey, documenting the story. The guy recording the film is now dead. There are some moments when the story of the man is told by him, but not, unfortunately, the story of the film. The story is told by the man's friend, and the film is the story told by him. There are things about this film that would probably be called "forgotten" because of the subject, but not because of the style or the content. If you think about the subject of the film, you realize that this is a film about the "killer cop" that everyone is talking about. The man recording the film is an investigative reporter who comes across this guy who recorded the film. He is also the man who would document the story by the man with the camera, and he is also the man who is dying in the film. It's a very complex story, and we have to make some judgments about how to interpret it, if at all. The style of the film is very original. In this sense, it is not a "throwback" to another film style, but a film about a subject that people have been talking about since the 70s. This is not something that could have been done with just one camera and some sound. In other words, we have to make some judgments about the style of the film, because that is the style that the subject is talking about. We have to make these judgments because we are watching the film in a culture where one of its subjects is dying and we are witnessing the dying. I think the film is excellent. It was made before I was born, but I think it's not that far away from the time I was born. If you get to see this film, you should see it with an open mind. Just like with any film, the movie needs some of those parts that are missing for it to be successful. I
Wednesday, 03 Jun 2020 21:20

Wet Land is one of the most important films of the past decades, a real cinematic treat. The subject is so rich and diverse that, for this viewer, there were not even a few other films that had ever touched this, and for that reason the film's artistic value is so high. No matter what one's personal feelings towards the subject, one cannot fail to see the inherent charm of the plot. It touches us from all sides, and makes us feel as if we were at the center of the world, almost. And yet, Wet Land is not about those feelings. It's about something that people who come from places far away can relate to, something that takes place only at the end of their lives. As it is, this is not a film that can be enjoyed on a casual walk to the cinema. It's a film that must be viewed from the inside, one that you have to put all your emotions into, and one that demands more than anything else from its viewers. The first viewing for me was a complete emotional rollercoaster. I never felt like I was watching a film that should be enjoyable for a family or a Sunday morning. In fact, I would have preferred to watch this in a theatre, but the screening I attended was in one of the best theatres in the world, and the audience had no clue that it was a film. I believe the director had done his best to bring this tale to life on the screen, and the results are worth the journey. On the opening shot of the film, we see a waterfall in the background, and the camera follows it with a set of rolling clouds, one of which is on fire. As the story unfolds, we see the lead character, a farmer from a small town in central Sweden, climb up to the hill and watch it catch fire. I have not felt this compelled to see a film in a long time. Although I have experienced movies before, it is rarely this intense. I think, it's because of the great acting, a strong plot, the powerful storytelling and the emotional impact it has on the audience. But Wet Land is not simply about a story. It is a story of transformation. I am not a big fan of cinema, but, when it comes to a film, I will watch anything. I know what I am about to see, and I feel that way with every single character in the film. Even the main character, which was originally described as one of the most disgusting characters in cinema history, turns out to be one of the most human characters in cinema history. The story is very difficult to follow. It is so complex, the scenes fly by so quickly that it becomes very difficult to understand them. Wet Land is not a film for people with no knowledge of film, or people who just don't like it. It is a film that demands to be
Monday, 01 Jun 2020 06:34

An Australian made film (one of the few of its kind to be shot and edited in the Australian Capital Territory) which has made a significant impact on its director, who has remained in Canberra to continue the work and to stay in touch with his family. It is an independent film which has achieved widespread acclaim and praise, but not a lot of attention from the mainstream media. The real story, of a man in crisis, is not of the traditional middle class man (or woman), but of an individual who is caught in a situation which is totally different to the norms of his neighbourhood and way of life. It is not the typical crime story, but a story of what happens when a man and a woman can no longer live the life they were accustomed to and it results in the breakdown of a relationship. The name "Giant" is actually not used until the end, but the implications of the name have a profound impact on the character of this man and his family, which is portrayed as completely different from the normal Australian family we are accustomed to. On the contrary to what many reviewers claim, Giant does not have a happy ending, but a complete and complete disaster, in the most bizarre and extreme way. What happened to his wife, whom he believed was an ill woman? He finds himself not able to feel any emotion after finding out that his wife had died. He is then left feeling completely empty and abandoned. He falls in a deep depression, and tries to find himself and figure out what he has to do with the family. He then realizes that he is completely disconnected from his wife, and his problems with the family come back to haunt him. All the while, he is driven by his own dreams and fantasies which are all of a sudden put into a new perspective. He now sees the world around him as being full of evil spirits, and this causes him to go insane, sometimes to the point of suicide. He can no longer feel any emotion, and the only emotion that he feels is that of a true man who can no longer hide his anger and contempt for the people who stole his life, who caused him pain and misery. On the other hand, we also see a somewhat normal family, who are left with very little money, and they are forced to rely on the kindness and love of strangers. The ending of this film is truly disturbing and moving, but also the perfect symbolism for this film.
Saturday, 09 May 2020 06:56

Just a reminder that I actually have not yet seen this film, but am in the process of going through it as a result of this review. Anyway, I still can't see how this movie wasn't one of the best of the year. At any rate, the film is a tragedy, and a tragedy of human behavior, and it shows how people react to what seems to be a hopeless situation. The scene in the grocery store, the parking lot, the street, the airport, the graveyard.all are the places that people normally think to be safe, yet they are not. Even when they are not expecting it. So the films ultimate message is this: "Don't let the little things in your life get to you." If this is a true message, it is a timeless one, and will remain so for as long as we can see, or until we forget. *Possible spoiler* I can't quite put my finger on the lesson, but there are many, and I'll get to those in the next paragraph. *End of spoiler* I had a few problems with this movie, but I thought most of them were with me. I can't for the life of me figure out what so many people found so compelling about the movie. I thought it was okay, but I felt as though it was a little long, and as though it was falling a little short. It was an interesting film, but I think I can handle a good 300 minutes of some little kid acting like a big idiot on his first day of school. Maybe that was what was important to the movie. Maybe it wasn't, but I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy this film. If you liked this movie, I suggest you go rent/buy it, you won't be disappointed. But I do think that most of the problems I have with it are with me, and that would probably be OK if it were a better movie, but it isn't. But I will recommend this movie to others because it is, in my opinion, the best of the year. Go see it if you have the opportunity, but don't go into it expecting to be entertained by a genius film.

Write a review