User reviews

Interesting documentary about the assassination of a high ranking politician who was in charge of liquidating unhealthy companies in East-Germany. Plenty of original footage from the late 80s and early 90s. The perspective of the director remains a bit of a mystery. The story has many interesting angles, but overall the message was a bit unclear. Nonetheless it was captivating enough to keep watching, especially if you love history and political drama.

A good doc detailing the unsolved murder of German politician Rohwedder during the reunification era. The interviews are relevant and good use of archival footage. The storyline jumps around a bit, but does a good job of setting the political climate. Good dubbing.

...and, as an East-German, who had to wait 30 years for a docu-series (or really much of anything in the media in general) that actually managed to present a balanced representation of the politics and social and economic complexities surrounding the so-called "reunification" of Germany, I say, "Kudos to the filmmakers".

This part of German history has always been presented from a one-sided viewpoint. Parallel to (although maybe not quite the same as), "history is written by the victorious".

The one thing that bugs me is the English title and Netflix's decision to cast this as a true crime series. It is so much more a history docu, and a politically charged one at that. And, in that, it succeeds.

Ah, "A Perfect Crime" (2020), the documentary that ambitiously sets out to untangle Germany's most notorious post-war murder case, but sometimes feels like it's tying itself in knots instead. It's the cinematic equivalent of a detective donning a Sherlock Holmes hat, only to find out it's a size too small. The series is commendable for its attempt to dive deep into the intricacies of the murder of Detlev Rohwedder, an event wrapped in layers of political intrigue and conspiracy theories as thick as a German winter coat. However, it occasionally trips over its own narrative shoelaces, leaving viewers to ponder whether the mystery is truly unfolding or just folding onto itself.

Why is it just "ok"? Picture this: you're on a scenic train journey through the heart of Germany's tumultuous post-reunification period, but every now and then, the train stops to admire a particularly mundane bush. That's "A Perfect Crime" for you. It masterfully sets the stage with a compelling premise and intriguing historical context, only to sometimes lose steam with pacing that feels more like a leisurely stroll through a museum of slightly unrelated events. It's like being handed a puzzle where some pieces are from another box, making you wonder if you're assembling a portrait of political intrigue or just a very complex picture of a pretzel.

Yet, despite its meandering plot and occasional detours into the weeds, "A Perfect Crime" does have its moments of brilliance. Its detailed exploration of the socio-political climate of the time is nothing short of fascinating, offering a peek into the soul of a country at a crossroads. The documentary serves up a mix of interviews, archival footage, and re-enactments that are sometimes as gripping as a cold hand on your shoulder in a dark room. In essence, it's like a detective novel that's had a bit too much schnitzel - a little heavy at times, but ultimately satisfying in a peculiar way. So, while it may not be the sleek, streamlined crime story we all hoped for, it's a curious, if slightly cluttered, journey through one of Germany's darkest mysteries. Three and a half stars for making me feel like an armchair detective with a penchant for history and a tolerance for narrative detours.

For what it's worth this is a bit of an unsatisfying true crime story but actually it's so much more than that! If you are actually German, you absolutely have to watch this (my opinion), it's a jewel! I'm afraid for almost everyone else it might be interesting but of little relevance ...

When these events took place, I was barely a teenager and very much busy with myself. I had noticed how my parents were struggling to find their way after everything had turned upside down but they did a good job in keeping it away from us (children). I simply wasn't aware just how traumatic the experience must have been for at least half of the East-German population. I was aware that the western politicians arrogantly dismissed everything that was done or made in the GDR and they surely have not foreseen the damage they would inflict. Until this day (30 years later) the results of it can be seen heard and felt. Several generations of East- Germans were traumatized and have passed this feeling along to their children. There is still a rift going through this country which now manifests itself in the success of the AfD (right wing populist party) after the leftists (Ex-"Communists") have failed to deliver any kind of consolation over the past three decades.

"A Perfect Crime" offers not only an interesting murder case through well directed interviews, great structure and good pacing, but also gives a deep insight of the political climate and it's effect on the economical structure and peoples life in East Germany after the fall of the DDR. It engages the viewer by encouraging to draw your own conclusion of the murder through interviewing several people with diffrent perspectives, all making good cases for their perception of the events that took place. It's neatly edited and looks great most of the time. The only downsides of the documentary are small inconsistencies of the reconstructed scenes, where in some scenes there is cleary put effort into making it look authentic, but sometimes is just clearly taking place in the modern time. However this is quickly overshadowed as it is just a minor flaw that doesn't hinder the viewer in any way of enjoying the documentary. All in all it is more than just a murder case, but an important timepiece of german history.

A Perfect Crime is a Netflix docu-series about the unsolved assassination of German capitalist business tycoon Detlev Rhowedder, that is presented in vain of Errol Morris' groundbreaking film "The Thin Blue Line" (and replicated in a new docu-series based on his book "A Wilderness Of Errors").

Rhowedder was the head of the Hoesch corporation in West Germany, from which he was selected to oversee the privatization of state-owned companies in the GDR for the Treuhand during the reunification era.

It was during this, that he was assassinated by sniper fire in his office on the upper level of his home in Dusseldorf.

A crime that remains officially unsolved to this day, despite the fact that a letter was left behind at the scene of the shooting, attributing responsibility to the (3rd generation of the) radical left wing militant organization known as the Red Army Faction (RAF).

To quote Errol Morris (from "A Wilderness Of Errors"), however..."What happens when a narrative takes the place of reality?".

This is a question that is both pressing and pertinent to the case at hand, even though no definitive conclusion can be arrived at, because of it's convoluted nature.

Although no answer can be definitively determined, the series does offer 3 plausible explanations for who was behind the attack.

The 3 potential scenarios put forward are as follows:

1) the RAF was responsible, with the actors being Wolfgang Grams and his accomplice Brigit Hogefield.

2) a cabal of disaffected former-Stasi carried out the attack and made it look like the RAF was responsible (though, this would entail believing a hair was planted, in a time before forensic DNA technology could be used to determine an identification).

3) a group of hired assassins were acting at the behest of West Germany and it's allies, in order to fashion Rhowedder as a martyr, as a means of smearing and quelling protests in the East (which it effectively did); while also removing him from the equation (in order to cover up for millions of missing dollars that were stolen by members of the West German government; and prevent him from publicly revealing the scandal...for he had recently told the Minister of Finance Haigel and Chancellor Kohl that he was planning to quit the Treuhand, before they encouraged him to stay on).

Here are the facts:

• the shooting was done from a garden park

• 3 shots were fired with a sniper rifle into Rhowedder's office on the second level of his home

• the lower level windows of the Rohwedder house were made of bullet proof glass, but the upper windows- which included his office- were not, despite requests made by the family to have them installed

• at the scene of the crime the following was found:
• shell casings from a sniper rifle whose ballistics matched a prior shooting at the US embassy, for which the RAF had also claimed responsibility
• a chair
• (on the chair was) a towel
• (on the towel was) a hair, with no root...that was later forensically matched by DNA to Wolfgang Werner Grams, a member of the RAF
• a watermarked letter and communique attributing responsibility to the RAF

All of this occurred amidst mass protests in East Germany, as 40-50% of the population had become unemployed as a result of economic restructuring that Rohwedder was overseeing (under Minister of Finance Haigel and Chancellor Kohl) for the Treuhand. This is a higher unemployment rate than was seen during the great depression, and leading up to the rise of hitler.

94% of East German companies were seized and sold off to West German and/or International Interests...only 6% of previously state owned companies remained in the hands of East Germans, after restructuring was complete.

The West Germans were lining up to buy fully operational companies at bargain basement prices, while a large portion of the populace was out of work, and the formerly communist state was flooded with new commercial goods that the out-of-work population was being goaded into purchasing.

Hence, the country was still very much divided, and on the brink of civil war.

As forensic DNA technology improved, it was used to identify Grams as being the source of the hair left at the scene of the shooting.

After being identified, the police infiltrated the 3rd generation of the RAF's ranks and initiated an operation at the Bad Kleine railway station in order to capture Grams.

However, they ended up murdering him (with fraudulent claims that he had shot at them first)...this was followed by a cover up during which evidence failed to be collected, evidence (like Gram's jacket which was to be tested for gunshot residue in Switzerland) mysteriously disappeared, and false testimonies were presented.

This is put forward (alongside the aformentioned reasons above), to suggest that the West- who, conveniently, had many former Nazis among their political ranks- was behind Rhowedder's assassination, and that they were responsible for blaming the former-Stasi, in the media.

Refutations against the RAF being responsible include claims that they couldn't have made such a professional shot, and that the scene was "designed" to mislead by being a combination of either too professional or too amateur (depending on who you ask).

A good portion of the first episodes are dedicated to suggesting there was no 3rd generation of the RAF at all, rather, that it was a stasi operation designed to frame the RAF.

The Stasi had previously given exile to a number of 2nd generation RAF members, when their cell had fallen victim to the police.

Testimony from a couple 2nd gen RAF actors is used to entail this.

Though, the doc limits their inclusion to this commentary.

The rest of the film is mainly based around the testimony of high ranking west german politicians and police...who clearly have beliefs, or an agenda they are trying to uphold.

So in the end, you are left to decide for yourself- based on the presented evidence and contradictory claims.

My only beef is that the overall analysis is slightly narrow.

For example, it does not investigate the other actions attributed to the 3rd gen RAF, like the embassy shooting...which would provide helpful context to conclude whether they did in fact exist or not.

Furthermore, they do not provide any analysis concerning why GDR companies were performing so poorly (as a result of intervention by anti-communist forces, like sanctions and trade embargoes).

Otherwise it's a pretty damn informative and one helluva-n intriguing documentary series.

9 out of 10.

The assassination of Rohwedder and other 'capitalists' are so professionally executed that it raises questions. High-ranking key figures from that time comment on the difficulties and hostility around the reunification.

The title 'A Perfect Crime' doesn't do this high-quality documentary justice. This isn't some fictional action movie about a bank heist. I learned a lot, which i never would have expected from a Netflix documentary.

Very high production value for a german specific documentary. The story told is interesting with interviews from many people directly involved.

Finally some good docu to watch ..give it a try. It will keep you thinking ..whole new perspective

So was it conspiracy or incompetence that allowed Rohwedder to be killed? That's the primary question posed in the first episode of A Perfect Crime, a so-far reasonably fascinating true-crime examination that keeps the pace brisk without sacrificing informative detail. It digs into some forensics, gives us a solid contextual history lesson - perfect for non-Germans unfamiliar with the story - and stirs up intrigue around the political motivations of his assassination. Tonally and stylistically, its talking heads, brief re-enactments and archival TV-news footage is nothing we haven't seen before, but documentaries need not be visually groundbreaking to be interesting. (Subtitles may be a hurdle for non-German-speakers; the series doesn't properly ID the titles of interviewees, so I had to painstakingly type Very German word like "terrorismusbekampfung" into Google Translate to learn that all those syllables mean "counterterrorism.")

Of course, the assassin was never identified, so don't expect the series to answer possibly unanswerable questions. (There are only so many documentaries like The Thin Blue Line, you know.) Potentially more compelling is how it sets up Rohwedder as a hero for the democratic state but a villain to the people, a man inflicting immediate pain for future prosperity. The key to keeping our binge on track is whether or not A Perfect Crime explores the character of the man, because right now, he's been described as kind and competent, but we don't know if he's more of a compassionate humanist or government bureaucrat. Was he likeable or just another rich white guy in a suit? I'd like to find out.

How big a fool or an idiot can you say that the economy of the GDR was beaten by problems, was it really unemployed in the GDR? were there any homeless people in the GDR? there were no super rich people in the GDR, but there were no poor people!