Radu_A

As other people have said, Mo season 1 is a wonderful portrait of the absurdities of the US asylum system with excellent casting and on-spot writing, while season 2 is an ill-conceived propaganda piece (ab)using the established characters.

The response to the destruction of Gaza following the October 7th Hamas mass slaughter has made it en vogue to view this most contentious territorial issue in the world in a 100% one-sided way, and the series spins this into depicting Israelis (and Mo's Jewish antagonist) in the most dehumanizing possible way. What starts out funny because of the romantic rivalry theme turns the main character from a huggy bear into a self-centered douche.

And by the final episode, the series obviously panders to the "From the River"-crowd, throwing all restraint aside and portraying Palestinians as the completely innocent victims of Jewish invasive aggression. While in reality, there are 9 million Israeli citizens of whom 2 million happen to be Arabs, and the Palestinians are half that number, and suffer more from their corrupt authorities.

Season 2 ruined this series for me. While "Ramy" kept its focus on the protagonist's own failures, so that the side political comment was fine, "Mo" turns its main character into a faultless prodigal son, which he is not. Season 1 is a 9, Season 2 is a 3, so I give it 6.

You have to watch documentaries to get an idea of the Israel/Palestine conflict, both sides have shown how effed up the situation is, like Yoav Shamir in "Checkpoint" (2003) or Avi Moghrabi in "August" (2002), and the best Palestinian film is "5 Broken Cameras" (2013) by Emad Burnat next to "The Time that remains" (2009) by Elia Suleiman.

The story could play out in any country where homosexuality is legal but not integrated into family law: an unwed gay couple buys an orchard but then the one under whose name it is registered dies in an accident. The bedridden impoverished mother, taken care of by the deceased's alibi wife, then push out the partner registering the land under the mother's name. He stays on, and an intense duel for the inheritance between the two plays out.

What makes the film a little odd is how glamorous the leads are, not really fitting for the rural setting. They are both models and celebrities and it shows, although their acting is OK. Satur rose to fame with BL series KinnPorsche a few years back and is Eurasian like many popstars here. Engfa is a pageant winner and influencer and while she is the villain in the film, she is actually openly bi and a huge LGBTQ supporter.

I should not be reviewing this because it concerns me personally. I'm married to a Thai under EU law for a long time and bought land under my partner's name when we thought marriage equality was just around the corner ten years ago. But the bill has only now been ratified. So if he had died in the meantime, his family could and would have screwed me over. This happens constantly in Thailand and is the main reason why the law was changed. So the climax is not as exaggerated as some people may think: the news is full of family homicides linked to squandering and theft.

The timing of the film is therefore a bit belated but it reminded people why gay marriage is important, and the law passed very easily after decades of discussion. It's not just about human rights, it's about the legal security you need when you build a life together, whether you are a man or a woman or of the same sex.

This film is not making efficient use of the "what if" idea of Mengele's return from exile to stand trial for his Auschwitz crimes in order to explain his motives, but it's a stellar lesson in character acting by Götz George. He also co-produced the film because few wanted to be associated with this content, and while reception outside Germany was positive, it was vehemently criticized in the country for giving Mengele a human side. George gives his best performance next to his tour de force as Fritz Haarmann in "The Deathmaker" (1995). He had also portrayed Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Höss in "Death is my Trade" (1979), and his father was Nazi collaborator actor Heinrich George who died in Sachsenhausen after the Russians repurposed the camp.

The film came out after Goldhagen's book "Hitler's willing Helpers" caused a moralistic frenzy which still dominates German politics 25 years later and has been dwelt upon in documentaries ever since. The static courtroom dynamic neutralizes the horrific crimes described, and the film would be much stronger if it maintained emotional distance. Unfortunately a sappy soundtrack trivializes the witness statements and the script lapses into sentimentality, but one cannot expect else from director Richter, who rose to fame with romantic comedies.

The weakest point of the film is that Mengele's special relationship with racial biology as the medical advisor of Auschwitz's Gypsy camp is not mentioned. There is testimony of Sinti survivors in the 2011 documentary "A People uncounted" which clearly proves that Mengele enjoyed torturing children, and the definitive monography on the Gypsy Holocaust "Racial Utopia and Genocide" was available at the time. While there is a lot of historical context in the script, but that makes it all the more clear that the writers did not know that particular book, which is a ruesome oversight (as is the silence on Birkenau B in general).

So this is definitely worth seeing for Götz George, one of the most underrated German actors, but neither the director nor the screenplay make full use of the film's premise. Particularly the ending is a disappointing descent into kitsch.