Downfall (2004) User Reviews (706)

"You have to feel that Hitler was a human being; only then he is a real horror."

[Galina_movie_fan · 9/10 · 24 August 2005]

The first internationally released German production to feature Hitler as a central figure, "Downfall" (2004) takes place in the dismal gloomy Berlin during April - May 1945 in anticipation of the inevitable German defeat. The film shows the last days of Hitler and those close to him through the eyes of his young secretary, Traudl Junge.

Oliver Hirschbiegel's film has been criticized by some circles as presenting a "too sympathetic" portrait of the Fuhrer. I don't believe anything in the film suggests that its creators sympathize with the Nazi regime and those who had orchestrated it.

Showing Hitler as a human being (amazing performance by Bruno Ganz), a man who loved his dog, was a vegetarian and could display some moments of tenderness did not undermine the overall image of a lonely, domineering, conscienceless, and hateful man who believed that his people, his compatriots, women and children deserve to die because they are no longer deserve to live and because "in a war as such there are no civilians".

Did those who think that that the film "humanized" Hitler forget the most chilling scene in the movie, the one that shows Frau Goebbels crush the ampoules with cyanide between her children's teeth, after they had been dosed with a sleeping draught? She did it not because she was scared of what would happen to them after the war, no, her reason was, "The country without National Socialism and its party is not worth living in". How dangerous Hitler was if he could induce such a blind devotion that could convince a mother of six to murder her children in cold blood.

Bernd Eichinger, the producer and scriptwriter of "Downfall" emphasized, the greatest danger he saw in making a film about Hitler was the temptation to show him as a psychopath or madman: "Hitler possessed an enormous criminal and destructive energy, and he was a barbarian in the most fundamental sense of the term... But I am convinced that he was totally of sound mind until the very end, which is why leadership never slipped from his hands."

The film's director Oliver Hirschbiege says that, in the same way it was evil of Hitler to see Jews as less than human beings - i.e. as "insects" - it would be equally wrong to portray Hitler as a madman, because that would excuse him of culpability: "I think the biggest mistake is to have an image of Hitler as insane - that he was not a human being but a monster. The most important point to realize is that Hitler was not a madman, not a psychopath or someone on drugs, which implies that he wasn't responsible for what he was doing. Of course he was responsible! "For me, (this film is) paying homage to and truly honoring the victims, because we fall short if we explain the Holocaust by stating that they were all out of their minds. They knew what they were doing!"

I believe that the result of their work, the film I saw last night is absolutely unforgettable - honest, powerful and devastating. It is a masterwork of film-making and a very important in its objectivity historical document.

9.5/10

Amazing realism

[hermes-10 · 9/10 · 12 November 2004]

Der Untergang makes you live the horrors and craziness of war. Bruno Ganz's interpretation of Adolf Hitler is worthy of an Oscar. He is completely believable. Also the rest of the cast performs admirably. You feel transported to Berlin as it was bombarded by the Russians. You get a very clear insight (or an impression?) in how the military decisions were taken during those final days of the war. The movie balances well between large-scale effects of bombs exploding in ruined streets and depictions of different persons going though the experience – from Hitler and his staff in the well-protected bunkers to the principal military commanders torn between reason and loyalty and German civilians trapped in an inferno. The movie is neither pro-Nazi nor does it depict all Nazis as mindless monsters. It gives an impression of utter realism. Go see it in a good cinema – your seat will tremble as the bombs explode. A nine out of ten.

A magnificent piece of cinema. Spectacular in every respect

[The_Void · 8/10 · 21 April 2005]

Truly great movies are few and far between these days; but Der Untergang most definitely represents one of those rare occasions. Oliver Hirschbiegel, who brought us the wonderful 'Das Experiment' has produced a film that is very nearly perfect. Depicting the final ten days of Hitler and the National Socialist regime, Der Untergang or 'The Downfall' to give it it's English title is an expose of failure and the way that a madman can bend a whole nation into doing his bidding. The film is very realistic, and an excellent ensemble cast breathe life and believability into the roles of the various members of the Nazi party and because every performance is picture perfect, the whole thing comes together brilliantly as one whole piece. Bruno Ganz gives the central performance as the Fuhrer himself and it is one of the greatest performances I've ever seen in a film. His portrayal of Hitler in the middle of his downfall is absolutely perfect, and Ganz excellently portrays the man's every emotion. It must be difficult to play such a notorious character as Hitler himself, but Ganz rises to the occasion and gives it his all.

It is not the acting or the realism that is Der Untergang's main claim to greatness, however - it's the double meaning behind every scene. Each one is perfectly composed, and all the time you're watching you can not only see what's happening on screen but also take note of the implications surrounding it. Through every scene, there's always the notion that a nation is falling. That's another thing that's great about this movie - the way that it manipulates the audience into an awkward situation. On the one hand, we know that Hitler and the Nazi regime were unspeakably evil; but while we're watching this almost great nation crumble around it's leader, it is hard to watch without feeling some sympathy for the country, in spite of the ideals that were preached. I thought it would be impossible to generate feelings for the Nazi's; but Der Untergang has managed even that. 'The Downfall' is an apt title for this movie, as aside from depicting an important event in history; the film is fundamentally about failure. The entire movie focuses on one man's huge downfall, and it is both a heartbreaking and powerful cinematic experience. Der Untergang is not to be missed.

This Historian is awed by the effort for accuracy

[wforstchen · 10/10 · 21 August 2005]

I teach a college course on WWII, in graduate school studied under several experts on the subject and have interviewed numerous survivors on both sides. This film comes out on top, perhaps the finest ever made on the subject of the war (though the Belorussian "Come and See" & "Schindler's List" are darn close as well).

I had the remarkable experience of watching this film last night with two veterans, one a GI who fought from Omaha to Czechoslovakia. . .and a German infantry officer, a veteran of four years on the Eastern Front. The German, who met Hitler several times, within minutes was exclaiming over the historical accuracy, right down to "Hitler's" lower class Munich accent. . .something an American audience would never pick up on. My German friend, who at the end of the war was in East Prussia, in the debacle of attempting to evacuate over a million civilians ahead of the Russians, was profoundly shaken by the film. . .saying the horror, the hospital scenes, the utter chaos, the lynchings, the sight of 12 year old children fighting. . .all of it was real. And an interesting observation by him. . .he had no idea Berlin, at the end, had been as bad as what he witnessed along the Baltic coast and is still haunted by. It truly was "Gotterdammerung" for an entire nation and this film brings it frightfully close to you. If you are a parent of small children, the terrifying ending for the Goebbel's children is an absolutely searing nightmare.

I think the most important point of the film was the portrayal of Hitler. . .not as the stereotyped raving madman, usually overplayed like a bad performance of King Richard, but far more subtle. I've talked with many who knew Hitler, including a childhood playmate of Helga, Goebbel's oldest child, and all will tell you that Hitler could be absolutely charming, focused on you, even courtly when with women. The terror is, that even as the actor shows us that "human" side, in his soft voice he is dictating orders, observations, and comments of absolute evil. The true form of evil rarely looks evil on the surface, it seduces us with a fair face as it leads, sometimes an entire nation, into damnation. THis film captured that evil.

My German friend's comment at the end of the movie. . ."I still can not believe we fought for that monster for six years."

A history professor at Montreat College

Impressive achievement, realistic and shocking

[nosiesnetnieuws · 10/10 · 24 November 2004]

This film definitely is a must-see because of the incomparable degree of realism displayed in it. Direction, camera and acting are of an unparalleled level and make you, as the viewer, feel as if you are actually in Berlin, 1945, and in the Führer's bunker. The film does not provide any commentary or judgment, it just shows facts.

The film is criticized because it gives the Nazi's a human face, but this is exactly it's strongest point: the Nazi's were not extraterrestrial monsters, they were as human as you and I. The image of Hitler crying of sorrow because all is lost, is still burned on my retina.

In my opinion, this is a film that should be shown in schools to illustrate the Second World War with. It is probably impossible to provide a more realistic account, without *any* form of judgment.

A major achievement, even for Germany as a whole. It is very brave to create such a realistic film about one's own past.

The Most Impressive, Depressive and Realistic Dramatic Movie about the World War II

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 19 January 2006]

"Der Untergang" is certainly the most impressive, depressive and realistic dramatic movie about the World War II ever made. I have never seen a film picturing the insanity of Hitler in his very last days in a bunker in Berlin with his high command, and how the German people were hypnotized by him like in this film. Last year, I saw the deceptive, boring, pretentious and overrated "Molokh", showing a caricature of Hitler and Eva Braun in Bavaria. But "Der Untergang" is awesome and comparable to "Apocalypse Now!", my favorite movie of war.

Two years ago, I saw the powerful "Das Experiment" and I was impressed with the work of Oliver Hirschbiegel. With "Der Untergang", this director is certainly included in my list of favorite directors. It is difficult to highlight one actor or actress in this constellation of stars, but I was impressed with the performance of Bruno Ganz and his "human" Hitler, totally different from the stereotypes usual in other movies. The cinematography and the battles are stunning, and the scenario of Berlin completely destroyed recalled the neo-realistic movie of Roberto Rossellini "Germania Anno Zero".

For those who know Germany and German people, it is amazing to see how this wonderful country survived to the chaos, destruction and lack of command, arrived from the ashes like Phoenix and sixty years later is again one of the greatest nations. For those who might have believed in Hitler and his Nazi Party, it is impressive to see how people is forgotten and treated without compassion by their leader in his last hours. And for those who love war, I really recommend to watch this magnificent anti-war movie, and see the behavior of the leaders and population when a war is lost. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "A Queda! As Últimas Horas de Hitler" ("The Fall! The Last Hours of Hitler")

A deeply disturbing, intimate portrait of the insanity of Hitler and the blind faith of his followers at the end.

[ilovedolby · 10/10 · 5 June 2005]

In recent years, war films have given a new exposure to the sheer nature of war. In "Saving Private Ryan," "Black Hawk Down" and "Born on the Fourth of July," we were exposed to the realities that a soldier endures not only on the battlefield, but what they take with them long after the battles end. However, "Downfall," a German film nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 2005 Oscars, brings a unique perspective to the table. It is about the last days of Hitler and the Third Reich and the ultimate demise of both. More so than a war movie, this feature exposes the insanity of Hitler and the blind faith of his followers at the end. It is a deeply disturbing, intimate portrait of the cruelty that he inflicted not only upon 6 million Jews, but ultimately on his own countryman at the end.

Based on the book "Inside Hitler's Bunker" by Joachim Fest, "Downfall" is in a word, shocking. The last act in the great horrific play of the Third Reich plays out like that of a cult—so many men and woman who swore allegiance to Hitler commit suicide by either shooting themselves in the head or by ingesting poison capsules. But the madness of Hitler himself is horrifically captivating. He changes his mind and opinion on a whim. One moment he advises his SS-Guards and Generals to leave the city after learning that he does not have enough troops to protect Berlin. A particular one named Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein , who was Eva Braun's brother-in-law, takes the Fuhrer for his word and leaves Berlin. When Hitler realizes this, he denounces Fegelein and orders him executed. What is more, Hitler discusses the final demise of the German people. He explains that this failure is not only that of the military, but of the civilians themselves. As such, his soldiers do not protect the people from the coming onslaught of the Soviet Army. He advises, "In a war as such there are no civilians."

Hitler is recreated by the superlative performance of Bruno Ganz, who appeared in the 2004 remake of "The Manchurian Candidate." Ganz captures the movement, voice, even the involuntary shaking of Hitler's left hand so well, that the audience would feel as if they are watching the dictator himself. We are often left with shivers down our spine at how realistic Ganz's depiction is.

Surprisingly enough, Thomas Kretschmann, who played the Nazi captain that gave Wladyslaw Szpilman a coat and food in "The Pianist" is seen here as Fegelein. I first noticed Kretschmann as a German U-Boat commander in 2000s, "U-571." He is a remarkable actor who brings with him a demanding presence on the screen through his stern looks and ultimate resolve.

Unfortunately my knowledge of Eva Braun other than Hitler's mistress is limited. So it was refreshing to see a film that revealed her. Based on "Downfall's" depiction, Braun, portrayed by Juliane Kohler, was either one of the shallowest individuals I have ever seen, or she was so blinded by her faith in Hitler that she disregarded almost any sense of reality. For example, during Berlin's first days of bombardment, she becomes bored with being in the bunker and orders a party in an above ball room—not surprisingly during that party a shell lands nearby and blows out windows in the room. Secondly, during later heavy bombardment, realizing that she will commit suicide with Hitler, she writes a letter to a relative where she states what jewelry she will leave behind. She is simply detached from reality and lost in the fanatical jargon of the Fuhrer.

Certainly the film's most disturbing instances occur when Magda and Joseph Goebbels poison their children in the name of the Fatherland. One of their children, a girl probably about 10 years old, has a dim understanding of what is happening and refuses to take the drink given. She is then forced to drink it by her mother and a guard. Later on, Magda would come into her children's room while they were asleep and would give them the final capsule to eliminate them.

"Downfall" is certainly one of the most powerful film's I have ever seen. As stated above, Hitler and his followers played out their existence as if they were in a cult. The blind faith of his followers and the insanity of the man are so well realized by director Oliver Herschbiegel, that it changes one's perception from that of simply being history to that of realism.

These events happened less than a century ago and although most have learned to forgive Germany's past, no one will ever forget it. It is the stigma that haunts this generation of German youth because many of their grandparents or great-grandparents were a part of one of history's most infamous armies. But the fact that this film is German was surprising to me. I would have guessed that no one in Germany would have wanted to dig up their past in this way. However, if one looks at this film as closure to Germany's transgressions, then maybe this new generation of German youth can learn to have a sense of national identity without the horrors of the past seen in their shadows. **** out of ****

Brilliant Depiction Of The Effects Of War

[bs3dc · 24 March 2007]

Downfall is the gripping depiction of the last few days of the Second World War in Europe, as the Russians advance into Berlin and approach ever nearer the bunker of Adolf Hitler who still believes their advance can be stopped...

Bruno Ganz turns in a terrific performance as Hitler, paying great attention to detail (including the regional accent and the effects of Parkinson's disease) that really make him into a believable person which is a lot more frightening to watch than the usual two-dimensional characterisations that are usually seen on screen. Ganz manages to dominate the screen with the same effectiveness that allowed Hitler to get followers of such devotion that despite his atrocities and the horror of the situation many are prepared to stay with him and fight to the death while the possibility of escape or surrender remains open to them. He is almost schizophrenic - at some moments he is almost gentle, such as some of the scenes with his secretary, then shortly afterwards he is practically foaming at the mouth in his contempt for the civilian population of Berlin who he will not raise a finger to try to save by surrendering to the Allies.

The other actors are not very well known - at least on the international arena, but this added greatly to the authentic feel. Some of the senior Nazi leaders are hardly more sympathetic than their Fuhrer - Himmler in particular shows only personal ambition while pretending loyalty. Other characters such as the caring SS doctor who finds elderly patients simply abandoned in a hospital or the father who desperately tries to persuade his son who must be around 12-14 not to get involved and perish in a hopeless cause are succinctly realised.

The film is expertly shot, with the unreal atmosphere in the bunker captured perfectly where Hitler raves about army units that barely or cease to exist coming to the rescue of the Reich and orders oilfields re-captured for 'long distance missions' when the Russian troops are barely a few hundred metres away.

There is no glory shown in the battle scenes as the outcome is always a foregone conclusion making the resulting deaths even more moving. Watching young children and old men trying to hold off the Russian advance with inadequate weaponry is tragic in the knowledge that they are dying for no real purpose other than the whims of a handful of madmen.

Very few films have depicted the tragic waste of life that war provokes better than Downfall and this turns out to be one of the best movies concerning the conflict that claimed over 50 million lives.

The last days at the bunker

[jotix100 · 10/10 · 19 March 2005]

This magnificent film goes where no one else dared to go to show us the last days of Adolf Hitler. The director, Oliver Hirshbiegel, working with a big cast, brings to life the madness of the last days of the monster, as observed by a young and impressionable secretary who witnessed most of the crisis.

At the beginning of the film we watch as five young women are brought to be interviewed by Hitler for a job as his personal secretary. Young Traudl Junge is selected. She is a pretty woman who is naive in many ways and probably had no inkling about the trip she was going to embark.

The film captures the tragic figure of Hitler as everything is caving in on him and his grand plans for victory. We watch a man at the beginning of the film that is still thinking he is in command of the German forces, but his authority has eroded, as it becomes clear to the people under him the war is lost and it will be a matter of time before they are defeated.

We watch the life of privilege the higher ups led inside the bunker. It was a fortification in which all comforts the regular Germans could not imagine existed. We get to know the people in Hitler's inner circle. The Goebbels, both Joseph and Magda, supporters of the regime, maintain the loyalty to the Fuhrer until the end. The scene where Magda Goebbels murders her children is hard to take and we keep sinking in our seats, as we can't believe such cruelty existed. In her narrow view of things, Magda must take her family with her to a death these children didn't deserve.

The film is totally dominated by Bruno Ganz. As Hitler, he makes us see this man as he probably was in real life. Mr. Ganz's uncanny resemblance with Hitler is what makes the film works the way it does. At times, Mr. Ganz is totally irrational, and at times, he is presented as a lost man who can't see what he has done to Germany and to Europe and the world.

As Traudl Junge, the young secretary, Alexandra Maria Lara gives a subtle performance. She saw plenty inside the bunker and lived to tell it to the world. The other excellent performance is given by Corinna Harfouch, who as Mrs. Goebbels makes us cringe in horror because of what she is capable of doing. Juliane Kohler, as Eva Braun, is an enigma. At times, she is presented as a carefree young woman who might have loved Hitler. Yet, we don't ever know what made this Eva Braun tick. Ulrich Matthes as Joseph Goebbels and Heino Ferch as Albert Speer are equally effective playing these two men.

The director and his team have to be congratulated for taking us on a voyage to see the last moments of the Third Reich.

A mesmerizing experience and one that will hopefully remind people all over the world that history may never repeat itself!

[Coventry · 10/10 · 18 January 2005]

All I can say about "Der Untergang" is: WOW! This is one of those rare films that prove that the darkest pages in our world history easily surpass the fiction tales of the most imaginative fantasist. This soon-to-be landmark in cinema portrays the final ten days of Hitler's reign at the well hidden bunker in Berlin. In the opening sequences, we see how the Führer hires Traudl Junge (flawless performance by Alexandra Maria Lara) as his personal secretary and we largely witness the rest of the story from her viewpoint. Recent documentary footage with the real Junge is showed to audience at the end of the movie, stressing even more that this is a very intelligent and carefully elaborated production. A form of criticism I often encountered stated that Hitler was portrayed too "human" by the Swiss actor Bruno Ganz. Let me tell you that people who claim this haven't got the slightest clue what they're talking about! It's true that Hitler sometimes strokes his dog…or even gives a compliment to his servant for cooking him such a lovely dinner! But only moments after, you're exposed to the real Hitler again! Alternately a mad-raving dictator, a disillusioned conqueror or simply a pathetic old man. But perhaps the most astonishing scenes in "Der Untergang" are the ones in which the persons close to Hitler – either professional or amicable – remain unconditionally loyal to him! It is deeply disturbing to behold how so many people blindly swear by the unworldly beliefs of a madman, even prepared to follow him into death. This accurate portrait results in a series of brilliant sequences with the severely shocking fate of the Goebbels family as an absolute highlight.

Purely talking in terms of cinema, "Der Untergang" comes dangerously close to perfection as well. The largest part of this film exists out of interior shots, more specifically the bunker-network where Hitler lasted his final days and eventually committed suicide. And the atmosphere inside this bunker is reflected on the movie-screen as genuine as humanly possible. You can nearly smell the fear of the lower-ranked officers! You can almost feel the shivering of the petrified secretaries! I really hate using a cliché sentence like this but…it's true…it's like you are there yourself! And you don't want to be there! Even the totally demolished streets of Berlin looks look more appealing than the claustrophobic Nazi bunker. This despicable chapter in history deserves an accurate and well-budgeted cinema version, if only just for passing on the inglorious stories of WWII to younger generations. Director Oliver Hirschbiegel terrifically turned Joachim Fest's novel into a mesmerizing film experience. Perhaps the most praiseworthy aspect about it all is that "Der Untergang" simply is a reconstruction of the facts! No lame and amateurish attempts to blame Hitler's actions on miserable childhoods or traumatizing experiences. Simply put: this is fundamental viewing!

Distanced and sober view of Hitler's last days

[engelst · 7/10 · 12 November 2004]

The first 15 minutes made me doubt the qualities of this movie. The situations were a bit forced and the cuts were strange. But after the uncomfortable beginning the movie took momentum and kept it until the end.

I think the choice of depicting Hitler as a human being with a dispassionate and modest direction was excellent. The film never tries to force viewers into an opinion. Everybody can form his own opinion. Too often the horrors of WWII led writers and directors to depict Nazis as monsters. Perfectly normal human beings can be cruel and merciless if they are blinded (by hate for example), which should never be forgotten.

In a way, a human Hitler to me is more guilty than a raving monster. He had the choice and he chose to do wrong. He could choose life and he chose murder and destruction. A human being lost respect for the life of other human beings and led a country into genocide. Ultimately he loses respect for all life and starts sacrificing his own soldiers at random. This is what I value this film for, making the idea of a human Hitler tangible.

It was very brave to make this film, given that controversy was almost certain to arise. One of the highlights of this year, to be sure.

One of the Best Movies I've Ever Watched

[Jdylan-1 · 10/10 · 19 May 2006]

Seriously, I wasn't expecting much, but this was one of the best movies period. The actors and acting was terrific, the sets were incredible (St. Petersburg, Russia), the emotions... I felt like I was in Berlin during the last few days, I felt like I was in the bunker with Hitler. It is the most realistic depiction of the situation I had ever seen, and I almost felt a tear in my eye. And that is something, coming from a 40 year old Army veteran. The last 5 minutes, I was on the edge of my seat, when the Russians showed up. Anyway, this movie is totally recommended by me, but brush up on your Nazi history first, or you won't know who is who.

I also liked it because it showed Hitler as a real human, and not the usual Anthony Hopkins/Alec Guiness "nutbag" Hitler, or the stereotypical "demon" Hitler. It showed him as he was, a broken down egomaniac. I will totally buy this movie and add it to my collection, which is rare for me to do these days.

Powerful Stuff

[snow0r · 7/10 · 3 March 2006]

Downfall seeks to chart the final days of the Third Reich as both Germany and Adolf Hitler stand on the brink of collapse, as the Russians advance to the heart of Berlin.

It is difficult to gauge whether or not Downfall is a great film or not. It seems that any film offering alternative insight to the Second World War is generally well received as either outstanding (Das Boot, 1981) or at worst, thought provoking and slightly unnerving (Max, 2002), and Downfall is a combination of all these factors.

To a certain extent, it's well acted. Bruno Ganz puts in an intense performance as Hitler, his mood swaying from quiet mourning to the brutal ruthlessness we all know him for, as he visibly degenerates as the war takes its toll on his sanity. What is important is that he remains unlikeable. Ganz makes him a bit more human, without engaging the audience on terms of empathy. He isn't seeking sympathy for the Devil, but is creating an accurate portrait of a man with history watching his every move. I know very little about history and the films accuracy, making the other characters simple types for me. They do an effective job but I've got nothing to base them on.

Downfall doesn't shy away from the more harrowing scenes of war either, focusing largely on the children drawn into it. Audiences are used to seeing soldiers and civilians die, largely thanks to Steven Spielberg, but seeing Nazi Youth soldiers executed by their superiors before they're killed by the Russians is more than what we're used to. The scene in which Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch) poisons all of her children is the best (not quite the right word) example of this and is obviously chilling, as the innocents are punished for the crimes of their parents, in their sleep, no less. I was very relieved none of them woke up.

However, there is no one to root for here. We all know how it ends (although not exactly how) and Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara) is perhaps too simple a character to really engage with. For this reason, Downfall is second best to character based efforts such as Spielberg's Schindler's List (1993) and Polanski's The Pianist (2002).

While it is heavy stuff, and more than a little though provoking, there isn't enough emotional connection here for it to be a classic.

Dr. Feelgood

[pj_moorrees · 4/10 · 28 December 2004]

Usually I don't write a comment. Especially not when it's a good movie, because everybody sees something slightly else in it. But since I'm quite outraged about this one, I needed to write something. Hitler with human traits, sure I can see that. Fair enough, this makes it all the more worrying, if he's human, we all are able to make the same horrific mistakes. Great acting performances by basically everyone. No problem there. But.... Hitler and Goebbels are the two rotten apples in the basket the movie seems to be telling us. And Goebbels (the brilliant intellectual who re-invented propaganda) is depicted as a loyal moron dog. Ein "voll-idiot" as they may say in German. The rest of the bunker crowd are either loyal but stupid, or realists who have cowardice as their biggest vice. The last ones are all depicted as people who want to talk some sense in this raving megalomaniac, as people who want to save the German population, but in the end were not able to stand up against big uncle Adolf. They meant so well after all.... To me, it came across as a feel-good movie, there were 2 madman (and a couple of loyal wives and secretaries), but the rest wasn't so bad after all, really. We can all go to bed safely now. Sure, a lot of Germans (most probably, in fact)were not responsible for the atrocities that went on, but to claim the same for the bunker crowd is stretching it. They too were human, bound to make mistakes, yes, but here most of them are almost angel material, cowardly angels, stupid angels, but nevertheless...........a sad, very sad story indeed....

A truer rendition of Hitler I've never seen...

[adammezei · 15 September 2004]

Not since perhaps Rod Steiger's portrayal of Benito Mussolini in Moustapha Akkad's LION OF THE DESERT (1980) have I seen a notorious dictator more realistically acted than Bruno Ganz's stunning display as "Der Fuerer" in The Downfall (2004).

Sitting amongst a full-house of patrons here at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival's 2004 edition, Ganz captivated the local audience with the scariest Hitler I've ever seen up on the silver screen -- better than Noah Taylor's English Hitler in MAX just a couple of years back.

Audience members get a glimpse into the final days of Hitler's rule from the bunker deep beneath the Reich Chancellery in Nazi Berlin's dying days. The defeated spirit of the Nazis -- covered extensively in the history books -- has seldomly been more penetratingly shown on the Big Screen. Bravo to director Oliver Hirschbiegel for doing this the right (German) way -- for intrepidly tackling a period piece few German producers might.

I'd had a chance to chat with the actors post-screening, with lead actress Alexandra Maria Lara (playing Traudl Junge) candidly admitting the sheer amount of work she'd diligently invested in bringing her character to life -- doubtless complicated by the death of Frau Junge in 2002. Her research, however, was clearly impeccable and left no stone unturned. Corinna Harfouch wasn't on hand -- as Magda Goebbels. Pity because in many respects, she convincingly stole the show.

So rarely do we see Hitler on screen in modern days to allow us a glimpse into the horrifying nature of a madman bent on global domination. We all know the end of this story, but seldom does a film so masterfully suspend your disbelief than does The Downfall in making you wonder just how the Third Reich might end. Historical fiction might never be the same.

The End

[theantigaz · 9/10 · 22 April 2005]

Now here is a novel idea, making a movie from the "enemy's" point of view, attaching a human face to probably the most notorious institute of evil in human history. Before watching this film, I had reservations over how much I would enjoy it and what I might gain from it. I was concerned that the film may be an attempt to show the human side of the Nazi party, to make us sympathetic not to their cause, but to their human nature. I had to think to myself, do I really want to attach a human element to people who history has painted as monsters? The film begins with Hitler recruiting Traudl Junge as a new secretary in 1942, from this point onwards the film is predominantly (but not entirely) seen through her eyes. This key scene at the beginning of the film shows how people reacted to their leader with fanatical loyalty, holding him high in reverence. This gives us a brief insight into the belief of his followers that what they were doing would lead them to a golden utopia, a better world. All to often in films concerning Nazi's, they are portrayed as evil personified, killing for killing's sake, being evil for the sake of being evil. What we get throughout this film is a more realistic viewpoint of people's attitudes. The people who followed Hitler may have no entirely agreed with everything he said, may have not hung on his every word, but believed that he would lead them to a greater future, as such they followed.

Bruno Ganz, does a magnificent job of playing one of history's most notorious and documented individuals. He plays the role as, what I feel, accurately and realistically as possible. He resists the temptation to play Hitler as an uber-evil super-villain, disregarding all life who opposes him and wiping out humans at a whim. He plays the roles as an ageing leader, loosing grip on his health, his sanity and his conquest. A man who was kind, considerate and caring to children, his dog and his civilian staff, but who also attempted to wipe out an entire race of people and was proud of himself for doing it. It shows a man willing to send young children into the street to resist enemy advancement, it shows a man who believes that the civilian population would not be evacuated, as it was their chance to rise up (women and children, the old and sick, un armed) and prove they deserved victory. This film raises the question, was Hitler an evil man who practised evil deeds through his beliefs? or were his evil deeds a result of his absolute pursuit of his beliefs? Watching Ganz's performance, you get the feeling all Hitler had left before he took his life, was his ideals (not that this is anything to be proud of). He had lost the war, he had lost the respect of several of his commanding officers and he had lost his grip on reality.

The film also shows Hitler's closest officers and staff, it shows how they react to the downfall. Some have blind and fanatical faith that Hitler will act as their saviour and devise a scheme to turn the battle around. Some accept that their leader has lost his grip, but follow with blind devotion anyway. Some are not so sure and see the cracks in the beliefs they were fighting for. The film shows these often horrifying moments and realisations in all to realistic detail.

Ultimately, Downfall shows the human and personal element of the end of the war for Hitler and the Nazis. It shows how real people, people who tell jokes, drink, socialise, listen to songs and dance, also followed national socialism with a devotion that drove them to do the terrible things they did. It shows how they did not believe what they were doing was wrong, in their minds they were paving the way for their glorious future. It also shows their fanatical devotion and blind faith in their goal, led to their downfall, both as a movement and as human beings.

Downfall is an amazing and powerful film, documenting an unseen side of a major historical event. The film ends with video footage of the real Traudl Junge talking about her feelings towards the war and he involvement with the Nazis. She says that when she first became involved with the Nazis, she was in awe of their power and beliefs, she may have not agreed with everything they did, but what difference would her being involved or not make? She was ignorant to their deeds and as such held a clean conscience. Then she says has realised over time she had the power not to be ignorant to their deeds, that she should have stayed away from them, realising them for the evil that they were. I felt she was warning what ignorance can lead to, that no matter how tiny one person is in the scheme of things, it is no excuse to contribute towards the wrong cause.

Excellent historical film, highly recommended.

This movie has physically touched me! ....wow.

[Shc-Shc · 10/10 · 28 February 2005]

I don't know what to say about this film. I am almost speechless.

First of all, this is almost PERFECT cinema, beautifully shot, acted, lit, staged and on and on. BUt it is also the only film in recent memory that had an almost physical impact on me. I left feeling disoriented and very disquieted, a feeling that lasted for several hours.

What we have here is an exercise in patience. A film that allows us to watch the disintegration of the largest empire in modern history, from the inside out. Beginning after the start of the siege of Berlin, the bulk of the film takes place in the cramped bunkers below the city, where Hitler and his officers are trapped like rats on a sinking ship, aware of their fate, but not smart enough, not willing enough, or maybe incapable of escaping the fates they created for themselves.

This is a daring, brilliant film with a virtuoso performance by Bruno Ganz as Hitler. He shows us that beneath the genocidal, world changing shell of hatred that the globe knew, Hitler was still that petty, hatefilled, failed art-student that he was before becoming the greatest villain in history.

awesome, awesome, awesome movie.

An excellent rendition reflecting historiographical trends of the past years.

[WChewIII · 10/10 · 6 February 2005]

"Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") portrays life inside (and to an extent outside) the "Führerbunker" in Berlin during the last few weeks prior to Hitler's suicide in April, 1945. The screenplay was written by Bernd Eichinger, who has had previous experience with the adaptation of historical material for cinema, and done a commendable job in the process. I am, of course, referring to his screen version of Umberto Ecco's historical novel "The Name of the Rose (1986). Some of Eichinger's other credits include "Body of Evidence" (1993, which he co-produced) and "The NeverEnding Story" (1984, as producer).

Few movies have stirred up as much controversy even before their release, as has "Der Untergang." So what was all the fuss about, and was it warranted? After all, how many films have been made about Hitler already, including several about Hitler in his Berlin bunker. There is nothing especially controversial about the subject matter per se. What is more, Hirschbiegel and Eichinger appear to have done their homework, basing the film extensively on German historian Joachim Fest's acclaimed book of the same name (2003). Events are portrayed largely through the eyes of Traudl Junge, Hitler's private secretary from 1943–when the film opens with a flashback sequence to her job interview and appointment–to his death. Her memoirs, and interviews conducted before her death, constitute a further source for the film. The Führer himself is played magisterially by Bruno Ganz, who clearly spent countless hours studying Hitler's public speeches, as well as rare footage of the private man, not to mention recordings of his voice. For a historian like myself, who has viewed and listened to much of the material myself, it is uncanny how right Ganz gets it. Inflection, tonality, accent–they are all there. As are gestures and body language. This film has to be seen in the original, even if you don't understand German.

So if there is little in the way of subject matter, preparation, historical consulting, and prime acting to fault, why then the controversy? The approach and interpretation were at the root of the hullabaloo. Interviewed while the film was in the making, Eichinger explained that he would portray Hitler "as a man, as a human" ("wie ein Mensch.") This was revolutionary in cinema, where renditions of the Nazi leader have–pre-Eichinger–still not gone far beyond the "evil-dictator" approach. You might reasonably query what is wrong with the "evil dictator" approach, given the accepted fact that he was, indeed, evil. From a historian's perspective, everything is wrong with that approach, and Eichinger had the courage to transcend it for the broad public.

The first two decades of post-World War II historians pretty much demonized Hitler, as did all movies before "Der Untergang." This was understandable, at the time. Wounds were still fresh, denazification was under way, Germans were seeking a new democratic identity aligned with the West, and the issue of "collective guilt" was touchy. Solid, balanced biographies of Hitler had not yet been written, and historical understanding of how it was possible that a highly cultured people such as the Germans could have been led astray was only just beginning to take shape. But with the 1964 revision of Lord Alan Bullock's "A Study in Tyranny" (1st ed. 1952) and Joachim Fest's "Hitler: Eine Biographie" (1973) professional historians started putting demonetization to rest and instead began to explain. And this meant accepting the perhaps distasteful tenet that Hitler was, after all, a man, and not some kind of deranged satanic figure from hell. Sir Ian Kershaw, Professor of Modern History at the University of Sheffield, has taken things even further, in his highly accessible two-volume (2000 page!) magnum opus which has now become the standard biography (published 1998-2000). For Kershaw has not only reconciled the internationalist (or "Hitler-centric") approach, which focuses on Hitler as linchpin and leader of the Third Reich, without whom World War II and the Holocaust are unthinkable; with the structuralist approach, which links Hitler and his "enabling" to social, political and cultural structures in Weimar Germany. Kershaw has also gone a long way towards meeting the desideratum of German historian Martin Broszat, uttered as far back as the 1970s, for the "historicization" of Third Reich history, meaning its firm embedding in overall German, European, and indeed World History, rather than its artificial isolation as an "aberration" or a "German special path" ("deutscher Sonderweg.") This, then, is the proper historiographical context of "Der Untergang." In effect, the film almost belatedly follows trends in scholarship that have been developing for some time now. Of course, the general public is hardly aware of such developments. So in a sense, the film is something of a vulgarization, a kind of dramatization informed by the best scholarship. The film does not explain, for it is, after all, not a documentary with the voice-over of a historical consultant cum narrator. That is not its purpose. What it does, however, is provide an excellent sense of Hitler in his declining days, increasingly delusional if perhaps not outright insane, but still able–almost to the bitter end–to maintain a hold on his closest followers. Not to mention the unreality of life in the sheltered bunker, while outside the Russians are advancing through Berlin suburbs, held back only by a pathetic hodge-podge of Hitler youth and tired old men drafted into service in the Volkswehr. From all accounts I have read, from the pens of scholars English, American and German, I can say with a high degree of certitude that this film provides a reasonably authentic recreation of what it must have been like. Or in the words of Leopold von Ranke, "wie es eigentlich gewesen." What higher acclaim can a historian provide?

Impressive

[SithApprentice · 10/10 · 12 November 2004]

Considering the fact how hard it is to make an adequate movie about the Third Rich and especially Hitler himself, "Der Untergang" is a superb portrayal of the last days of Hitler, his minions and the Third Rich. First of all, Bruno Ganz' performance is magnificent, brilliant, perfect. You're beginning to think he IS the Fuehrer, his look, his mannerism, his sick philosophy of life and his downfall are absolutely convincing. After seeing him you can finally understand why so many people back then were attracted by his charisma, but thanks to Ganz' performance you do not forget about the terrible crimes he committed by his followers and about the evil inside the sick soul of this man. His minions weren't that important in this movie, except for Joseph Goebbels and his family. Heinrich Himmler, the ReichsfuehrerSS, was portrayed as the man he was: an idiotic coward, who was in great part responsible for the Holocaust and still believed in a peace agreement with the allied forces, although this idea was completely out of place. Albert Speer as one of the less criminal national socialists was also quite good interpreted. Martin Bormann, Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, 3 other important Nazis, got too few screen time, and Hermann Goering didn't even show up, he was just mentioned. I think Goebbels wasn't portrayed that authentic as he could have, due to the fact he was the most intelligent of Hitler's inner circle, but in some scenes he seemed like someone who could just repeat his own slogans. The part about Traudl Junge and the boy from the Volkssturm, Peter, was also quite good, but it was clearly overshadowed by the Hitler/ minion part. There are also some surprisingly well done battle- sequences taking place in Berlin, in which you can also see a part of the pretty high amount of blood and violence, for example when a soldier gets shot through his head, some officers are committing suicide or the killing of the Goebbels children, a scene which gave me the chills. Due to it's high authenticity, great actors and an important message, this movie could become as important as Schindler's List already is, in order to show today's youth the insanity of Hitler and the whole Third Rich and to make them avoid racist and extreme right wing organisations. All in all, this is one of the best German flicks I've ever seen - although there isn't such a huge number of good German movies. 10/10

Very important historically but not for the faint of heart

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 13 March 2015]

This film is based on the experiences of Hitler's secretary as well as other survivors of the bunker during the final days of Nazi Germany. It follows these people (with a strong emphasis on Hitler through the first 80% of the film) and excels at its historical accuracy. Unlike some of the other Hitler biopics (such as the ones starring Richard Basehart and Alec Guinness), this one shows an odd and 3-dimensional man--screaming and irrational one moment yet rather kind and likable the next. If Hitler had ONLY been a screaming madman (as he's generally shown) no one would have followed him and he never would have led Nazi Germany. Here he is much more believable and the writer, director and actor (Bruno Ganz) all created the best screen Hitler to date.

The film is a history teacher's dream come true, as the film sure makes you THINK it's being filmed in Berlin during the final days. The look of the bombed out and burned out city is amazing, the bunker sure looks like what the real bunker would have looked like, the uniforms, weapons, cars, etc. all look as they should.

I have only one reservation about this incredibly well made film and that is although the film often sanitized the violence here and there, other times it's up close and personal and overwhelming. For example, many times folks blow their brains out with pistols. You often only hear it and you might see a brief look at the corpse. But, other times, with little warning, someone whips out their pistol and blows a hole through their head...and you see all of it. And, the death of the Goebbels children is heart-wrenching to watch. There also are the scenes involving amputations that are hard to watch. So, while I applaud the film for accuracy, it it NOT for small children or anyone who isn't prepared to see exactly how it was...blood and all.

Overall, incredibly compelling and a film that's among the best the Germans have ever made. Ironically, Ganz played Hitler in this one and his other super-famous film was WINGS OF DESIRE in which he played an angel!!

Outstanding

[the_green_bowl · 10/10 · 11 December 2005]

The outstanding qualities of this film have already been discussed at length, I want to address some of the criticisms levelled against this film by 'the experts' (critics and historians).

Why are they so outraged by a film that portrays the nazi leadership as human beings? The actions and mannerisms shown in this film are entirely consistent with how those people acted in real life. Yes, Hitler was a genocidal leader, but he was just a man, not a demon. He was capable of great cruelty but was it is often remarked that he was capable of decent conversation with people and was generally amiable but patronising in his dealings with subordinates. These attributes, I feel, were accurately portrayed in the film.

What about the film portraying war criminals (eg, keitel, jodl, speer) in a positive light, as brave and honourable men? This film made it clear that it was a representation of the final days and hours of the nazi regime. the death camps have been liberated by the advancing allies, the victories of 1939-41 a distant memory. Yes, these people were guilty of war crimes but that doesn't mean they would act like in a cowardly or dishonourable way when their homeland was under siege.

Take a look at any good film, book or just at humanity in general, you will see that ALL people are capable of cruelty but also of honour, bravery and loyalty.

Why is it controversial to portray the nazi leadership in such a way? I think the film displays well the internal tug-of-war - loyalty to their leader against reality and self-preservation - taking place in each persons head while they deal with the inevitable capitulation.

Finally, where are these critics when Hollywood produces some awful pap that portrays historical events emerges? Whether they re-write history (eg. braveheart or mel gibsons patriot) or try and play 13th century characters with 21st century liberal emotions (eg. kingdom of heaven) these films escape the large scale criticisms levelled at der untergang.

Why does Hollywood produce this nonsense? Is the true story of what happened (the American revolution, the crusades, ww2) not interesting enough for cinema viewing? I think it is and the accurate, human portrayal of Hitler and the German people in der untergang proves this.

Important and controversial

[blubb06 · 7/10 · 18 August 2007]

Although it's a good film, it was just as interesting to read the comments — especially from Germany. It's true, whenever a film such as this comes out portraying the Third Reich not as an Indiana Jones-type Empire of Evil, we Germans turn around in advance protesting: "This is not meant to justify anything! Of course Hitler was a monster!" I don't think anyone seriously judges young Germans today by what their great-grandparents did, but it's of course something never to be forgotten. Sadly, it's also a convenient stereotype in politics and movie-making that tends show demons instead of humans, with the effect that we no longer understand just how on earth such things were possible. Hopefully it will take a very long time before the Nazis are surpassed in evil. But closing our eyes to the real Hitler, Stalin or Mao and their minions in favor of a legend will prevent us from ever understanding how these things work. "If you look into the Abyss, it looks back into you" (Nietzsche?). Movies like this one challenge the viewer's ability to look and do some honest self-reflection, or we all might wake up one day to the same bad realization, that we chased a dream and killed millions along the way.

"The Downfall" suggests how hard it was to be an outsider and not be affected by Nazi propaganda, and how well Hitler had managed to brainwash his troupe, especially the SS, into believing Germany was to be Sparta reincarnated, whose code of honor called upon everyone to fight to the death and without mercy. He ruled his admirers by being the source of their ideals (read: delusions of grandeur), pride, hope and fear. Bruno Ganz has justly been praised for his performance, and what he did was just enough — to make Hitler more mesmerizing as well as menacing would have invited unnecessary criticism. But imagine for once Anthony Hopkins in that role — the outcries of indignation! And the stacks of fan letters ...! (Hopkins actually played Hitler on TV in dark pre-Lecter times.) This Hitler is rather funny in his spitting and raving.

I was often annoyed by the kitschy music when suffering civilians and wounded are shown — scenes like these are stronger without it — and also by the urge to show "good" Germans, in the moral sense of the word. Not one of them, except the SS commandos hanging "traitors" in the streets, is fanatic enough to be entirely unsympathetic. There are some really memorable quotes by Hitler which serve as historical cues: "Mercy is a crime against the people" is the most remarkable. Juliane Köhler is striking as Eva Braun — she speaks volumes with her eyes, as is Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch) who kills her children in cold blood (and allegedly had a thing for Hitler, but that's subtle in the film) — the "bravest mother of the Third Reich" indeed, by Hitler's standards! Joseph Goebbels, apart from a superficial resemblance, remains bland and not half the intellectual, charismatic orator he really was, and the rest of the cast is not particularly impressive either. The film's atmospheric moments are inside the bunker, when a grenade hits and suddenly the wild merriment stops, and you feel a claustrophobia and sense of dread that makes the goings-on seem like a mad fever dream. That was when I felt the fiction was real.

Some commentators have called this the best WW2-movie they ever saw. It's maybe the most complex recent "big screen" issue about Germany's Hitler madness — so far. My "favorite" is a Russian film (I can't recall the title) that shows what Germans — and Russians — did on the Eastern front, mostly seen through the eyes of a Russian boy whose village is burned down with its inhabitants locked inside the church, to which the SS set fire. Though not as grisly in detail as "Saving Private Ryan", it depicts the events Hitler's "table talk" set into motion in all their bestiality and without all false sentimentality. We should not forget that most of the war victims besides Jews were Russians, and for the latter the killing was far from over after 1945. They have their own story about killing for ideology or conformity that I'd really like to see made into a film as challenging as this one.

A Masterpiece

[wbhome · 10/10 · 4 December 2005]

I have been fascinated not only by the movie (I have watched this now 10 times) but the divergence of opinion - with some Germans saying it was terrible. This I don't understand.

In the West from the time of Charlie Chaplin Hitler was portrayed as a raving lunatic - but to me that does not explain his rise to power. A lunatic could not nearly conquer and enslave half the world. In his early rise to power, he was ridiculed in the West.

The fact that this movie gives him some human qualities makes him all the more chilling. There is a dialog between the Junge character and the Braun character that perfectly summarizes Hitler. They talked of the great gulf between the private man and the public man. The Braun character said that she had known the man for 15 years - and yet she knew nothing of him.

I believe to truly understand the movie one must also watch the movie with the director's commentary. Everything about this movie - with the exception of 2 things mentioned by the director - (which having just read the spoiler agreement I will refrain from mentioning - everything was based on fact, which makes the movie all the more dramatic. And the movie characters make some minor statements - based on fact - that would be lost on the audience without outside knowledge of those historical facts.

Small case in point: The Eva Braun character is telling the Traudl Junge character that she "so looked forward to coming to Berlin" with the inference (to me) that she hadn't seen Hitler for awhile. Then I read elsewhere that she was in Obersaltzburg for 6 months away from Hitler prior to coming to Berlin. The director stated that he wanted this movie to be treated not only as a drama - but a documentary. He succeeded in both.

I suppose this movie is controversial - a local reviewer said it tried to make Hitler sympathetic by giving him some human qualities but as someone else said this makes him all the more evil. It is these human qualities that make him a believable entity - kind to many individuals, indifferent and murderous to millions. And with the end he was indifferent to the fate of his own people, who were dying for him.

Watching this movie made me think that the German people's initial support of Hitler followed a plot from Goethe - that a Mephistopheles - a demon in disguise - promises the recipient all that he wants in return for his soul. This of course is a theme that has subsequently replayed countlessly in western literature since Goethe's Faustus.

This movie is based not only on Junge's book and Fest's book, but interviews with some of the survivors of the bunker.

I would recommend not only the movie but then watch it with commentary from the director a second time. It is all the more haunting when you realize that virtually everything was based on fact during Berlin's last days.

Bruno Ganz - as all the cast - turned in an excellent performance. Watching Ganz in this performance was watching Hitler. You will feel as if you too are a witness in the Bunker.

The beginning and end statements by the real secretary Traudl Junge make the movie even more powerful. This movie was so moving for me that I have bought Traudl Junge's book, "Until the Last Hour".

In the US on the DVD it is said it was nominated for "best foreign picture" - if it didn't win, it should have.

A Not Horrible Enough Telling of a Horrible Story

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 8 October 2011]

This ensemble film about the last days of Hitler and his Nazi regime should have left me chilled and disturbed, but I found it oddly soft.

Bruno Ganz is terrific as Hitler, but he feels like a supporting character in his own drama. The film focuses on too many people, blunting the tautness and drama of what took place in that famed bunker during those dark days in April 1945. The movie feels overly scripted; there are too many scenes that smacked of a soap operatic melodrama. And it's too tasteful or cautious to confront the most horrific moments head on. I'm not one to advocate for gratuitous violence in films, but Steven Spielberg showed in "Schindler's List" that graphic violence is sometimes a necessity when telling a story as horrible as any of the numerous stories about what the Nazis did to the world.

The whole time I was watching this film, I wondered what it would have been like if it had been in the black and white, stark style of Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon." That movie, which I saw nearly a year ago, still haunts me, while "Downfall," which I saw a couple of weeks ago, I've already nearly forgotten.

Grade: B

Not Das Boot

[hdoug · 1/10 · 19 April 2005]

I know it's dangerous going to a movie with expectations, but not knowing very much about "Downfall" except for its excellent reviews here at IMDb.com I was anticipating something like "Das Boot" with brown dirt for green water.

As a film this drama's execution is quite superb. The audience seems transported into Hitler's bunker during those last days of the war. The city above is a wreck, and so is Hitler. Boys and girls and the elderly must take up futile positions against the advancing Soviet troops. No need for another plot synopsis here -- it's been well covered by the previous posts here.

Somewhere into this long and very engaging movie a chill set in. Yes, these Germans were real people, not monstrous demons, and this movie wasn't portraying their days here as heroic, but... Then something very odd struck me: during the scenes where the solitary Hitler contemplates his inevitable end, a poignant music plays in the background. It sounds familiar and my mind reaches back to my music school days to place it. It's from Johann Sebastian Bach's Mass in b-minor, specifically, the Crucifixus. Here in the film score, it appears sans words and chorus, but the music is distinct and powerful. Originally intended to evoke the tragedy and sacrifice of Jesus Christ ("he was crucified for us, made to suffer and was entombed...") here it is an offense. Is this the real point of view of the film, is this its purpose? To portray Hitler as a grand person who suffered persecution and betrayal?

Or am I reading too much into what is only an element of the drama? Well, Albert Speer is portrayed as a dapper (an architect in a suit rather than a minister in a uniform), intelligent, urbane, and compassionate man. He and Hitler have a conversation about their lost future over Speer's model of the Berlin that was to be. Yet wasn't Speer beloved of Hitler out of a compatible grandiosity? Wasn't that Berlin-to-be dominated by a palace with a dome a thousand feet high? Didn't this cultured architect become Hitler's Minister of Weapons and Armaments and ruthlessly use slave labor in the service of the Third Reich? In this film, he is a rather unfortunate artist caught up in the whirlwind of the times. No way.

No doubt the Germans were real people. How did they get talked into this grand, barbaric, and murderous scheme? Yes, they were like us. So could this happen to us too? Don't see this movie, don't shed tears for Hitler, and don't even entertain the notion suggested in this movie that he was a persecuted and betrayed savior. Don't participate in the rehabilitation of Nazism.