An excellent speculative drama backed up with actual WWII footage to add realism. I believe that if history had turned out differently, it may very well have happened just as this movie portrayed it. The premise of the Normandy invasion being repelled causing America to pull out of Europe and revert to isolationism, as well as America turning its wrath to and defeating Japan to avenge Pearl Harbor are completely believable and not the least bit hokey. It has an interesting and engaging murder plot, as well as a good amount of suspense as the various players try to reveal the truth about Nazi war crimes and evade capture by the Gestapo. Nazi callousness, like March's colleague about the "pure-blooded Aryan and a Pollock caught in the act", the Gestapo chief's nonchalance toward the need of evidence, and the retired actress' anti-Semitic take on America's "Jewish Problem", are well played out without overused, propaganda-style vitriol. Hauer's performance as March is impeccable. Miranda Richardson is very good as well. Actually, good performances were rendered by all cast members. This movie is very entertaining and sparks the imagination with one of the ultimate "what ifs?". I highly recommend it.
Add a Review
-
0DegreesKelvin11 March 2005
-
First of all, I haven't read the book. That means I can't compare it with the movie, if anyone is interested in that. The story here is quite interesting. The movie takes place about 20 years after World War II, a war won by Germany. That means many differences from what really happened:
- All Europe is one single country, Germania (I think)
- Germania is still at war with the Soviet Union
- No one really knows about the extermination of the Jews. The official story is that they were deported to Ukraine.
- The celebration of Hitler's 75th birthday is soon about to take place. The American President is going to make him a visit.
This makes the background for what happens in this movie. A man is found dead, and the investigator gets a mystery to solve that grows bigger as he digs up information.
The movie is quite good, just take into consideration that it's a bit low budget. Remember, it's a TV-movie.
(Something totally different: It was funny seeing a poster of "The Beatles" called "Die Beatles"). -
If there is one event in history that people like to discuss more than any other, it's probably world war 2. The conflict was huge (the biggest in human history) and is recent enough to be politically relevant in the world even today. Many things going on now are a direct result of it. One of the most commonly discussed aspects of ww2 is how it could have played out differently. Due to the sheer size of the conflict, there are many variables that could have affected its outcome. Some of these include "what if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor" or "what if Stalin had invaded europe before the nazi invasion of the USSR", but the most overused by far has to be "what if Hitler had won?" Many would shudder at the thought. Fatherland attempts to answer this question by giving a glimpse into what a victorious post-war germany might have looked like. The movie begins with a black and white montage of news reel clips explaining how it has been 20 years since 1944 and the end of world war 2, which was ended after the germans had successfully held back the allied advance on Normandy beachheads during d-day. Hitler declares victory over europe and america, and most of the allied war leaders, such as Eisenhower, are forced into embarrassing retirements. Over the next 2 decades, every country in europe except switzerland is absorbed into the huge nazi empire of Germania. Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, builds an enormous structure in Berlin to commemorate germany's victory: the Volkshalle. At 1000 feet in height, its prominent dome structure commands Berlin's skyline. The SS, who ran the death camps during the war, is transformed into a (mostly) peaceful police organization. Despite germany defeating america years earlier, Hitler, still very much alive and the leader of nazi germany, has to reach out to the americans in order to strike a bargain with them. The 1960s begin with the bloodbath of a war against the USSR still slogging on, and germany needs america in an alliance against them, still led by an 85 year old Josef Stalin. With the election of Joseph P Kennedy, Hitler feels that america will finally join his side. As Adolf's 75th birthday approaches, he is certain a covenant with america will ensure germany's immortality. The intro of the film closes by saying there are terrible rumors in germany stating how "race enemies" were not actually killed by the germans during the war, and instead were only loaded on cattle cars and resettled far away. The actual story of the film then begins, and follows Sturmbannfuhrer (Major) Xavier March, played by Rutger Hauer. He is called upon by the SS in order to investigate a dead body discovered near a lake. March later finds out the corpse is that of Josef Buhler, a former nazi officer responsible for "resettling" holocaust victims during the second world war. Shortly after, the Gestapo takes over the investigation and warns March bad things will happen if he continues to search for clues. Later, an american woman named Charlotte (Miranda Richardson) has arrived in germany and receives a picture of nazi officers standing in front of a mansion of some kind. Again, the Gestapo says not to research this matter any further or she'll be sorry. Eventually, she discovers that everyone in the picture was killed because they were aware of important information relating to something called the Wansee Conference; a meeting held early in 1942 between senior nazis who discussed how to best dispose of people Hitler considered racially inferior. The germans are now killing everyone who knows about what went on during the conference in order to cover up the fact that persecuted individuals were actually murdered, and not just resettled like everyone was told. If america were to discover this, they would definitely not form an alliance with germany. Charlotte is encouraged to leave the country and get the images to president Kennedy by any means necessary, and March also agrees to leave with his son Pili. Before he can leave, March's house is surrounded by the Gestapo and he is shot trying to flee. Minutes before Kennedy's scheduled meeting with Hitler, Charlotte manages to hand over the pictures of the death camps to him, and he is so disgusted he calls off the meeting and leaves germany. The narrator (who is revealed to be an adult Pili) says how germany's failure to ally with america caused the country to collapse later. I thought Fatherland was a good enough movie with an interesting (if overused) premise. Imagining what the world might be like if germany won the war is not anything new, but the movie's primary plot is about how the nazis have been trying to hide genocide from everyone. It is odd to see how the country might have looked if the war went differently, and we also learn how Reinhard Heydrich, considered ruthless even by Hitler, was designated his successor if he died in the near future. In real life, Heydrich was assassinated in Prague in 1942, but in the movie, the attempt fails. The author of the book this movie is based on said he didn't like it, which I find strange. It's just a tv movie, so it was not made in a major studio, but I'm willing to watch just about anything related to ww2. It's still an interesting alternate history scenario.
-
Scott-85 February 1999Berlin, 1964, Nazi Germany.
"Fatherland" is one of Ruger Hauer's better recent movies. It takes a look at what would have happened if Nazi Germany had survived, even if the US had never gone to war with Germany.
The movie shows the grandiose architectural empire that Hitler had planned to make out of Berlin, as it would look on his 75th birthday. The special effects are notable more for their subtlety than dramatics, many of the fictional monuments look perfectly natural. The appearance of Nazi era clothes and uniforms against a sixties era eastern europe looks both plausible and surreal.
The movie itself focuses on a patriotic cop (Hauer) and an american journalist who look into a series of murders that involved the "greatest secret" of the Reich.
"Fatherland" is a better than average drama and at the same a very disturbing look at how history could have turned out differently. -
Oliver_Lenhardt28 May 2002Having not read the book, I can't comment on how the movie fares in comparison.
Two serious missteps struck me immediately: First and most egregious, the dialogue is entirely in English, even when the Germans are speaking amongst themselves. The accents (when such are even attempted) are fifth-rate. That the film was not written and performed in German by German actors was a severe blow to any sense of veracity right off the bat.
Secondly, Hauer's character is far too noble to be credible. Always the consummate thespian, Hauer almost manages to pull off limning the paper-thin persona.
I'm not suggesting that skeptical Nazis didn't exist, but not to a point, I believe, where one would risk his life in the face of such an uncertain outcome and such unfavorable odds. Miranda Richardson is fairly respectable as the American reporter, but her role doesn't provide much depth either.
Setting these reservations aside for a moment, the film's strengths are the riveting central scenario, the skillful direction, and a memorably sinister music score. The opening file footage, with a narrator explaining how the alternate reality came to be, is brilliantly done. Given such a fascinating reimagination of world history, it's pretty hard not to make the film at least diverting. Actually, I found myself captivated from beginning to....well almost end: The last few scenes entail a series of events that would have people rolling in the aisles with a lesser film, but even here hardly seems less preposterous. The absurd notion that a couple of American reporters could jostle their way through throngs of reverent, chanting Nazi supporters and past a wall of elite SS to hand off some documents to the U.S. President (HIS Secret Service also seems to be conveniently out-to-lunch) as he drives past, AND that selfsame President would glance at the papers and immediately cancel his imminent meeting with "Der Fuehrer", is beyond silliness. It's the dumbed-down American "last minute rescue" version of how such an intriguing story would end. Still, at least the writer didn't cop out when it came to the fates of his protagonists.
FATHERLAND had most of the ingredients to be a great movie, but a few aspects of the production were bungled disastrously. 6.5/10 -
Balberith25 April 2000I thought this film was interesting and engrossing. Miranda Richardson and Rutger Hauer were both good in their roles and the sets very well done too. I did find the ending a bit hard to swallow though. I read the book and found it to be much better. I never like when a film differentiates from the book. I was very impressed with Jean Marsh though. Marsh should have had a much bigger role than what she had. I absolutely loved her small but significant part. I have never seen such dedicated Nazi in any movie before. She made my blood run cold! I would have loved to see a sequel that focused on Anna Von Hagen very much. Jean Marsh Rocks!!!
-
ilesoft20 April 2012This is a great film, The plot follows the novel throughout but some Christian and western influence is added. This spoils the tag line from my opinion.
Comparing this film with the novel might not be fair. The novel is great and this film is also, but in different way.
The visual effects are great as well as the acting. 60s Nazi Reich spirit is captured well. The Third Reich painted in the film is credible, and very nice attention is paid to the details.
I'd suggest watching this film first and then reading the Robert Harris' novel. That way you'll get the best of the both.
I've been waiting for about ten years to see the filmation, and this was a bit of a disappointment. Seeing the Auschwitz death camps in person last year was a shocking experience. They're preserved in extraordinary way by the Polish. I'd suggest all the viewers to visit the survived concentration and extermination camps and feel the "spirit" of the Nazi Germany. It's a life-changing experience for you even if you are a extreme right believer or a person interested in the history.
The movie alone 9/10, compared to the novel 6/10. -
claes-bertilson4 January 2006Fatherland by Robert Harris is truly one of the best novels ever written and I did find myself thinking "this could be a great film one day" many times while reading it. I was therefore delighted to see it made but disappointed with the result.
Most of the actors work for me - this is a film that should be cast with Europeans - especially Rutger Hauer (ever growing in stature as an older statesman) as Xavier March. But one big flaw is the lack of chemistry with Richardsson.
But this is a book that deserved the big screen and a well known director. Lets hope for a re-make.
It must also be said that one of the most disappointing facts about the movie is how the film never really portrays the Berlin and Germany of a victorious Third Reich well enough. The monumental architecture that is so well described in Harris's book (taken from the historical facts of Hitler and Speer's plans) never really gets a fair showing. Just imagine what Industrial Light and Magic could do with this. -
I made the unfortunate mistake of watching this film before reading the book. At the time of writing, the only reliable way to see Fatherland is to watch it on Youtube. I would love to see a proper DVD/Blu-ray release.
Without any knowledge of the book, the film is excellent. A tense thriller set in a unique setting with presentation that makes anyone who enjoys historical stuff (like myself) engrossed. The alternative history, the Albert Speer architecture, the carefully thought out references to actual historical events such as the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan. Both of which are considered war crimes by many, allowing for a small hint of socio-political commentary.
The flaws lie in the plot, which has significantly deviated from the book, in that the ending seems over-dramatic. I will not spoil it but those of you who have read the book will possibly agree that the ending to the novel is more intense, subtle and powerful. Rutger Hauer's performance is excellent, well acted and his style is perfectly fitting of a character like Xavier March. Miranda Richardson plays the role of Charlie Maguire solidly, at times a little wooden and restrained.
All in all, the film is a decent homage to Robert Harris' most famous, and arguably his best, novel. For a low budget, mid 90s TV movie, I am impressed. I would love to see a new adaptation of the book, perhaps with a longer runtime (less condensation) and with a larger budget? -
This film is just about worth watching, containing interesting graphics which are somewhat similar to Ridley Scott's Gladiator (2000), not-to-mention numerous computer games on classical civilisations.
Both films recall the famous/infamous film director Leni Riefenstahl, and her shots of the Nuremburg rallies, with lots of classical buildings and shots of eagles and other imagery. This time, in Fatherland, there is the monumental and gigantic Hall of the People, actually planned in real-life by the Reich architect Albert Speer. It is here rendered rather well on film, actually quite convincingly, and is suitably ubiquitous throughout the entire film. Rutger Hauer can even see it from his bedroom window.
Rutger Hauer is adequate in his role as the sort of 'good' SS officer, but Miranda Richardson is just boring as the American journalist.
The film really only works on the level of style, with all the different pictures of what Hitler would've looked like in 1963 while about to meet President 'Joe' Kennedy (the father of JFK). Plus all the paraphenalia of Nazi rule and society, with symbols everywhere, etc. It's really quite convincing and presumably realistic. They loved their symbols, those Nazis.
The plot is rubbish, however. Really it amounts to finding some pictures which suggest that there was a holocaust - then everyone in the photos is eliminated, one-by-one. Then it ends.
Still worth watching. -
buiger28 April 2007A great book has been completely desecrated by this movie. The filmmakers have created a sort of 'soap opera thriller' that has absolutely nothing to do with the outstanding novel it is supposed to be based on. Where are the wonderfully described murky atmospheres of the book, the gray shades of everyday life in post WW2 Nazi Germany that are so vivid in the book you can feel them, they are almost palpable. Where is the suspense, where is the thriller?
Unfortunately, none of this is present in the movie, which spends far too much time in explaining to the viewers that R. Hauer is a good Nazi, showing him being a good father to his kid, etc... The film lacks also in pace, it lacks credibility (the depiction of the Nazis, the SS, the Gestapo, etc. is nothing less than grotesque, totally unreal), it seems as if the director actually never even read the book... And then the ending to top it all off... What a pity. Maybe someone in the future will attempt a second filming of this novel with better success. Let's hope so... -
searchanddestroy-110 February 2021I read the Robert Harris' novel, which this Tv movie is very close to. In the line of what the American political thrillers of the seventies brought to us: for instance PARALLAX VIEW. Instead of Kennedy assassination, the topic is set in a Germany that won WW2. And the lead investigator character is a SS officer !!! He has the same role that Yves Montand had in I COMME ICARE, or Warren Beatty in PARALLAX VIEW. That's the first time in the movie history that a SS is shown as a "good" guy, a hero. After all, for an uchronia, it is so believable, so terrific. In France, you had a politician whose death was very similar to the murder case that begins this film: Robert Boulin. But that's another story.
-
dan08034222 May 2010Notwithstanding the fine acting, directing, and character development, the premise of the film is interesting but frankly implausible. That a failed operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, would cause the Allies to quit the liberation of Europe is untenable for a host of historical reasons, as follows. Nearly complete allied air supremacy existed over Europe in June, 1944 as it was a prerequisite for the D-day invasion. Likewise, the German U-boat threat was largely eliminated after May, 1943 and so threats and disruption of shipping in the Atlantic had been markedly reduced by then. Thus, even with a failed allied invasion of Normandy, the allies would not have been placed at a sufficiently great risk so as to sue for peace with Hitler. Moreover, the surrender of Japan in the wake of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left the U.S. as the world's sole nuclear power in August, 1945. The dramatic surrender of Japan would have further released massive additional U.S. resources in the Pacific, such as carrier and battleship groups as well as 100's if not 1000's of B29 Superfortresses for re-tasking to Europe. Further massive conventional bombing would have eventually neutralized German fortified positions along the coast and likely would have decimated the Wehrmacht's infantry and Panzer divisions in France. In the unlikely event that such massive augmented air power would have still failed, the U.S. might have employed its nascent nuclear stockpile in late 1945 to obliterate Hitler's "Atlantic Wall." Tactical use of the atomic bomb in an amphibious invasion of Japan was already being debated for the planned "Operation Downfall" in the event that Imperial Japan would refuse to capitulate. Moreover, in the wake of the release of the nuclear genie, it is extremely implausible that any allied commander-in-chief would sue for peace and permit a technological juggernaut like Nazi Germany to rest, regroup, and ultimately develop its own atomic weapons. The fear of a Nazi atomic weapons program itself provided the impetus for the Manhattan project. In short, while the film is certainly entertaining, worth watching, and thought provoking, functional students of history can realize the implausibility of the plot's premise.
-
extravaluejotter28 December 2006Robert Harris's other novels have made a good transition onto the screen. "Enigma" worked well because of its top-notch cast and careful recreation of WWII England. "Archangel" was an above-average TV movie because of its compelling subject matter. "Fatherland" fell flat because it was poorly cast and made on a microscopic budget.
Despite their pedigree and talent, many of the cast are clearly uncomfortable in their roles. Rutger Hauer and Michael Kitchen should have swapped scripts and Miranda Richardson should have called for a taxi. She's a very good actor but completely fails to convince as an American journalist who dresses like a 60-year-old whore.
The plot is edited down to its bare bones and loses a lot of its impact in the process of being filleted. The screenplay spends far too long looking behind the shiny Nazi facade, creating an expectation of bad things about to happen far too early in its running time. Bled of all its suspense, "Fatherland" limps toward a predictable climax, robbing the story of any historical relevance or impact.
There are strong similarities between "Fatherland" and "Archangel", with their stories of past events influencing the present and old ghosts that refuse to lie still, but "Fatherland" has "EPIC" stamped all over it. A story about an enduring Nazi Europe in the 1960s can't be told against a backdrop of dodgy mattes with approximately 30 extras for the crowd scenes. If ever a movie deserved to be recast and remade for substantially more than 50 quid, "Fatherland" is that movie.
The Hollywood Suits should hang their heads in shame for not recognising a fantastic story and giving it to someone like Steven Spielberg. -
Ta'Lon19 April 1999I come from the Channel Islands: the only part of Britain occupied by the Germans during the war, where they ran a "model occupation" designed to show the rest of the world how benevolent Nazi rule was. I find this film only too believable - touches such as the SS becoming merely a police force, whilst keeping the black uniforms, were chillingly real. Everything nasty was "brushed under the carpet" whilst presenting a civilized face to the world - exactly what would have happened.
I thought the ending was indeed unrealistic - Maguire would not have been able to reach the President's car, and a major diplomatic summit would not have been abandoned over one bundle of unsubstantiated evidence; but it was hardly a happy ending, given what happened to March and Maguire. -
Rutger Hauer plays a police officer in an imaginary world where the nazis had won the war and become a real country. In this setting Hauer's character is the typical honest cop who wants to do his job and seek the truth...but then stumbles into dark secrets about the war.
At first I was a bit disappointed because I expected an action movie but then had to admit that the movie works pretty well as a thriller. It's a bit slow at times but the plot is paced well enough to stay interesting. I also expected more of a cheesy b-movie style but it was actually very serious and believable story.
The nazi setting creates a fresh take on the detective thriller genre and makes it even more thrilling. There's not much graphic violence, only a little bit of shooting, but the overall story is a bit unsettling...which it's supposed to be.
If you think the concept of this movie seems interesting to you, see it. And also of course if you're a fan of Rutger Hauer. -
metalrox_200015 June 2005Being a History Buff, I had to check this movie out. Normally I'm disappointed by movies based on books. Usually, the director's artistic vision moves from the topic, and deludes the movie. However, the director stayed true to his work, and what we are left with is one of the least known, but most stunning films ever produced by the United States. While some people may consider the ending a downer, I consider it tragically poetic. Hauer's SS officer and Richardson's journalist characters fate is in perfect mood with the topic. They make a sacrifice that brings the point of the movie home to the viewer even more. No, the hero doesn't always live to tell his tales. Instead, the tale is told by the son, who's admiration for his father grew ten fold. HBO made it's mark on it's original movies with Fatherland, and "And the Band Played On." Dark, unforgiving, and gritty stories that serve a reminder. A reminder of the dark places man can go. I can see why some would consider the end to be a downer. I think it only reinforces the impact the film is meant to have.
-
I do not usually compare books to movies because they are two different means of expression. Books give lots more details and let the readers work with their imagination. Movies give us the director's vision, which is usually different from ours, but may add interest to a known story.
In the case of Fatherland, however, having read the novel years ago and stumbled upon the movie only a few nights ago, I was disappointed. The novel is based on historical facts (up to 1942) and accurately researched, but still manages to get us involved with two interesting and believable main characters, Xavier March and Charlie Maguire.
They live in a scary, dystopian past-future of the year 1964, with the Nazi as winners of WWII, a Cold War between Germany and the US and guerrilla between the Russians and the Germans. March is a police office and honorary SS, investigating a suspicious suicide, Maguire is an American who wants to report on the meeting of the 75 yo Hitler with US president Joseph Kennedy.
The film has a great performance by Hauer as the weary March and a totally miscast British Richardson as the American journalist Maguire. Her character is described as a young, rebellious child of the 60s. Richardson looks like a bored middle-aged matron.
Another major change in the plot is March's son. In the book he is described as a malevolent, brainwashed creature, while in the film you can see for yourself. The idea of the Nazi regime as pure evil is a lot stronger in the book and the punch of the final revelation watered down in the movie, by the fact that the audience already knows what really happened. Also the ending feels really rushed and a bit silly.
It is interesting but depressing to see what could have happened if the Nazi had won. Perhaps the main purpose of this movie is to make us happy that it did not happened. But if you want to dig deep, the book is very well written and gives the full picture. -
Daniel_Kraus15 November 2004A great film!
At my first watching this film I was very impressed. This fictionary history was so horrible to imagine that this had could been reality. I think this is one of Rutger Hauer's best films he ever made. He shows very good how his character changed his minds and his kind of thinking during the film.
Also the end of this film is very dramatic and a little bit surprising. But I don't want to tell you too much about the story. If you have the chance to see this movie ... do it!
BtW: The boy who played the role of Rutger Hauer characters son did a great job too. -
Barend26 February 1999It is rarely possible to watch the movie of a book that you have read before, and be impressed by the movie. Fatherland is not an exception. Of course changes have to be made to any story to adapt it to the film-medium, but in Fatherland, as in so many other cases, incomprehensible and unnecessary changes are made to the entire plot, changing the whole feel of the story, turning an intelligent and though-provoking book into an over-simplified, mindless action-movie. And of course they had to change the ending, we must have happy endings, mustn't we?
I probably wouldn't have been so harsh in my judgement had I not read the book before I saw the film, that I admit. The film definitely has its good points. But since I have read the book, I know that the film could have been so much better! Save your video-money, go to the library and lend the book! -
hcaraso6 May 2002Re-baptized LE CREPUSCULE DES AIGLES (TWILIGHT OF THE EAGLES) by a French cable-TV chain, it was the only watchable movie on a raining election afternoon when I watched it, after mistaking it for a WWI air combat film starring George Peppard. To my great surprise, I learned from the introduction sequence that the Allies had been stormed back into the Channel in June 1944, then the US brought home the G.I's,Edward VIII came back with Queen Wallis, while Churchill retired to Canada, and Joe Kennedy became President of the United States, scheduled to meet Hitler in 1964, for the latter's 75th birthday. Then I understood I was watching a TV rendition of Robert Harris' masterpiece, which I had savoured almost ten years ago... Rutger Hauer was unusually mysterious as a quiet SS man, the setting (made in the Baranov studios of Prague, a bargain for advantageous filming of mid-century action) was excellent, with an interesting suggestion of the Albert Speer monumental project. I wonder who had the idea to schedule this film the very day when the French voters sent an unanimous rejection of the extreme right (May 5th, 2002), and under an enigmatic name (it had never been shown before, either on TV or theatres). harry carasso, paris
-
brillmongo10 March 2014Fatherland is a simple movie, it doesn't touch on particularly deep themes and there's not a whole lot of depth or subtlety to the plot, but therein lies the charm.
Seeing Fatherland reminded me of Threads (another made-for-TV film from a decade earlier) in that they're both simple films that somehow manage to have more coherent scene structure and pacing than many films released today.
Isn't it lovely when what's shown on screen makes a bit of basic sense?
The overdubbed child actor and heavy handed third act does bring down the overall impression however. -
markjordan-6677317 January 2016Rutger Hauers Police station is built of glass and concrete, an architectural style Hitler hated. "Das Beatles' poster on the wall obviously to try to allude to a certain decade, the 1960's but again, this sort of music would have been deemed degenerate...and the four Liverpool mop tops would have probably been enlisted by then. Overall, what could have been a decent film that matched the books content etc ended up looking like it had been made by three different directors. Finally, the Grand idea of a new Berlin and Germania just does not come across in the lazy production values. So, what could have come across as a really interesting and scary alternative future for Europe and the USA falls flat on its face I fear.
-
froberts7315 February 2011The chilling premise of a victorious Nazi party is well played out thanks to a good cast, a fast-moving and intelligent story, fine photography and, for a change, music that doesn't overpower the script.
Much praise to Rutger Hauer and just about the entire cast, including the youngster portraying his son, and the actor whose brief appearances as a 75-year-old Hitler seemed on the mark.
The story might have been more interesting if it had taken place in, say, NYC rather than Berlin, itself (Prague actually). A couple of interesting items are the idea that Joseph Kennedy Sr. was the prez who was ready to cooperate with his conqueror, and the opening sequence of newsreels which included mention of Lindbergh's approval and support of Adolph. If I remember correctly, he ran his mouth at a bund meeting or two.
There were 'heil Hitler' greetings galore and, at times it seems that everyone was 'heiling' the b.d. (bastard dictator).
The movie starts excitingly and seldom lets up. It is a worthwhile piece of anti-history reminding us that the Fatherland was filled with mother --- you can fill in the rest. -
arijec8 December 2007I am so glad, that I have read the book first (total master piece, even better than Da Vinci's code, which integrated quite a lot of elements from Fatherland), cause the movie was a total disaster. In first 5 minutes the original story line is changed 4 times! after that I rather stopped counting mistakes. After half an hour I had to shot it down. I just couldn't stand the massacre of Harris's master piece. My advice to those who want to know the story is to read the book before seeing the movie cause there is a big possibility you will lose all your interest in the story if you start with that terrible movie. And missing this story is a sin! And now, can anybody answer me, why Americans always destroy all the good stories, when they turn them into movies?