★ 7 / 10
Though he might not much like the compliment
CinemaSerf
Though he might not much like the compliment, Bruno Ganz is superb as the Führer in this dramatisation of his last few days in Berlin. If you saw George…
Though he might not much like the compliment, Bruno Ganz is superb as the Führer in this dramatisation of his last few days in Berlin. If you saw George Schaefer’s attempt at this, with Anthony Hopkins in the title role (1981) then you’ll already have the gist of what occurs, but this has an altogether less dramatic, more natural, feel to it. It helps, of course, that those of us watching know now just how precarious his situation was, but for him surrounded as he was by yes men, Ganz portrays a man who genuinely believes the war is there to win. None of his acolytes have the courage to tell him he is defeated, and those who do appreciate it are all too often working on plans to save their own skins. The assembled supporting cast here, including many of those playing the wives like Corinna Harfouch (Goebbels) and Juliane Köhler (Braun) as well as that of secretary Trudi (Alexandra Maria Lara) help to keep this chronology remarkably human. This is a personification of their situation and though we know that evil lived here, this illustrates more a man who is sick. Physically and psychologically sick. That’s not to suggest it makes apologies for the man, but oddly enough it makes him a little more comprehensible amidst histories that unequivocally vilify the man. This isn’t so much about Naziism, or the politics of hate and bigotry - we join the timeframe too late for those to be relevant, it’s more about a realisation of failure, it’s ensuing panic and even the surprising degree of loyalty from those (usually) lower ranks who really were his true disciples. On that last point, Oliver Hirschbiegel also powerfully illustrates the power of indoctrination with children not yet in their teens enthusiastically manning the city’s defences whilst still proudly sporting their swastikas. Clearly just a little thought might have encouraged their officers to let them get back to what remained of their homes and families instead of facing the oncoming Soviet troops. It’s the cumulation of the threads as we build to quite a delicately paced denouement that gives this a considerable degree of plausibility. The production design and visual effects as the city collapses mirror nicely the mental collapses going on under the ground, and though we won’t often have seen a film that attempts this kind of level of objectivity about these events, this is certainly a poignant way to see a destructive man destroy himself.
Read full review
★ 7 / 10
**_Hitler’s end_** As the Red Army encroaches upon
Wuchak
**_Hitler’s end_** As the Red Army encroaches upon Berlin in late April, 1945, the final days of Hitler in his bunker (Bruno Ganz) are told from the…
**_Hitler’s end_**
As the Red Army encroaches upon Berlin in late April, 1945, the final days of Hitler in his bunker (Bruno Ganz) are told from the perspective of his secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara).
"Downfall” (2004) is not a conventional war movie due to its downbeat subject and is more educational than entertaining, but it’s a necessary piece of the puzzle in understanding WW2. If you appreciate movies like "Enemy at the Gates" (2001), "The Pianist" (2002), "Black Book" (2006), "Valkyrie" (2008), "Rommel" (2012), "Warsaw '44" (2014) and "Fury" (2014), you’ll appreciate this one too.
It's hard to rate a flick like this because it’s not an enjoyable experience, but it works superbly as means to go back in history and view Hitler’s final days.
The film runs 2 hours, 36 minutes, and was shot in Germany (Berlin, Munich and Bavaria Studios) and Russia (St. Petersburg).
GRADE: B
Read full review
★ 9 / 10
The End
theantigaz
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…
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.
Read full review
90%
TOMATOMETER
· 137 reviews
94%
AUDIENCE
· 50K ratings
8.2/10
404.9K
•••
Hitler died a coward, in a basement. Just like all you clowns here glorifying him. Down in mommy and daddy's basement. Follow your fuhrer and kill yourselves. :)