When she's old, of course.

Hitler's behaviour towards her shows his humanity.

I've been looking forward ot this for a while and i'm finally going to see it tomorrow (released today in the UK) so i'll post some thoughts afterwards. I just hope its not a let down, like my last cinema visit. (*cough* Ring 2 *cough*)

You compare Ring 2 to Downfall.... Shame on you! [-(


:wink:

I completely agree with you, but the others will say both you and me are nuts and didn't understand the movie

She gave the film a B+, though.

Then why is the holocaust only depicted as a sidenote. It's basically about a bunch of germans killing themselves. Yes, the focus is about Hitler's last days, but you can't depict this isolated from everything that was going on. You just can't do that!

And I give it a C+, it's not that it is a bad movie but it misses the point

Of course you can! :???:

Of course you can. Do you want EVERY SINGLE movie that takes place during WW II to depict Holocaust?

If you do a movie about Hitler, no matter when it takes place you just can't shut out all that what is connected with it. Just dropping the topic in one or two lines isn't enough. (and no, a line in the credits that millions of jews died neither). Imagine a movie about George W. Bush where they only depict his second term of office and completely leave the Iraq war out. Wouldn't you be pissed off about that?

No, there are many excellent movies that don't deal with the Holocaust (Das Boot comes to mind) but Hitler and the Holocaust are sooo connected that if you want to grab the person Hitler it can't be left out

It's not like the movie depicted Hitler's entire life. It was about the last 12 days of it. Where on earth did you expect the filmmakers to bring in the Holocaust?

On day 8

:wink:

Well how about dropping that stupid side story about the little Hitler Boy who is shown as a victim of the Nazi-dictatorship and instead doing a side-story about a jewish family. It would have been very easy to show all sides of this terror-regime.

Der Untergang + jewish familiy = The Pianist + Hitler

There wouldn't be much of a difference anymore... :???:

Well i didn't get to see it today (Damn house move getting in the way of my social life!) but will hopefully see it during the week, then i can join in the arguement....erm, i mean, debate.

Well, this is where I agree with Sammy and Lecter I guess. You can depict him without direct correlation to the Holocaust. Why? because at this point he had almost dropped all communication with all the camps, and it would have made a great study in automization if they had showed exactly that. The machine of death was so well tuned by that point that it didn't even need to hear from the leader, it just kept right on gassing, shooting, burning etc. In fact, much like the street scenes here were defectors and non-fighters are killed, nazi soldiers at the camps last minute upped the extermination, and did whatever they could to maintain "order" (this was all about master of ceremony) bym keeping the process going up through almost the last moment. Hitler didn't need to be present (and wasn't) at that point. The mvie's shortcomings were in exploring the exact fact that he was stuck in some cement bunker in Berlin and everything was still going on.

How exactly would that fit the movie? And heck, I've gotta wonder how many Jewish families exactly lived in Berlin by the end of WW II...

None unless they were hidden in people's cellars. I do think they didn't address Hitler's position as being the frontman for both WWII and the Holocaust. They tried by sneaking in a couple lines where he says he's happy he got rid of the Jews, but that really felt like a random addition, and fell flat as a way of showing how the two were connected through this man and the nazis in general. I stand by my earlier arguement that if something was shown, it should have been the camps continuing without even a word from him because of the rigidity of keeping up "order."

You know actually the couple of lines that were said by Hitler in the movie in reference to the Holocaust...I wasn't particulary fond of those. They seemed rather forced and therefore fell flat in the context. I had a feeling as if the filmmakers were simply under pressure to mention it somewhere in the movie and that's what they did. I'd have prefered if it was left out.

Didn't work for me either. Too easy and superficial. Glad we agree on that. I can't wait to hear what Andrew thinks too.

I must see this movie.. i feel out of the loop.. I really doubt Blockbuster will ever carry it though

anything would have been fine with me. just not ignoring it completely

Here's another thing to discuss: Every Nazi was shown how he killed themselves, they showed the bullet holes in their heads etc. with exactly two exceptions. Number one: THey didn't show how Hitler killed himself. That alone is okay since no one saw it but they refused to even show the body! The whole set-up was that you'd expect a Shyamalan-twist where Hitler at the end lies at some beautiful beach sipping cocktails :wink:
Second: When the Goebbels shot themselves the camera panned away when they shot themselves. It's disturbing that they showed so much sympathy with them that they refused to portray their sucides. It reminded me disturbingly about the scene where Hitler refused to look at his beloved dog when he was poisoned, like if Hirschibiegel refused to look at his beloved Nazis when they were killed (and no, that was not to imply anything political into Hirschbiegel, I know he is exactly the opposite, but it is the message the movie delivers)