User Reviews

The year is 1942. Hitler is at the height of power. He and his inner circle retreat to a misty mountaintop castle in the Alps. Eva Braun, nearly naked and alone, basks in solitude on the ramparts. It is her only escape from the burden of loving a human chimera. Thus begins Alexander Sokurov's film MOLOCH, which won the Best Screenplay Award at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival.

Webster's Third International English Dictionary describes Moloch as an ancient Semitic deity, and the figurative definition runs as, "A tyrannical power propitiated by human subservience or sacrifice." The latter is definitely in evidence as the film explores Braun's personal world and tribulations, as well as the grotesque behavior of Hitler and his obsequious associates. The film does not attempt to mirror history; rather it is a bold speculation that takes its cues from the past.

Leonid Mozgovoy's performance as Hitler is uncanny. He is nervous, annoyed, self-absorbed, even vulnerable, and oblivious to the strained relations around him, including his troubled relationship with Braun, played by Yelena Rufanova. Their final scene is particularly compelling, where Braun in sympathetic tones tells Hitler as he is about to be driven away in his sedan, "Death is Death. It cannot be defeated."

In a unique maneuver, Sokurov had his entirely Russian cast voice the dialogue in German, after which they were dubbed by native German actors from Berlin, creating a nearly seamless result.

Unfortunately, the Russian version of the film in theaters had a voice-over translation (done entirely by Mozgovoy), which interferes with the German text, defeating the whole purpose of going to all that trouble. This decision was made in deference to Russian audiences, which are used to – and even sometimes prefer – this type of translation, but subtitles would have worked much better. Luckily, the Russian DVD has this option (Russian subtitles only).

The film is more streamlined than other Sokurov efforts, and may be called one of his best works, if not the best. The editing and pacing are smoother than that of many of his other films. The recently released video version of the film contains 21 minutes of footage not seen in the theatrical version. The long version plays well, with more rich detail, more expository elements such as additional manifestations of Eva's mischievous nature and Adolf's sensitivity to smells and foodstuffs.

Sokurov studied history at Gorky State University before becoming a filmmaker. He makes highly idiosyncratic, strikingly atmospheric and ponderously paced works, drawing inspiration from classical literature and music – what he calls "Old World art." He crafted the film from a screenplay entitled "The Mystery of the Mountain" (originally the title of the film), written by Yury Arabov, with whom he has collaborated frequently.

The film can rightfully be called a cinematic milestone because of its portrayal of Hitler. For the first time in narrative film history, Hitler is shown to be human. This is ultimately a valuable artistic judgment, for it fosters understanding of the political forces that he set in motion.

Sokurov notes, "Erich Fromm wrote that until we learn to understand Hitler's human nature, we will never understand anything about Nazism or learn to discern potential monsters in those lusting for power."

MOLOCH (translated as 'a demon in the shape of a man') is a film that shows yet another aspect of Aleksandr Sokurov's approach to film-making. As in his splendid 'Russian Ark', 'Mother and Son', and 'Father and Son' he manages to say more in his silences and interplay of his characters with nature and their environments that in his spare scripts (this script is by Yuri Arabov and Marina Koreneva). His movement is slow, like an adagio, his eye is constantly on symbolism and irony, and his filming/camera technique is always experimental. Given these factors 'MOLOCH' is a fine example of how Sokurov works his magic: whether or not the viewer will relate to this bizarre film depends on how willing one is to enter Sokurov's vision. This film about Hitler is very much a Russian product and given the history of the relationship between Russia and Germany, that fact is necessary to know.

1942, in a fortress in the clouds of Bavaria, we find Eva Braun (Yelena Rufanova) cavorting balletically both inside the foreboding stone 'dungeon' and out on the dangerous parapets. She is visited by a strange entourage: Hitler (Leonid Mozgovoy), Dr. and Mrs. Goebbels (Leonid Sokol and Yelena Spiridonova), Martin Boorman (Vladimir Bogdanov), and a priest (Anatoli Shvedersky). The action takes place in a single day and during this time the actual war is not discussed. We are to understand this is a retreat for relaxation, but as we get to know the characters we find that many hints of the evil and insane minds of all of them. They talk: Auschwitz is mentioned and Hitler apparently has never heard of it; Hitler pontificates on power; the Goebbels demonstrate their abject worship of Hitler; Eva Braun is the sassy journalist who is the only one who can talk back to Hitler, teasing, seducing and acquiescing to his inability to demonstrate intimacy. They dine (Hitler's vegetarian mentality deplores the 'corporal soup' his dinner partners devour), they watch old grainy black and white news clips of war machines, new tanks, soldiers, and oddly a performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony with Knappertsbusch conducting. Then the guests retire, and Hitler is joined by Eva Braun in a bizarre boudoir scene. In the morning the entourage leaves and Eva remains, retuning to her strange world of dancing through the fortress.

Throughout the film the music is that of Wagner - Siegfried's Funeral Music, and other passages from 'Die Götterdämmerung' (Twilight of the Gods!) accompanied by some banter about Furtwangler and Bruno Walter as well as Knappertsbusch. The acting is somewhat stylized which adds to the bizarre mood the story creates. In the final analysis this appears to be Sokurov's image of a mind gone mad with power and visions of immortality and it is only at the very end when Eva Braun whispers that he cannot defeat death that there is a moment of vulnerability in the historical Hitler.

This is a slow moving 108 minutes of film and not for everyone's taste, but if you are an admirer of Aleksandr Sokurov it is a mesmerizing journey through the cerebral passages of one of history's worst molochs. Grady Harp

Part of a tetralogy that includes the recent, amazing "The Sun" about Hirohito (2005, shown at the New York Film Festival but as yet without a US distributor), as well as "Taurus" (Telets, 2002), about a mortally ill Lenin. (The fourth I think is not yet made.) All concern men of great power at decisive and tragic moments. "Moloch" concerns Hitler in 1942 in an eagle's nest castle in the Bavarian Alps, isolated, as in other portraits, among his cadres and Eva Braun, indulging in grumpy vegetarian dinners and tossing about weird racist remarks about other nationalities. This is acted by strong members of the theater of St. Petersburg, Elena Rufanova as Eva Barun, Leonid Mosgovoi as Hitler, Leonid Solol as Goebbels, Yelena Spirindonova as Frau Goebbels, Vladimir Bogdanov as Martin Bormann, whose lines are dubbed by German actors, and this is done well. The whole is bathed in a murky green-gray or verdigris fog -- saturated, someone has written, with a kind of patina characteristic of old Agfa films -- the fogginess typical also of Sokurov's style elsewhere, with (as in The Sun) a sumptuous feel in the mise-en-scène and amazing, evocative period realness to objects (photo books, ashtrays, serving dishes) which seem at once solid and delicate. Yes, this is remarkable film-making. But the film as a whole is yawn-inducing. Hitler spends most of his screen time moaning about his health. Ten minutes are devoted to Eva's wandering around naked without a word spoken. She is graceful and athletic; but why? Well, to evoke the boredom and idleness of the isolated concubine -- but is such length necessary? "Moloch" is very different from, and rather disappointing in comparison to, "The Sun's" stunning, touching portrayal of Hirohito, which dwells also on trivial moments, but always in the cause of a sensitive exploration of character and situation. There is a hushed intimacy about "The Sun" that "Moloch", though it has a few grand moments and may even evoke Lang's "Metropolis," never attempts. Hitler doesn't even really talk enough, and this brings us to the inevitable fact that at this date, 2006, "Moloch" is thoroughly overshadowed by the far more conventional, sometimes heavy-handed, but nonetheless richly detailed and accurate and breathlessly exciting recreation of the last days in the Bunker achieved recently by Oliver Hirschbiegel in his "Downfall" ("Der Untergang," 2004), released in the US last year and containing Bruno Ganz's powerful performance as the Nazi dictator.

Yes, it would be easy to criticize Molokh for being slow, and for having Russian actors mouthing German words that aren't natural to them, but I found this film to be fascinating through most of its length (and if Tarkovsky had made it, it would have been TWICE as long).

What we see is Hitler and his inner circle being jovial and vicious by turns, along with loopy discussions of racial characteristics (Czech men have droopy mustaches, indicating moral turpitude; the Finns are rendered mentally unfit owing to cold weather, etc.) There is a lot of backstabbing going on between Bormann and Goebbels; pity that Goering isn't in the film--we would have benefitted even more from his cynicism. All of this has the ring of truth--I recently read Speer's memoirs, Inside the Third Reich, which has detailed accounts of these lunch and dinner talk-fests.

Yelena Rufanova is not convincing as Eva Braun--too slavic looking--but Leonid Mozgovoy with his dumpy body is great as Hitler. The hypochondria, the refusal of middle-class pleasures--no slippers!--the insane political musings: it's all here. Leonid Sokol is Goebbels, absolutely. The rat face on a dwarf's body, the desperate ridicule of Bormann whom he knows is cutting him down: this is fine acting.

Sokurov adopts Leni Riefenstahl's style to tell a Wagnerian story of grandeur and collapse.

I thought the theme of this movie was quite interesting. Still in the end, the result could have been better. What I enjoyed the most in the end was the scenery created around Hitler's "last resort". It really gave the impression of a new Olympus, with human gods around the german Zeus, "die führer"(at least as they saw themselves...). Still, what I found bad in the end was not the soviet approach, as I read in previous comments nor the vision of Hitler as a stupid good fellow(that has to do with the director's origins in the first case and with his vision of history and of the past in the second; if none of these elements were present in the movie than it would be the same as if it had been directed by Bertolucci or Coppolla!...; this gives identity to the creator and to his piece...). What was the true failure in this film, the way I see it, was that besides the director's new characterization of hitler and his hidding place, there were no "juicy" dialogues, no real reflexion about any theme, ideologically speaking or even supported in happenings that might have been occurring in that time. In the end I didn't feel the pulse of the characters, it's like if they were dead, with no capacity to rule the world as the gods they pretended to be... Still I had the sublime impression that they were like resting as if they were not responsable for what was going on in the world, in a lunatic attitude that I believe was close to the reality... 7/10

The theme is interesting. But the "Russianness" of the production, from the actors' physiques to the very "Soviet" idealization of Berchtesgaden is enough to make you laugh. Granted, Aleksandr Sokhurov did have the main characters mouth the German dialogue allowing for proper German dubbing, but even the Berlin theater group's voices are inappropriate for the non-Berliners depicted (Adolf and Eva). Anyway, this is just a small bone to pick. The production, and slow, slow pace screamed out SOVIET louder than any of Sokhurov's previous films. This is obviously due to the its very un-Russian, un-Soviet theme. It's a ridiculously pretentious piece of filmmaking that will taint the director's body of work forever. If I hadn't been forced to sit through it (with colleagues and far from the aisle) at a film festival, I would have never sat through it. As a public service to film festival goers, please use your precious hours more wisely. Skip this boring time warp.

It's a masterpiece. Provocative and strange. As you watch you wonder what the hell is going on. It's one of those films that shakes up your idea of cinema. It overturns your idea of history dealing with a subject that has been stamped and framed through so many documentaries and films so that you have already have your mind ready made for you. Nothing can be further from this movie. This is a movie that makes you rethink. And it's funny too. As the title suggests it's about evil and evil empires but instead of dealing with their grandiose and terrible projects it approaches Hitler and his cronies by illustrating their banality, ordinariness, and yes, ridiculous antics. There's no way you could describe this film as in some way supportive of Hitler. Hitler playing around with his teasing lover, his masculinity and prowess at stake. Hitler pontificating about this and that with every word he says taken down in writing as though it were gospel. Hitler with his bloated and deformed cronies messing about in the Eagles Nest, up there in the mist looking over his empire of clouds. Sokurov has made great movies and this is another.

This is not a film one "likes" in the ordinary sense that one might like, say "The Sound of Music." It is, however a film that could be admired for it's intention and for much of it's execution. I admired much of what the director was attempting, an unconventional look at Hitler's private life as an isolated, paranoid, lonely, often clueless individual who cannot connect with any kind of reality, but is still loved for himself by Eva.

Moloch is a curious, slow-moving construct, and is, in someways, about the disconnect between those who have power and those who depend upon them: the opening, featuring a nude Eva Braun dancing faun-like on some stone battlements in the fog, is odd and fascinating; what follows no less so, a sort of Fantasia On The Mad Dictator; the film is a curiosity.

Just it is difficult to nail down the character of W. C. Fields in a film, or Clark Gable, or Charlie Chaplin, it is always difficult to recreate the 20th Century's most notable villain, Adolph Hitler. Many from Alec Guinness and Anthony Hopkins to Richard Basehart have tried, but Bruno Ganz in Downfall offers the unimpeachable impersonation--but Downfall a different kind of film. Like the kinky film "Even Dwarfs Started Small," Moloch is an oddity, fascinating to some history or film fans, exasperating for most mainstream audiences.

Honestly, I don't know what all the fuss is about when people say this is a boring and pretentious film. Yes, this is an art-house flick. It's beautiful purpose is to make you think in many different ways and about many different aspects of Nazism; for instance, look how the throng assembles like one of Rembrandt's paintings of the ruling council when 'Adi' slumps into the chair. A very telling reference out - but this film doesn't restrict its references to 'highbrow' themes. In its stylised portrayal of Goebbels and Bormann it manages to suggest the stereotypes of American cinema, which is meant to generate insights into how to view this centre of evil. As the synopsis says, Hitler et al have come to Berchtesgaden for R & R, right? Not much fun, is it? At the centre of this empire, there is simply a void of yes-men who cannot relax in each other's company, who cannot even break out the wine until der Fuhrer has gone to bed, and who for whom every day is an exercise in the most intense nervousness *with no way out except through der Fuhrer's whimsical violent rage.* This movie is one of the driest I've come across. If Mel Brooks was the slapstick Nazis, this is Nazis as 'Big Brother' contestants. So underplayed, it's not exactly surprising many people complain there's nothing going on here - but then, the evil of the Nazis is a strange and unwanted gift for artists and filmmakers who want to get as damn near to Eliot's 'Objective Correlative' as possible, so they can play with a collective, coherent response. In this case, it begins with, "The Nazis were awful, awful people. When did their punishment happen, eh? How was death truly a punishment for their particular evil?" This movie shows, by making fun of them from several perspectives, exactly what their punishment was. When the film moves into the relationship between AH and EB later on, it is further complicated by the fact that Eva is the only one who has even seen what they are doing. Note the subtlety of the exchange which ends in Adi saying, "That's the right answer," or the weird symbolism of their body language when he finally catches up with her in the bedroom. Sokhurov is not trying to portray realistically what happened; he is using the space of Berchtesgaden as a space for a symbolic expression of what Nazism did to the Nazis themselves. Their hell began when they imposed it on others, and they only discovered it later, by which time, one of them was a doddering old neurotic wreck, another one way out of his depth, and still another one abandoned by his old comrades and desperately trying to curry favour. And the whole thing adds up to something ludicrous. I have read on another critique here, that Hitler was considered to be very boring. Well, he can't have been that boring, if you could provoke him to send you to the Russian front simply by criticising his ambitions - but then, the boredom angle is catered for in the first ten minutes with Eva's listlessness. This film is classic.

I have a lot of respect for this movie. This has not been made to sell. It simply won't. The director of 22 Female Kottayam , the movie I had watched before this one had in an interview presented his confident conviction about how a movie should respect a budget and so forth. 'Moloch' is a different league.

Moloch has been made because Moloch wanted itself made. A stream of consciousness that was gushing through the director , Aleksandr Sokurov just presented itself. The cinematography was ethereal - magical. There is a perfection to it that leaves you spellbound. Think of a beautiful painting of a misty morning and you somehow get into the painting and see more of the world in the painting and all the sights as beautiful as the painting itself.That is how the cinematography was.

The subject itself is a very surprising one. As you watch the movie, a protagonist comes in who looks like Hitler. You are not sure if he really plays Hitler yet. A little later , this person is presented in a very light manner and you think it is some sort of a spoof of Hitler. Soon you realize that this is a portrayal of Hitler among people he is close to and this closeness leads to comic moments where Hitler's idiosyncrasies are presented. After many such situations , Hitler's conviction in cruelty and insanity is presented with such conviction that it sends chills down your spine. The director has been extremely adept here.

The movie is based out of Hitler's secretary's diary notes and the aspects presented are eye-opening. The way he sits in his building and watches news reels of real war that is happening projected for him in his theater. His mad conviction towards what he is doing. When his weaknesses are presented , it is unbelievable to imagine that this idiot is such a terror. There is a vacation sequence where guarded by German soldiers Hitler and his close friends fool around. The soldier is unable to look at Hitler's slapstick dances as this is the same man who has made his life so taut.

One insane man and so much devastation. This movie needs another watch for further comprehension - worth a thorough study for content and for presentation.

being very impressed by the poetic imagery in sokurov's 'mother and son' i was very interested about moloch and especially when such a controversial theme as the inner live of hitler and his incrowd is involved. Alas this was a pure disappointment; depicting hitler as a raving lunatic and a village idiot in an overtly absurdist way is almost as insulting to the course of history as portraying hitler as a 'good guy'. Foggy decors, 'ballet-movie' sequences and pseudo-artistic black white scores only help to establish an artsy fartsy feel about this whole project. Concluding very interesting idea to begin with but an utterly failed and boring production.

If you remember Casablanca, you'll recall that Rick is a man who begins the film dead on the inside. His heart is broken, he is an alcoholic, he's perfectly neutral, and he doesn't stick his neck out for anybody. But as the film progresses Rick rediscovers his own life again and goes on to take a roll in the war.

"Moloch" shows us this reverse story of the anti-hero Rick. Hitler is the negation of an anti-hero, someone who probably began life off-screen perfectly moral and alive. But his desires and fears have made him a monster, dead on the inside.

People who destroy life do so because they are afraid of their own deaths. Any child who has a momentary fright in contemplating death may respond by killing an insect or a small animal and taking succor in the control over life and death. This is how evil might begin. Thus Sokurov films the vulnerable, underwear-clad Hitler of the everyday in a state of child-like fear of his own death, nearly all the time.

But the real damnation of the killer is that in the end even perpetrating destruction will not ward off the ghosts of the mind. "Death is death," reminds Eva Braun, helpfully. Like Rick's Ilsa, she knows the whole time the true source and purpose of life, knows it down in her bones. But poor Eva has no Rick to work with, and eventually her efforts to liven Hitler only bring up her own worst fears.

Pretty nice example of classical plot structure with negation of the anti-hero!

In 1942, in Bavaria, Eva Braun (Yelena Rufanova) is alone, when Adolf Hitler (Leonid Mozgovoy) arrives with Dr. Josef Goebbels (Leonid Sokol) and his wife Magda Goebbels (Yelena Spiridonova) and Martin Bormann (Vladimir Bogdanov) to spend a couple of days without talking politics. What a great deception this "Molokh" is ! Winner of the Golden Palm in screenplay in Cannes Festival, I really expected a great film. However I found a very boring and pretentious movie, too much slow paced and going nowhere. The title refers to an evil divinity adored by ancient pagan cultures, and shows a ridiculous Hitler in his intimacy with Eva Braun, his hypochondria and crazy speeches about human races, life and death, and a rebel Eva Braun being the unique person to contest his words. I did not like this fictional movie, the story, the screenplay, the direction and the performances. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Moloch"

Molokh is an intimate portrait about the state of torment of a reduced delirious aristocracy. The limits of the characters are often confused with the environment, with the unreal atmosphere of the landscape. It is important to highlight its fine technical work and especially its cinematography: a very careful composition in each scene. The cold way in which the light is treated and the density of the environment in each picture are the perfect frame to explain the morbid delirium of a group of attenuated and bizarre figures confined to their desolation. The dialogues have a certain dynamic and despite their absurdity and pathos they maintain enough dramatic tension so that the film is not lost in boredom. An original movie with an independent way to explore, from the formal simplicity of its cinematic, the hypochondria, the mania and the phobia of the main character and his naive and wicked chorus.

I showed it to students and even they, young American teenagers did not find it slow or boring. I just hate this word applied to films 'slow'. What does it suppose to mean? The film is not long, I did not notice the passage of time. It is a very subtle but unforgettable encounter with Hitler when you actually feel like you met not only him but also his entourage, that you met them personally and, man, what an experience it is! This film avoids all blaming, categorization, any simplification as well because this kind of 'Hitlers' are well known through other films. There is no interest to do the same. This is different, new, original. Not for everyone, yes. Thanks God.

Sokurov is alone in the universe of known-to-me filmmakers in that he comes up with wonderful ideas for movies but is terrible at making the movies themselves (for a demonstration of both, see especially Russian Ark). So much so, in fact, that letting someone tell you the central concept of a Sokurov movie is pretty much the same experience as watching the movie, except, of course, for the duration. On the one hand, that's good, because very few people can come up with a truly poignant movie concept. On the other, it's bad, well, because the movie itself is.

So what is the central concept of this movie that's so wonderful you say? It is this: that Hitler, Goebbels and the rest of the Nazi high command were just people, and not particularly extraordinary or intelligent people, either.

Some of you will go "no f***ing kidding!" but really, that's something that is forgotten too easily and is a frightening fact. The atrocities of the Great War and Holocaust are somewhat explainable if one considers Hitler to be an insane genius, a man of pure evil. To see him as a dumb short guy who likes to get his belly poked by fat blond women, well, that's much scarier, because then how do you explain that this man caused the deaths of tens of millions of people? The thought is a harrowing one, but it is immediately understandable in the movie, and so there's no real reason for about 100 of the 108 minutes of its length.

Moloch is the cinematic equivalent of a post-it memo to yourself that you wrote some time ago and see just in time to act upon its instructions. If you remembered the contents, you're annoyed at having wasted the time to write (watch) something so obvious. If you didn't, you're very thankful for the note, and yet annoyed at yourself for needing the note in the first place.

So should you see this movie? Not if you've read my review or had someone tell you the gist of it. If not, it is necessary, if boring viewing.

This film is a work of fiction. Most of the other commentaries overlook that fact. The deluded and neurotic man portrayed in the film is a work of fiction. He bares little resemblance to the real Hitler.

Hitler is a popular target for hatchet jobs and misrepresentation. He was neither a fool nor a madman.

The supporting characters in Moloch are sycophantic. That is true enough - most powerful people - from Obama to Putin - are surrounded by sycophants.

Ironically the name suggests either a monster or a devourer of children. That description is more appropriately applied to Stalin.

This a strange movie. But it should be seen as a character study, not history.

Sokurov I think was despondent at humanity's attempts at progress in the twentieth century. Molokh takes place in a surreal dream of the Berghof, and features Hitler, Eva Braun, and his coterie or should I say grotesquerie of sycophants. Progress is what Sokurov has been concerned by, so no need to pay too much attention to whether the film is accurate or not, it's probably beside the point.

Sokurov had made rather a similar film a decade before, Skorbnoye beschuvstviye (Mournful Unconcern), his adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's Heartbreak House. It again is about a group of pathetic individuals who inhabit a mist-bound palace whilst the world crumbles around them. The black swamp and masked man of the prior film here is replaced by black soup and black puppies. I think that perhaps both films show the huge might of German ingenuity being harnessed by cretins. The inhabitants of the house in Mournful Unconcern represented the English upper class, who rowed their boats merrily down the stream instead of participating in the reform of an outdated Europe, gearing for war. Inaction is again the point in Molokh, how did a great nation allow itself to be ruled by a bore, a man who failed to recognise the rights of others, failed to understand the feelings of others, a fantasist, a sadist, and a self-lover? The movie portrays them as nothing less than big kids, Bormann hasn't even learnt how to sit on a chair. Braun and Hitler chase one another around a table and hold doors closed on one another, all of which is very reminiscent of my life circa aged twelve. I ended up feeling rather sorry for them in their airy castle, blown by draughts and tortured by psychological complexes. I was also wondering why on earth people feel such a need to be controlled. Sokurov seemed to have got even darker here than with Mournful Unconcern, providing hardly any contrast against what is progressive.

Imagine a movie that nothing happens! This is it. If you can pass the first 10 minutes where Eva Braun dances and nothing is said, you are very persistent. A silent movie is way better than that. The director should be cooking or reading, never making movies. The premise was great but the result is awful. The dialogues are poor. Even the cinematography could be better. It seems like a play with poor dialogues. I couldn't find a thing interesting in this movie. It is the first time I rate 1/10 in a movie and that because I could not give it a 0/10. This is the most boring and bada movie I've ever seem. It was just released in Brazil and I hope people don't lose their time with this movie. Go see THE PIANIST!

While a good movie certainly could be made about Hitler's time at the Berghof, this one is wide of the mark.

None of the characters, except Borman, is convincing. Goebbels, who albeit wittier was nearly as much of a sycophant as Borman, is not so here. Hitler often comes off like a frightened little boy which seems silly and gratuitous. And Hitler didn't have blue eyes, or any other Aryan features particularly; which is one of the great paradoxes about the man. Didn't they have enough money in the budget to get brown contact lenses?

But they really get onto tricky ground when they try to explore Hitler's sexuality. He is depicted, of course, as being a misfit who is aroused in an odd way. That's just too easy, and just as poorly thought out as everything else in this movie. Everything I've read about him indicates that he was a crushing bore off stage. My guess is he was just as tedious at bedtime matters.

If you want to know what life was like in the Eagle's Nest, read Inside the Third Reich yourself. If you want another fantastic "here's how I think Hitler was a weirdo" story, watch this movie.

The first movie i ever watched that portrays Adolf Hitler as a human being. For that it is interesting. And for the stunning cinematography, too. But still it failed to call my attention. I often felt distracted and was wishing for more interesting dialogues.

Another insane 'account' of Adolf Hitler, from the perspective of Soviet demented mythos. This is about as relevant as ramblings of a madman.