A Hard Day’s Night (1964)

If you are the type of person who would enjoy watching a popular band being goofy and lip synching to their latest tunes for 80 minutes, then this film is for you. This film is not for me but I can appreciate its place in musical film history. Beyond its legacy as part of Beatlemania and its noticeable impact on later band movies and documentaries, the nearly unanimous critical acclaim for A Hard Day’s Night baffles me.

John, Paul, George, and Ringo are headed to London to perform on a TV show. Every step of the way they are pursued by throngs of screaming fans infected with Beatlemania. Between keeping Paul’s grandfather out of trouble and being cooped up in a hotel room, the boys want to get some fresh air between practice sessions. Thus begins a series of wanderings, musings, and frantic attempts by the band’s manager to get them all together for the show.

I love the Beatles but this movie does absolutely nothing for me. It’s a cute, fictitious look at two days in the life of the Fab Four but that’s about it. Scenes where the lads are frantically trying to evade their fans are played up for camp but you do have to wonder how close to reality that strikes at times. Being creative powerhouses that can’t even enjoy themselves in public? If anything, those elements of the film make A Hard Day’s Night a harbinger of the paparazzi culture that would explode in later decades.

One thing is very evident in almost every scene: The Beatles made charming music and had great stage presence, but none of them could act. Unless their performances are some form of British humor that was common before Monty Python and Are You Being Served, you will have a hard time convincing me that anything about their deliveries was deliberate. While they occasionally crack a good joke, the vast majority fall flat because the Fab Four have no sense of comedic timing.

Paul’s grandfather at least provides some genuine outlandish humor. Unless you know anything about the actor’s involvement on Steptoe & Son (remade in the US as Sanford and Son), the running gag about him being a “clean old man” makes no sense. It didn’t make sense to me before I looked it up. I can’t fault the film for using a bit of timely humor. Most comedies do it. This one just happens to be 50 years old. The old man and the film’s soundtrack make it worth watching.

In the end, this is a quaint and sometimes funny look at superstars dealing with and taking advantage of their celebrity status. The raging cynic in me believes that this film is only revered the way it inexplicably is because it features The Beatles. Had any other band in that era or any other been the first to make this kind of film, it would have flopped. That, my friends, is the power of exploitation. I respect this film’s place in history but I think Baby Boomers and Beatles fans need to take off their rose-colored glasses and admit that this film really isn’t that great at all.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Aladdin (1992)

I’m pretty sure it is politically incorrect to enjoy this movie anymore. Some Disney films are timeless wonders, never losing their magic. Others are near-hits that have short-term staying power but lose their touch after a generation or two. Fewer still are the misses that are quickly forgotten about. Then there is Aladdin. It gets high marks for being extraordinarily fun to watch, but will all the Middle Eastern stereotypes put the brakes on this film’s longevity in a post 9/11 world?

The evil sorcerer Jafar is looking for a ‘diamond in the rough’ to snatch a magic genie’s lamp from the Cave of Wonders. He finds just the person he needs in a young street beggar named Aladdin but the plot goes awry. Aladdin and his pet monkey Abu befriend the zany genie and they embark on a journey to pass off Aladdin as a prince to woo the lovely and headstrong Princess Jasmine.

This film is so much fun to watch. That fact alone makes up for a lot of little quibbles here and there. The animation is simplified many times throughout, looking more like The Rescuers Down Under than Beauty and the Beast. Some of the more textured and detailed stretches of animation come when the filmmakers use their hybrid CGI-traditional animation technology. This technology has not aged well and you can really tell where it’s used. Other than that, the color palette is bright and exotic and fits the story well.

The music of Aladdin is hit or miss. Sure, there are the two or three big hits but there are only five songs in total. The incidental music is largely forgettable, as if Disney knew it needed a handful of catchy tunes to appease the masses and put as little effort as possible into exceed the bare minimum. Those hit songs though? Boy, will they stick in your head afterwards!

The characters of this film are an interesting mix as well. Aladdin and Jasmine are all fine and dandy but fail to make much of an impression- he’s the petty thief with a heart of gold and she’s a post-feminist era woman fighting against a male-centric society. The supporting characters steal the show but I’m not sure why Jafar needed to be so effeminate. Granted it makes his arrogance and cockiness more humorous, but it causes viewers to not take him seriously even though he wields extraordinary power. His bird sidekick, Iago (voiced by Gilbert Gottfried) helps keep him in check and sets up plenty of gags.

The real show-stopper here though is Robin Williams as the Genie. His character has all the best lines, the best antics, and the best personality. The Genie is so off the wall and makes many non-contextual jokes, allusions, and impersonations. This non-contextual humor usually bothers me, and I’ll admit that I’m not crazy about it in Aladdin, but the Genie’s charm and pizazz makes this movie worth watching. Without all the wackiness Aladdin would probably have been forgotten about by now.

This brings me back to my initial question- how much longer will Aladdin be remembered? Disney has gotten some serious mileage hawking Princess Jasmine dolls to little girls. The character is a boost to Disney’s commitment to diversity in its princesses even though the story presents some harsh stereotypes about the Middle East. Yet, for those who want to complain about politically incorrect content, I say this- the story takes place in the distant past. If you think it reflects poorly on the modern day Arab world, lighten up and enjoy the magic carpet ride. This is one of the most start-to-finish fun Disney movies out there.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Letters to Juliet (2010)

I imagine that the earliest chick flicks probably were not well received because of their kitsch, convenience, and poor storytelling. I don’t know how long ago the first quantifiable chick flick actually came out. Since those early days, however, many chick flicks are met with similar dissatisfaction, not only for the aforementioned qualities but also because those qualities have all but become a caricature of themselves. Such is largely the case with Letters to Juliet.

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a journalism fact-checker on a pre-honeymoon with her fiancé, who uses their trip to Italy more for perfecting recipes than for enjoying his bride-to-be. After wandering around Verona, Sophie stumbles upon a group of women who answer ‘letters to Juliet’ left in a wall in town. After writing a response to a very old letter, Sophie gets recruited by the writer- Claire (Vanessa Redgrave)- to track down a long lost love. Sophie and Claire get along fine, but Claire’s grandson (Christopher Egan) does not approve of the quest.

From that description, keen observers and those exposed to too many chick flicks over the years can probably figure out all they need to know about this film. If you envision plenty of convenient coincidences, an all too likely ‘unlikely’ romance, and a neat and tidy bow of a happy ending, you win a cookie. But wait, there’s more!

As a man, I am not hard-wired to appreciate the clichés and gushing predictability contained in chick flicks in general. Therefore, I take Letters to Juliet for what it is- a candy-coated puff piece for girls. The acting is far from great but both Seyfried and Redgrave are likeable actresses. You can tell they are trying, which I can appreciate. Egan is more or less reading lines. Part of me can’t blame him for being fed such a flimsy character with terrible lines. But another part of me sees the other two stars trying and ponders whether Egan’s performance is a reflection of his apathy to the material or just his acting ability.

While the plot is silly to the extreme (do you really expect us to believe that Claire’s letter went unfound for that long?), Letters to Juliet does not insult your intelligence. In fact, it is genuinely humorous at times. My biggest beef with the film is just how long the first half feels. It just drags on and on before much of anything happens worth noting. To say that about a film that clocks in at an hour forty-five just seems wrong.

As with many chick flicks, this one is mostly harmless (once you get through the first half anyway). I’m willing to call it subpar for the genre but you could easily do far worse.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Beauty and the Beast* (1991)

If the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences felt that they owed Disney some Oscar love after the triumph that was The Little Mermaid, they didn’t have to wait long for a chance to pay it forward. Fitting the same mold as Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast combines lush animation and Broadway-esque spectacle to form a real treat for the eyes and ears. For me, The Little Mermaid reigns supreme over all of the Disney Renaissance films, but Beauty and the Beast stands strong as one of Disney’s all-time greats.

Long ago an uncaring young prince and his subjects are respectively transformed into a hideous beast and various pieces of décor by an enchantress, doomed to remain that way unless the prince can find love before his 21st birthday. Several years later, the lovely Belle takes residency at the Beast’s castle in exchange for her eccentric father’s freedom. As she learns to understand her captor, Belle’s father seeks help in rescuing his daughter. A cocky sportsman named Gaston, who is determined to marry Belle, takes up the challenge of acquiring two trophies at once.

While The Little Mermaid was about love at first sight and teenage rebellion, Beauty and the Beast focuses on empathy, lust, misunderstanding, and jealousy. With these weighty topics as its foundation, it amazes me just how well the filmmakers navigate these potentially perilous waters. This film could have been an overly dramatic mess and very un-Disney. Instead, those foundational elements come through only as undertones, almost unnoticeable at times amidst all the Technicolor fun.

The animation in this film is excellent. Backgrounds are rich and foreground elements are full of detail. The craftsmanship is evident just about everywhere you look. This film also employs a CGI/traditional animation hybrid for several signature scenes. Since I do not remember how well the effect looked at the time, I can only comment on how dated and obvious the effect looks now. It was an attempt to add depth and the illusion of multi-plane camera work to the film. The effect now feels somewhat disjointed and even distracting, and is, for me, this film’s Achilles’ heel.

Enough cannot be said about the characters and music of this film. Traditionally, those two aspects have been the lifeblood of Disney animated flicks. The characters here all possess colorful personalities and have an air of authenticity about them. The way the servant characters interact with each other is brilliant; you really feel like they’ve known each other forever. My only minor beef lies with Gaston. He’s a little too much at times with his cocksure swagger, but the character has to be. It’s not necessary for the laughs that his machismo generates, but if we were forced to take him seriously, Gaston would drag the film into some dark territory.

The music by itself is terrific. Combining the show tune songs together with elaborate and witty on-screen antics, you create something fresh, unique, and memorable. That is the legacy of this film. It’s not as pulpy or solely kid-friendly as other Disney near-hits, but it never loses touch with its core audience. Great Disney movies don’t just appeal to kids; they appeal to families. This one has classic family entertainment written all over it.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

In the first of Disney’s official animated sequels, the House of Mouse pulls off a rare success in delivering a film that improves upon its predecessor in every way.  It doesn’t reach the same heights as The Little Mermaid, but a gorgeous color palette, a brisk pace, and likeable characters makes The Rescuers Down Under a winner.  To write it off for not retaining the same steadfast popularity of other Disney Renaissance releases would do this film a great disservice.

When a ruthless poacher seeking a rare eagle kidnaps a young boy with knowledge of the bird’s whereabouts, the Rescue Aid Society is contacted.  Bernard and Miss Bianca, from the first Rescuers film, take the assignment and rush headlong into the Australian Outback to find and save the boy.  Along the way they meet a number of colorful characters, some of whom want to help them and others who stand in their way.

After a pair of musicals, Disney dishes out a strictly narrative story.  It may be a bit of a jolt, especially after the charm and power of The Little Mermaid, but we have to remember that Disney works on multiple films at a time.  Keeping musical numbers out of the film actually works to its benefits.  In a life-and-death rescue story, where exactly can characters find an acceptable place to break into song?

The Rescuers Down Under benefits from audience familiarity with Bernard and Bianca.  If you are watching this movie, then chances are that you’ve seen the original.  The main villain is pretty flat and borders on being the stereotypical evil hunter type.  In this tale, however, he is a poacher.  It makes a big difference but the narrative still veers a little too close to bunny-hugging “hurting animals is wrong” territory.  Even though there is no character development or proper motivation, the villain excels at seeming dangerous.  This vital characteristic is necessary to nudge the fact that we are watching a Disney film into the back of our minds, allowing us to maintain concern for the boy’s life for the whole film.

The supporting characters are likeable and provide plenty of extra substance.  A goofy and dim-witted albatross provides most of the comic relief, while a dashing Australian mouse provides some romantic tension for Bernard and Bianca.  None of these characters overshadow our true heroes, which helps the film stay true to its title.   Why call it The Rescuers if your main draw is a batch of new supporting characters?

The run-time is short, making Down Under feel dangerously close to being light on content.  Solid characters and gorgeous animation help to distract you from that fact.  But hey, it’s a Disney film for crying out loud.  Some of Disney’s greatest films were a few minutes shorter than this one.  It’s a shame that Down Under has been forgotten about over time.  It’s better than the original but it was released between two of Disney’s biggest hits of all time.  The opening sequence is remarkable and the whole picture is very enjoyable- a solid and, sadly, underrated Disney yarn.

Rescuers

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Little Mermaid (1989)

Talk about your comebacks!  After the disappointing Oliver & Company, Disney returns to top form in a big way.  This film marks the start of the Disney Renaissance- an 11-year span of commercial and critical success for the animation juggernaut.  Clearly the creative juices were flowing like a raging river, because everything clicks, making The Little Mermaid one of the greatest Disney movies of all time.

Ariel is the youngest daughter of King Triton, who reigns over the sea and his kingdom of merpeople.  Despite living a life of privilege, the young princess dares to dream of a life outside of the world she has known.  Fascinated with humans and smitten with the handsome Prince Eric, Ariel is lured into a deal with a dangerous sea witch, who offers to turn her into a human for three days in exchange for her beautiful voice.  If Ariel can receive a true-love kiss from the prince before sunset on the third day, she will stay human forever.  If she fails to woo the prince, she will become one of the sea witch’s minions.

At one time, Disney could get away with sweet, innocent princesses who wandered through the land naïvely giggling and singing a happy tune.  Such a princess would not be appreciated in a post-feminist movement world.  Ariel may be naïve enough to fall in love with a total stranger, but she’s got plenty of fire and spirit to make up for it.  Take the subtle sass of Cinderella, multiply it by at least five, and you’ve got Ariel.  She may make foolish or even bad decisions, but her unprecedented independence and determination make her a truly modern princess.

The Little Mermaid is not a one-trick pony though.  Many of the supporting characters shine throughout the film.  Prince Eric and King Triton?  Yeah, they’re both pretty flat and entirely vanilla characters.  Sebastian (a crab), Scuttle (a seagull), and Flounder (a fish) make for a hilarious trio that provides more than just comic relief.  With Ariel unable to speak, her three friends help provide the soul of the film, enhancing the innocent, tender, and tenacious moments.  Ursula (the sea witch) is one of Disney’s better villains, broadcasting the heights of her evilness with every gesture, expression, and even with her posture.

I cannot provide a review for a Disney movie without commenting on the animation.  This film is a feast for the eyes.  Backgrounds are packed with layers of detail and the seafloor settings provide audiences with a whole new world to discover.  The animators do a fantastic job of making the merpeople and aquatic life look believable as they float and swim through their underwater surroundings.  If I am not mistaken, I could have sworn I caught a little multi-plane camera trickery as well.

Yet another example of why this film earns a spot near the top of all things Disney is the music.  Eschewing the sweet, classical music-inspired songs of old, The Little Mermaid goes full-on Broadway.  Strong lyrics are coupled with bombastic accompaniment, whether it’s a full orchestra or a calypso-based jam.  The music pops, the lyrics stick in your mind, and the animation that goes along with it is engrossing.

Watching The Little Mermaid again assures me that I do not love this film simply because I grew up watching it dozens of times.  Nor do I love this film because I’ve always had a thing for redheads.  I love The Little Mermaid because it is a fantastic film.  Musically, it’s a bold departure from the Disney formula.  Animation-wise, it is a triumphant return to form.  Everything clicks here and in the best possible ways.  It may not be as stunning as Snow White or Pinocchio, but it’s not too far behind them.

RATING:  4.25 out of 5

Sliding Doors (1998)

Edwin Schrödinger is famous for proposing a thought experiment involving a cat locked in a windowless room with some poison. His quantum mechanics brethren argue that, reality being based on our subjective observations, until one opens the door to the room, two realities actually exist: the cat is both dead from eating the poison and alive from not eating the poison. The option you perceive to be true when you open the door determines the fate of the cat. This principle comes into play during Sliding Doors, which could have also been called Schrödinger’s Chick Flick.

Helen Quilley (Gwyneth Paltrow) gets fired from her job early in the day and heads home to sulk. She reaches the train station at the last possible moment and her life splits into two realities. In one, she makes the train, arrives home to find her boyfriend (John Lynch) in bed with another woman, dumps his sorry butt, and falls in love with another man (John Hannah). In the other, she misses the train, stays with her cheating bohemian boyfriend, works two crappy jobs to support his goal of becoming a writer, and is generally frustrated with life.

When I was a young lad in the 1990s, this was one of those films that ‘everybody’ was talking about. Gwyneth Paltrow was the ‘it girl’ of the moment, and chick flicks never go out of style. What’s not to like? While some sequences are cleverly shot to produce a seamless transition between realities, this film will disappoint anyone hoping for any serious philosophical musings. I wouldn’t be so harsh as to call the twin realities a gimmick but it never really evolves past the point of being an interesting idea.

For those wondering about convergence and finality, yes, there is some. I won’t spoil the ending for you but I will say that I was not a fan of how the realities converge. There is a cute little sendoff that suggests our principal characters are somehow aware of the other reality that could have been, but that’s all it is- cute. It serves its purpose as a chick flick by giving audiences plenty to gush over, rant about, and hope for.

I suppose I was expecting more from this film, though I don’t know why. It was buzz-worthy upon release but it hasn’t gone down in the annals of 90s movie must-sees. Maybe Brits and anglophiles will get more out of it, but I think it’s pretty clear throughout that Paltrow’s accent is phony. That and you can clearly tell where harsher swear words were over-dubbed in post-production to gain a more audience-friendly, PG-13 rating.

Calling Sliding Doors a failed experiment is unfair for three reasons. First, it was not the first film to dabble with simultaneous timelines. Second, it strikes me that the filmmakers never set out to make a philosophical, quantum physics-inducing film. Third, the story itself is enjoyable and entertaining. If you’re feeling like taking in something quirky and different, check it out. If you pass on it, it’s not the end of the world. At least not in this reality.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Mrs. Miniver** (1942)

Of the Best Picture winners in the 1940s, this was one of the few that I had not heard of before starting my Oscar journey. I feared that the reason I hadn’t heard of it was because it suffered a similar fate as the 30s Best Picture winners no one ever mentions any more- it didn’t age well. Just the opposite happened, however. I was pleasantly surprised to find myself enjoying artfully-made thriller.

Based on a series of fictional stories run in British newspapers during the late 1930s, Mrs. Miniver focuses on the lives of a moderately well-to-do London couple (Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon). As Hitler flexes his muscles throughout Europe, the Miniver’s find themselves drawn into a new normal where air raids are a constant possibility and sacrifices are expected of all good British citizens. Love, loss, fear, class separation, and more are all addressed within this film’s two-hour, 15 minute runtime.

It took me a very long time to determine a rating for this film. Given the right context and the proper appreciation for its beautiful cinematography, it’s easy to see why this film was cherished in its day. By 1942, America had been drawn into World War II and was sharing the physical, financial, and emotional burden of war with Europe. While American civilians were far removed from any real threat from the Axis powers, Mrs. Miniver gave them a lens through which to view the impossible task of living a normal life in the cross hairs.

For modern audiences, this brand of rugged determination and sacrifice in the name of nationalism will probably seem a little over-the-top at times. Cynics will view parts as bordering on propaganda (indeed, FDR had it rushed into US theaters for just such a purpose). I will admit to being nonplussed by some of these sequences. I am normally just cynical enough to balk at such content but I am also very passionate about contextualizing films in order to understand them better. Some of this content feels very dated but the passion the actors put into their roles is undeniable.

As the titular character, Garson carries the film on her back. The range of emotions that she delivers is no small task but she produces like a champ. No indication is given to us that her family members are safe from harm (unless, I suppose, you have read the newspaper stories). Indeed, danger is lurking around every corner as the war picks up. This uncertainty keeps the tension high in all the right places. It may not be a non-stop thrill ride, but it would be hard to suspend disbelief if it were.

As I mentioned before, it’s the cinematography that won me over with this film. Camera angles and lighting choices during the more harrowing moments keep this film from becoming just another outdated war-era film. There may come a time when audiences are too cynical to appreciate Mrs. Miniver, but that time is definitely not now.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Oliver & Company (1988)

At times, I have been extremely patient and generous to Disney animated films. I recognized little advancements and stylistic qualities amidst the monotonous package films of the 1940s. I accepted lackluster films such as The Sword in the Stone and The Black Cauldron as, at the very least, entertainment. This however, is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

An adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist (which I have not read), Oliver & Company is the story of an orphaned kitten (voiced by Joey Lawrence) looking for a home. Initially taken in by a petty thief named Fagin (Dom DeLuise) and his pets (voiced by Billy Joel, Cheech Marin and more), Oliver falls into the lap of luxury when a young rich girl named Jenny adopts him. Fagin’s loan shark boss (Robert Loggia) looks to exploit the situation for monetary gain, forcing Oliver and his friends to band together to protect Jenny, and each other, from danger.

This film is by no means a disaster. Children will more than easily plop down in front of the TV and take this in like candy. It’s got cute animal characters, funny antics, and songs. What’s not to like? First, there are a few too many characters, leaving most flat and forgettable. Second, the songs are all equally forgettable. Third, the animation is weaker than any of the films preceding it.

Disney probably thought they had a winner on their hands. They had the vocal talents of a bunch of stars popular with adults and all the cuteness needed from the animal characters to make kids want to see the film. Too bad it turned out to be style over substance. Given the films modern setting, I understand the decision to have Billy Joel, then one of the hottest songwriters around, do the music. The problem with going the ‘modern’ route with the music is that it all feels very dated now. The beauty of Disney’s best songs is that they possess a timeless quality. Oliver & Company is missing that.

By far, the worst element of this film is the animation. The main characters all look fine but the background images are a borderline abomination to the name Disney. There is little in the way of crisp lines, definition or depth. What’s left is a mish-mash of pastels running together in loosely-defined shapes. At times, the scenery reminded me of what the world looks like when I take my eyeglasses off. While I understand that Disney has every right to adjust and change their animation style over time, standards have been set for their animation quality over the years. Too much divergence from that standard is a bad thing.

Is this film still entertaining? Yes. It’s difficult to not enjoy a Disney film. Oliver & Company simply is not as enjoyable any of the films that came before it. With a plot that drags in places to help hide how thin it is, Disney commits the cardinal sin of cinema- it bores you at times. Add on top of this some dark content that might upset some youngsters and you have the first Disney film that is only ‘okay.’ They had an astounding 50-year run of good and great films, so it’s about time Disney stumbled.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Der Untergang [Downfall] (2004)

Without question, Adolf Hitler was one of the most (if not the most) evil men ever to walk the Earth. Children in this and many other countries learn about his hate, prejudice, and atrocities in school. History and society have all but accepted a caricaturized depiction of Hitler and his fellow Nazi goons. Hollywood especially has benefited from this neat, easily-boxed version of the Third Reich. With this in mind, it becomes understandable why this German film made everyone so uneasy.

Based on a slew of auto-biographies, historical accounts and memoirs, Downfall follows a young woman named Traudl Humps (Alexandra Maria Lara) after being selected to be one of Adolf Hitler’s personal secretaries in 1942. Admiration for her employer and Führer has faded by 1945. Traudl finds herself cut off from the rest of the world, cooped up in the Führerbunker as Allied forces tear through Berlin. She and the rest of Hitler’s minions are forced to come to grips reality, leading to a variety of reactions.

After seeing this film, I am shocked that critics and industry types were hesitant to heap praise upon it. Were they really so naïve to think that praising a film that refuses to play to Hollywood’s stereotyping of Hitler and the Nazis would equate to praising or sympathizing with Hitler? My theory is this- the critics and the suits were too scared to be honest with us. Instead, we got carefully worded reviews that spent too much time explaining why they don’t like Hitler despite liking the film or throwing in their two cents on the dialogue about the humanity of Hitler that this films potentially calls into question.

This is a great film, plain and simple. Bruno Ganz is chilling in what is probably the greatest portrayal of Adolf Hitler of all time. He is fully committed to this role and it shows. The same can be said for Ulrich Matthes and Corinna Harfouch, who play Joseph and Magda Goebbels. Their sycophantic, unflinching loyalty to Hitler is unnerving to no end. They are so twisted and disturbing that I squirmed through many of their scenes, especially towards the end, where they put their loyalty to National Socialism above the lives of their children. Sickening is the only appropriate word.

The sets for this film are equally impressive. Scenes inside the bunker have a claustrophobic quality about them. This makes the audience feel every bit as stifled and cornered as the characters on screen when the bunker comes under attack or when Hitler goes off on a tirade. While no one every fully descends to the savagery of caged rats, it is evident from the bunker denizens’ faces that they’re never too far away from doing so. This is a testament to everyone involved with the production.

Does this film show Hitler as a real human being? Yes. Hitler is kind and compassionate to many of the innocent people working for him, like Traudl. The film does not hold back on Hitler’s stern and borderline psychotic handling of his military advisors and political underlings though. The end result is a broken, pathetic, feeble man clinging desperately to power and delusions of grandeur. That is far more unsettling than any caricature will ever be, making this a powerful film that I think everyone should see.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5