Sorry, this movie sucks

Don't Believe the Hype

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This film is an extremely poor saga of Hitler. If it was portrayed as a fictionalization of him then I would provide a higher rating albeit marginally so. Hitler is much more complex character than the film, and possibly any film, can provide. It's embarrassing to actually watch this awful film given the historical inaccuracies. I understand the need to take liberties for sake of piecing a film together and making the characters more believable. However, those who have studied the lives of Hitler and his closest political/economic/social/military advisers, find this film completely avoidable. The film "Downfall" (2004) is much more historically accurate and captures the essential core of Hitler as the man he was. I highly recommend Downfall knowing it only shows the last few days of Hitler and his Third Reich.

Richard Basehart is a good actor overall, so his performance is decent. But the film is so ahistorical that it should definitely be skipped. It is mainly a *psychological profile*, but the psychology is wrong. Its main strength is that it does show Hitler's complete disregard for Germany and its people during his last days.As noted by someone else, this film seems to be based on Trevor-Roper's book. Roper's research, however, was done immediately after the war (to investigate/refute malicious Soviet accusations that Hitler was still alive and possibly living in a British-controlled area) and was based on *very few* direct witnesses (the Soviets had most of them in custody). Vast amounts of additional evidence have come out since then.((In contrast, the German film "Downfall" is an absolutely *brilliant* portrayal that shows not only Hitler's megalomania, destructiveness and self-pity, but also his force of personality, particularly in the scene with von Greim. ("Downfall" seems based on the book "The Bunker", which is by far the best of the "Hitler's last days" books.)))Just a few examples of the false things in the movie "Hitler" (in the examples, H is used as an abbrev for Hitler): As noted by others, there is *no* evidence that H was impotent or homosexual. Some American and British psych people speculated on this, particularly during and immediately after the war, but they had no access to H.H's interactions with Eva: everyone who met Eva said she had no interest in politics or the war and would never have challenged H on those topics.The scenes of Stauffenberg's bombing and aftermath are ludicrous: H didn't notice the briefcase or comment on it; it was placed to H's right, not left; the bomb didn't go off for several minutes (giving Stauffenberg time to get away); and Stauffenberg was not hanged but shot (within hours of the bombing by a co-plotter trying to cover his own guilt), although many other co-plotters were hanged later.The director allows Basehart to be much too physically vigorous, even though he does limp. H's health was *extremely* poor by April 1945. H, after all, had been under severe stress and been a drug addict for years. Eyewitnesses noted that H looked a decade older than he really was (and he was 56) and could often barely shuffle his feet forward. (Thus, by the way,there is *no* chance H escaped from the bunker and went to South America, or anywhere else. H feared capture far more than death, and so would never have risked trying to escape.)As a more minor point, the Berchtesgaden/Berghof window/view in the film is pathetic compared to the actual window/view. The actual window was *huge* (much taller than a person), offered a panoramic view of the mountain and could be electronically lowered into the wall.

I have seen Richard Basehart in many things and I always thought he had potential but I never saw him do anything that made me go WOW!! That was good! That is until I saw this flick. I have read volumes on Hitler and have viewed and listened to Hitler's speeches at Nuremberg and the Reichstag and I think I have some sense of how he was and I think Richard Basehart did the best and most believable portrayal of him that I have ever seen. Hitler was of course extremely enigmatic and charismatic so he would be difficult to portray and I never saw anyone do a good portrayal of him until this film. The rest of the actors do a good job and the movie itself is fair to good; although it suffered from a low budget. Historically accurate as best I can recall. I think they relied heavily on Hughe Trevor Ropers history of him. But for all its good points see it for Richard Basehart he really shines in this!!

Richard Basehart is OK as Hitler, even if a bit over the top. The rest of the cast is horrible, frankly. The film is an attempt to render Hitler from a psychological perspective, but the insights it offers are cartoonish oversimplifications at best, and can't make up its mind what Hitler's "problem" was. At one point it is implied he was impotent, at another point it is suggested he was homosexual. And always the business about his mother. The film offers more speculation than fact. The time frame of the film is a bit skewed too. Nothing of Hitler's youth is presented for a supposed psychological study. The year 1934 takes up nearly half the film; World War II gets at most ten minutes start to finish. In the end you have no more understanding of Hitler's personality, or his appeal to Germans, than you did at the outset. Which marks the film as a failure.