Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The human behavior depicted in this movie I found very bad. For example, when Gregor Lämmle gets attracted by David Quatermain during interrogation, a German soldier tries to scare David. The soldier point his gun to David, but does not use any militaristic commandments or other intimidating stuff. He is silent and looks like he has to go to the toilet. Another example is when a lady wants to kill a German officer. The officer gives no reaction at all. The director probably told the German officer that he is not scared and doesn't believe a woman is capable to shoot. At least you would expect a very dry reaction, with at least one line of dialog. But the officer stays natural (and the bullet does not seem to hurt that much).There are many examples like the ones above. That's why the movie feels like a bad student film.The dialog was written badly for a couple of times. The music did distracted me a couple of times a lot from the story (sudden weird tones in a score did not match). But then again, I did not feel the suspense in most scenes either. The storyline of the 2-hour version I saw had some holes in it (what happened to Henri Lafont? Who is the man with the sniper rifle?) The story itself could have been promising (so, I did not turn the movie off).The boy was a good actor, so that's way I give the movie 3/10

There are two previous negative reviews of this movie, but they suffer from the problem of reviewers whose first language is not English. It's hard to know where to begin in describing the basic silliness of this dog roll. Now, just how did this lantern -jawed hero manage to land in Marseilles during war time, and even if possible, where did he get his plane from, permission, visa, etc.? And are we to believe that this wooden hero/playboy was also fluent in French and German. And how did Frau von Gall manage to phone NYC during the German occupation with Germany at with the USA? And the scenes of French refugees on the move after the Germans occupied the Free Zone (Vichy) is sheer fantasy. This happened in 1940, not 1942.The contradictory behavior of Austria's foremost actor was truly startling and basically moronic. The ending with the hearts & flower music, tugging at the heart strings of the audience was nothing less than vomitive.Stuart swgreif@hotmail.com

This refers to the 180 min. cut of "Entrusted", aired by German TV (ARD). It is a kind of movie you find yourself shaking your head frequently. The persona of Maria von Gall, not-this-world's beauty, noble underground partisan and financer, survival-stylish mother of the cute genius, later going hysterical...mentioned before, but again: this is MTV clip level. Brandauer is Brandauer, maybe he happens to being asked to delivering a different meal sometime, which I would appreciate. Obviously SS-officers in vichy-France used to shave themselves in beautiful white chalkstone quarries, where they did interrogations and torture as well..you didn't know that? Now you can tell. Another funny one: Claire leaves cute Thomas dans la rue to take revenge in the open place they're poking at on the SS-officer who killed her parents, with the advice that he could cross the place afterwards. 'Blam' she does with the gun and almost instantaneously the place, crowded with SS-men and Jewish men and women up to the moment, is abandoned and brave little Thomas crosses it with the bicycle (reengadeeng). No time stretching chiffre, no nothing. Silly, really. It's not just this but several sorts of mistakes, plot holes, incomplete and artificial story aspects and characters. In German we know the expression - I try to translate - pulled about by the hair (An den Haaren herbeigezogen) which goes for the story in total. With the suspicion left, that these "niggles" were to be subordinated under "beautiful pictures, shot by a beautiful name" I am impressed by the subterranean quality of the story told.

This film has so captivated me that I have read the original novel, "Daddy", by Loup Durand. Although it shares with the film most of the supposed plot holes pointed out by others, it has been acclaimed by readers familiar with the genre on both sides of the Atlantic.While I know few details of the esoteric intricacies of Swiss bank accounts, history records that the children and other heirs of many Jews put to death in the holocaust were often unable to recover the funds their ancestors had deposited there, because they could not produce the necessary death certificates. Thomas's great grandfather (grandfather in the film), a banker, had devised a labyrinthine scheme to circumvent these routine requirements so that funds could be released to anyone who presented the proper credentials and codes under the designated circumstances. It was very secret, involving international arrangements and surrounded with such safeguards that the Nazis had never managed to crack the system open to their benefit, despite many attempts.Hence the need for Thomas to appear in person and to verify mutually (through secret codes committed to everyone's memory) the identity of everybody-- including several bank officials-- present simultaneously during his recitation. Its power could not be transferred to any single individual by telephone or in writing. In other parts of the book, Durand reveals enough knowledge of the often shameful record of global high finance during World War II that I can credit the plausibility of this premise, given the absence of objections from knowledgeable readers during all this time.There are many differences between the film and the book. I am impressed by how, at least for the cinematic environment, many of these differences are actually improvements. The story has been not merely simplified of necessity, but tightened up. For instance, in the book Laemmle was just a brilliant but jaded, world-weary professor with suicidal thoughts, who had been pursuing "the Von Gall case" for years mainly to avoid being literally bored to death. But in the movie he was Maria's former teacher and would-be lover, with whom he had played so many expert chess games that he could recognize her distinctive style anywhere. This experience gives him a crucial clue in the film.Catherine Lamiel has a much larger role than in the book. And whereas the time span of the novel is about a year (by the time it ends, the war is winding down), in the film it has been compressed into a couple of weeks-- befitting the urgency of the secret that Thomas carries. The principal characters and their conflicts, however-- both among one another and within themselves-- are remarkably intact.With all due respect to the novel, a film faithful to it would need to resemble Indiana Jones. I do not admire the Indiana Jones movies and feel that their influence on American film-making is baneful. What we get here is subtler, more atmospheric, coherent, and I for one think more believable. It is also earnest: one critic said that it is reminiscent of a film of the 60s or even earlier, especially in the acting of Ms. Mezzogiorno and Mr. Moyer. Whether you will like this film depends on whether you like that. Well, I guess I do.Finally, one must mention the unfortunate (if less than obvious) fact that we in what the powers-that-be have defined as "Region 1" are being treated in this product to only 2/3 of the original miniseries. I daresay the cutting has been about as well done as it can be. Nevertheless, under such conditions, anyone is forgiven for perceiving plot holes and puzzlements. The full original is available only elsewhere, or to North Americans who have taken the step of acquiring a "region-free" DVD player and then patronizing a vendor overseas for a more obscure offering. I would recommend all lovers of freedom to do at least the former-- it's not particularly expensive, not yet anyway-- and meanwhile to reserve judgment on any production seen only as mutilated by third parties.A bit of trivia: Laemmle cites Bossuet (in the full version explaining that he was "the Sun King's favorite preacher") for a view that he apparently shared, that "childhood is the most vile, abject form of human nature." Indeed, a web search turns up an aphorism of Jacques-Benigne Bossuet's: "L'enfance est la vie d'une bete" (Childhood is the life of an animal).