ridiculous rating

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Excellent, a Must See

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

I do not usually compare books to movies because they are two different means of expression. Books give lots more details and let the readers work with their imagination. Movies give us the director's vision, which is usually different from ours, but may add interest to a known story.In the case of Fatherland, however, having read the novel years ago and stumbled upon the movie only a few nights ago, I was disappointed. The novel is based on historical facts (up to 1942) and accurately researched, but still manages to get us involved with two interesting and believable main characters, Xavier March and Charlie Maguire.They live in a scary, dystopian past-future of the year 1964, with the Nazi as winners of WWII, a Cold War between Germany and the US and guerrilla between the Russians and the Germans. March is a police office and honorary SS, investigating a suspicious suicide, Maguire is an American who wants to report on the meeting of the 75 yo Hitler with US president Joseph Kennedy.The film has a great performance by Hauer as the weary March and a totally miscast British Richardson as the American journalist Maguire. Her character is described as a young, rebellious child of the 60s. Richardson looks like a bored middle-aged matron.Another major change in the plot is March's son. In the book he is described as a malevolent, brainwashed creature, while in the film… you can see for yourself. The idea of the Nazi regime as pure evil is a lot stronger in the book and the punch of the final revelation watered down in the movie, by the fact that the audience already knows what really happened. Also the ending feels really rushed and a bit silly.It is interesting but depressing to see what could have happened if the Nazi had won. Perhaps the main purpose of this movie is to make us happy that it did not happened. But if you want to dig deep, the book is very well written and gives the full picture.

Thanks to the storytelling capabilities and high education and literacy of the Jews, we are privileged to be repeatedly beaten over the head for decades with the simple message: "the worst things in history happened to us". Sometimes the richness and human depth and insight of a production redeems a film of this type. But there is no subtlety here. If you feel you have, up until now, had too good a life, and you want to be clubbed on the noggin yet again, watch this movie. There is no subtlety here, nor any hope of intelligent or philosophical discourse.I give it a 4 because the alternative-history settings are somewhat interesting, and rare to find such approaches in the literature.

The novel had rising suspense up to the last page, with glimpses of real love amid multiple layers of black treachery, and an unspeakable dark secret at its heart. It was based on solid history, extrapolated into a fascinating alternative that was gradually revealed. Only bit by bit did one realise that Germany had conquered all Europe and that the Kennedy who had been elected US president was the unadmirable Joseph.None of that will you find in this feeble film, which even Dan Brown might be ashamed of. Showing the ghastly structures with which Hitler if victorious proposed to uglify Berlin, the Hall of the People and the Victory Arch, was at least instructive. Use your brain enjoyably for a couple of hours by reading the book instead.

I read the novel and loved it, couldn't put it down. I stumbled on the film by accident while flicking channels. I didn't know it had been made and as somebody says the Hollywood suits should be ashamed of themselves for turning down the opportunity to do it justice.Normally I hate films that introduce characters that are not in the original books but the Jean Marsh role as the embittered actress who failed to make it in Hollywood is superb. Jean Marsh is chilling and I've never seen her do better. She justifies her own existence. Just before seeing it I had seen a dramatisation of the Wannsee conference by BBC2 and the facts were fairly fresh for me. The names you hear were real people.The crowd scenes ARE too small but Rutger Hauer is believable as the decent German looking for the truth and though Miranda Richardson comes across as a bit neurotic (as usual) she is plausible.Lets start a campaign for a big budget version.