Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Perfect cast and a good story

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Ms. von Trotta's film portrays Hannah Arendt at the time in her life when she wrote one of her most influential books, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, and the furor that came after its publication in 1963. There were two points presented in the New Yorker magazine article that she wrote, compiled shortly thereafter and published as a 300-plus-page book, which were considered the source of the grief among the Jewish community: First is her disdain in calling a Eichmann a "monster" and claims that that would only feed his illusions of superiority born out of his want to escape the humdrum existence of being regarded as just a mere cog in the Nazi killing machine with no motives or intentions or trace of mental illness whatsoever, somebody who is just following orders. Second is her view that the Jewish leaders have made decisions which endangered the Jewish people even more and the number of people that have perished in the Shoah would not have been as overwhelmingly immense if they were unorganized. It is the methodical and critical stance in detailing her observations of the Eichmann trial, that made her a much reviled figure in the Jewish community whose wounds and traumas brought on by WWII were still fresh, most of whom are either haven't even read the articles themselves or too much upset to continue reading it. It is Arendt's relationship with her close family and friends that makes most of the film, shows a more sensitive and sentimental side to a personality that has acquired quite steely reputation. The prominent men in her life that includes her affectionate husband, Heinrich Blücher (Axel Milberg), her earnest friend, Kurt Blumenfeld (Kurt Blumenfeld), her host in Israel when she covered Eichmann's trial, and her former lover/mentor and known Nazi sympathizer, Martin Heidegger (Klaus Pohl), whose memories she is seen reminiscing with utmost restraint. Her female confidants includes her gregarious friend Mary McCarthy (Janet McTeer) and her trustworthy secretary Lotte Köhler (Julia Jentsch). Barbara Sukowa's compelling take as the eponymous title character conveys the staedfastness that complements and coalesces well with the adept performances of the supporting and minor characters. The biopic's straightforward manner in presenting a life-snapshot of a well-known figure, the director's hand, the way the story was told, the musical score, or the original footage from the 1961 Eichmann trial doesn't take much attention away from the audience of their presence gives Ms. Sukowa's refined performance to shine through. Arendt's character is seen for the most part in this film to be puffing a cigarette, even at times where she is lying on a couch with eyes closed, contemplating in silence, brooding scenes which are not at all that long-winded, more of an enigma, actually.My rating: A-minus.

There are momentous events that shape our world, with individuals, Hitler, Napoleon, Marx -- who take the stuff of their birth world and shape it into something different. Those who capture forces and marshal them for revolutions, are both hated and loved, saviors and monsters -- and the winners write the history.True Philosophers transcend this. They remove themselves from those who hate and admire such transforming figures, and by doing so risk becoming alienated from their own group. Thus is the case of Hannah Arendt in the period of this film. As a student she had a love affair with Heidegger, one of the great philosophers of the early 20th century - who as a human being joined the Nazis.Arendt, being a Jew, in a covering the trial of Adolf Eichman, became the thinker, the philosopher, while those survivors of the Holocaust were in pain over their loss, and in no mood to intellectualize the perpetrators.Although I lived only miles from Arendt at the time of this film, I was far removed from the academic culture described, and now more than a half century later, look back with a top of nostalgia and remorse. I knew some who survived the death camps, and certainly could identify with those who reviled Arendt for not loathing Eichman.Yet these are the challenges of today. We have child terrorists such as one who just killed nine people in a black church our of the same inculcated hatred as the Nazis towards Jews. Arendt's thinking is valuable, and needed since the disease of hatred of outsiders does not seem to be fading, but rather is a constant recurrence of humanity.

Other reviewers have questioned the historical accuracy of Margarethe von Trotta's portrayal of Hannah Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) and her opinion of the Jewish leaders as expressed in her NEW YORKER articles on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961.As a piece of film-making, however, HANNAH ARENDT grabs the attention and does not let go throughout its 113-minute running- time. As portrayed by Sukowa, Arendt comes across as a forthright person, not frightened of expressing her opinions and responding to any intellectual challenges from close friends such as Kurt Blumenfeld (Michael Degen). Yet beneath that tough surface lurks a profoundly disillusioned person, as she discovers to her cost that her great teacher and mentor Martin Heidegger (Klaus Pohl) does not practice what he preaches. Although insistent on reinforcing the distinction between "reason" and "passion," Heidegger takes the "passionate" decision to associate himself with the Nazi party, and thereby embraces their totalitarian values. Like Eichmnann himself, he chooses not to "think" but to commit himself to an ideology that actively discourages individual thought. The sense of shock and disillusion Arendt experiences inevitably colors her view of the Eichmann trial. Director von Trotta includes several close-ups of her sitting in the press-room listening to the testimony of Eichmann, his accusers and the witnesses, a quizzical expression on her face, as if she cannot quite make sense of what she hears. She cannot condemn Eichmann, because he has simply followed Heidegger's course of action.Once the articles have been published, Arendt experiences an almost unprecedented campaign of vilification. Although she is given a climactic scene where she defends herself in front of her students (and her accusers within the university faculty), we get the sense that she is only doing so on the basis of abstractions; her personal feelings are somehow disengaged. She is far more affected when her one-time close friend Hans Jonas (Ulrich Noethen) vows never to talk to her again on account of her views. Philosophers might be able to make sense of the world, but they often neglect human relations.Consequently our view of Arendt, as portrayed in this film, is profoundly ambivalent. While empathizing with her views about the banality of evil, which reduces people to automata as they claim they were only carrying out orders, even while being involved in atrocities, Arendt herself comes across as rather myopic, so preoccupied with her ideas that she has little or no clue about how they might affect those closest to her. It's a wonder, therefore, that Mary McCarthy (Janet McTeer) chooses to stick with her through the worst of circumstances.Ingeniously combining archive footage of the Eichmann trial with color re-enactments of what happened during that period, HANNAH ARENDT is a thought-provoking piece, even if we find it difficult to identify with the central character.

First, reviewer Ruben Mooijman wrote above: 'Arendt as a difficult and complex woman, who is a brilliant philosopher but also stubborn, arrogant and single-minded. In one scene, we see her lying on a couch, when the phone rings. On the other end of the line is her editor, who faces a deadline and asks if she is making progress with the articles. 'Of course I'm working hard, and it would be nice if I could continue working instead of chatting on the phone', she answers. After that, she returns to the couch, lies down and continues smoking her cigarette.' …. Well, she was not being arrogant and she didn't lie (deviate from the truth) when she said that she was working hard. That's what she was doing when lying (being on the horizontal position) on the couch. She was thinking. That's what she was trained for. That's what she did best. Thinking is a solitary endeavour, her mentor told her. Some people can do quite a lot of work just by lying, awake and alone, in bed or on a couch. Second, I see no good reason why her friends got so cross with her. Her arguments (banality of evil, failures of some Jewish leaders in Nazi Germany, etc) can actually be seen as very good reasons as for why the Jewish people should have their own state. I feel free to say this as I am not Jewish and not even religious. Third, I liked watching the movie because of the story but the movie itself gets quite confusing sometimes, particularly in the beginning. It seems to have been made for in-the-know intellectuals who already know at least half the story and the names in it. Some of those searing short flashbacks every now and then are nothing but irritating (who the hell made the Nazi speech referred to while a piece of German written newspaper was displayed on the screen?). Better tell the story straight instead of wasting people's time with pseudo-avant-garde shenanigans.