Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frile
mmm, acting it's not mediocre, and for christ sake, unconvincing? Right... im sure it was going to be more convincing if Hitler spoke in english right? Give me a brake... the atmosphere was exactly the same as in that time, not even mention the fact of spoken german. If you pay attention and if you know a thing or two about history, you will notice the filmmakers even reproduced the exact front of the german Chancellory... quite amazing if you consider the actual building was demolished in 1945...
|
The problem with most people is that they see too few good movies to understand that the mere facts that a movie is in another language than English and that it happens to give a view of events that isn't entirely black and white are enough to make you believe the movie is a good one.
I do not consider this movie a bad one because it tries to give a somewhat balanced view and attempts to be historically accurate, but rather because it fails in its attempts to bring the situation to life in a believable way.
In Der Untergang the acting is wooden, for the most part. The people act like they are acting, not like they are really living. The actor playing Hitler, for example, loses himself in - admittedly accurate - detail and thereby loses the life of the character.
Or look at Traudl. Der Untergang takes her memories as entirely true and correct, not biased in any way. It fails to take into account the obvious fact that the memories of a woman in her early twenties in such a time and place will be greatly distorted afterwards.
Ultimately, this movie fails to achieve its goal because WWII is still too fresh, too near to depict in an objective, vivid way. Historical accuracy and detail are not enough to create a good movie, and depicting Hitler as a man instead of a pure monster is little more significant than pointing out that grass is green.