Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) Do not be mislead by this 105-minute film's title "Mein Kampf". This film is not based on Adolf Hitler's autobiography, but on a theater play by Budapest-born, BAFTA-winning writer George Tabori, who died briefly before this film was released. This is also why you should not watch this expecting a historically accurate depiction of Hitler's early years, but instead go for a political thriller. If David Wnendt can lead Hitler as a stand-up comedian into the 21st century, then "lack of authenticity" is not a valid point in evaluating this film here. This was written and directed by Swiss filmmaker Urs Odermatt. The film had its world premiere in Canada back in 2009, but it still took a while until most other people got to see it, especially Germans, namely 1.5 years later. It is basically a 2-man show. Tom Schilling and Götz George show why they are considered among the finest German actors of their respective age groups. Of course their roles are baity as hell too and it's almost impossible for them to go over the top here.What I found most interesting was the character of Gretchen, not only because of the Faust reference, but also because she somewhat displays the German people during the years of the real Hitler's rise to power. And as I managed not to expect any great realism in here, I was also impressed by the script. There are many interesting details in the characters' interactions from start to finish, especially of course in how Hitler perceives Jewery (in terms of Herzl) and how influences, such as other, older, more experienced Germans shape his perception of Jews in general, almost exclusively to the negative. The references to Hitler's aspiring career as a painter/artist were nicely included as well and they did well in not constructing the entire film around it. There were certainly a couple scenes that could have been cut, so the film would not have crossed the 95-minute mark and still stayed essential, but it's also fine at over 100 minutes. I enjoyed the watch. Thumbs up.

OJT After being very keen about watching a dramatization of young Adolf Hitler, and what lead him to join politics in stead of art, the writing of his "Mein Kampf" and the rise of his evil soul, I must admit I was quite disappointed with this film in more than one way.First of all it doesn't tell the story in a vary accurate way, it's also in a way more focused on other persons than Hitler himself. This makes the story confusing and difficult to follow. You simply doesn't get what it's all about. It's in a way illogical to me. What's the worst sin here, though, is that the film tells what should be an exciting story, too boring.The film is well played, though the acting is quite theatrical, suited for the theater scene more than the big screen. No wonder, since this is based upon a play by George Tabori. in many ways, this hasen't been tranfered to a feature like it should have been. I can imagine it was strong in a theater.But Hitler is well depicted, by Tom Schilling, as the strange bird he obviously was, with the insane racial ideas he obviously was indoctrinated with, and at least we get to know why he got involved with politics, and how his trademark mustache origin end. We see the poor conditions in Austria (or in fact much of Europe) a good hundred years ago. We a So see the racial hate towards the Jews, something which Hitler was inbred with. This is the best part of the movie. It seems to be very historically accurate in depiction of the living conditions.We get to know young Hitler as an almost insane, ungrateful, untalented young brat, with disgusting attitude, insulting language, and still with a terrible strong intensity, which we all have seen in film clips. Hitler wasn't a great speaker, but his intensity still was able to make him "Der Fuhrer" for a German/Austrian population.This could have been so strong and interesting, but has one up as quite disappointing. At least I had much bigger expectations after seeing great Austrian films by Michael Haneke and Ulrich Seidl.

avykay Having watched this movie and being interested lately in the world wars, specially world war two, I don't believe this to be a true or accurate historical account. It is more like a dramatized summery or caricature of how Hitler shaped his way to power. We see him as a young (20 or so years)person who fails to make it to the academy of arts (which according to historical accounts is true). He is portrayed as having unshakable self confidence and talks of his future glory (as artist or architect) even after his failure. Persons like that do have influence on others. If you believe in yourself, people will believe in you. Do not watch this movie if you're looking for historical accuracy. On the other hand, I was quite impressed by the fine acting of the leading characters. Schilling gives a nice performance as young Hitler. This being the main reason for giving the movie rating a 6.

Warge I own and have read the real Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler during his short stay in prison, and also quite a lot of other literature about Hitler and his early years, which is important, since Hitler did not shy from lying in the book.Now, the film about Hitler's early years in Vienna could have been so good if it didn't try to explain every little thing that would later happen - the idea to the swastika for example, or even the growth of his now characteristic moustache.The film portrays Hitler as a young, from the beginning hateful man who is adopted by a jew (of course) and how he drops from being a failed painter to a leader of a small group of thugs, leading them against the jews.This is ridiculous and has very little with the truth to do. The only thing the film gets right is: Hitler failed getting into the art academy. That's it. The rest is a some kind of desperate attempt to explain every little detail with the later NSDAP and antisemitic movement and of course Hitler himself, which is a pity really, since I looked forward to seeing a film about the early years without the bias towards Hitler - which of course is hard to shy away from if one is a normal, thinking person.Technically it is brilliant, and the acting is good - what the film lacks is a more observing eye or script, which is the basics in ANY good film.I would not recommend it, unless one has nothing else to watch and don't care about details as a history buff, because it is good enough to kill a couple of hours with. Despite the flaws.