Max

Rating:
Summary: Artist Denied 1-Man-Show Stages Holocaust, Kills 6 Million
Review: "Artist Denied 1-Man-Show Stages Holocaust, Kills 6 Million." That, in a nutshell is the premise of this film. You almost wonder if someone is going to break out singing "Springtime for Hitler," from "The Producers," the premise seems so absurd. However, actors Noah Taylor (Hitler) and John Cusack (Max, the art dealer) are both heavyweights and bring complete conviction to their performances. Max is certainly the more amiable, likable and attractive man in this duo but Taylor's Hitler captures all the inconsistencies which must have existed in Hitler. On one hand, he captures the revulsion this man naturally inspires and yet you can understand why, up on a stage, he can become mesmerizing and messianic to a crowd of disenchanted Germans who wish to revolt against someone, anyone, for the poverty of their lives. Taylor especially captures the glittering, glazed, virtually hypnotic eyes of Hitler when he is in front of a crowd and launching into one of his tirades. I found all the art aspects of the film very good and Cusack does a very good piece of performance art in it. I don't know if Hitler's art is really as bad as shown in this film. If you wanted someone to draw your spaniel (that drawing hangs on his wall), he was your man. However, he wanted to compete with artists the likes of Ernst and Mondrian per this film! If that is true, then no wonder he was doomed to failure as an artist. The future Nazi henchman who draws him in as a leader for the movement even mocks his ability, looking at his spaniel drawing and sarcastically remarking about Hitler's artistic muse must be calling. Taylor's Hitler is a monster alright but he is a monster who is shaped over time. Here is the foundation of that shaping. I am very eager to see Noah Taylor in another role after seeing him play Hitler. I can't really say this was a 5 star movie experience but it was a very good film in many respects.

Rating:
Summary: Slow build ends with a bang
Review: "Max" is, no doubt, an important film. The exploration of monstrosity through humanity, and how self-expression can be a gift and a blessing or a tool used to attain power is potent throughout the film. Though it does tend to drag a little and the script is, at times, terribly unnatural, the acting and ending make up for most of these flaws.

Cusack is very good as Max Rothman, Jewish art dealer with an arm destroyed in his service during World War One. As has been said, Taylor is excellent -- haunting and oddly sad, portraying a tortured young Hitler before he truly and completely believed his own drivel. Though both actors come off as false or awkward during rare moments, this is hardly a fault of their own -- this is the fault of false or awkward screenwriting.

The other main fault, along with the screenwriting, has to do with a dragging mid-section, where everything seems very drawn out. However, keep your interest focused here and you will be repaid with a stunning ending.

That is, in my opinion, the best part of the movie -- heavy on symbolism and real-life foreshadowing of the horror we all know is now bound to follow... Despite the fact that I knew throughout the film that Hitler was doomed to become an evil man and a source of unspeakable terror, It felt like I was holding out for another outcome. This film tangles possibility in one's face, and then switches it with the cold reality that we've all learned in history books, and this switch makes for a sobering and emotional finale.

Anyway. If you're open to a fresh (if fictionalized) look on this era of history and if you're willing to stand some bad dialogue and slow pacing to get to some great acting and an intesne ending, then this movie should not disappoint you.

Rating:
Summary: Hitler - The Early Years
Review: ****1/2 Countless films have dealt with Adolph Hitler the monster, the madman, the unprecedented mass murderer. But very few have attempted to go beyond this image, to conceive of Hitler in less than larger-than-life terms and to try to figure out what it was exactly that made this most infamous of modern dictators "tick."

This is certainly understandable, for how is one to "explain" an Adolph Hitler? How is one to reconcile the man who was responsible for the deaths of millions with a flesh-and-blood person who lived and breathed like the rest of us? The answers to these questions have eluded sociologists, psychologists and artists for decades now and it is the rare person who even attempts to provide us with some possible explanations. It is for this reason that writer/director Menno Meyjes deserves extraordinary praise for bringing "Max" to the screen. Is it possible for a single film - especially one that runs a mere 108 minutes - to successfully address this bewilderingly complex subject? Probably not, but "Max" certainly takes a bold first step in trying to piece together this most mystifying of psychoanalytical puzzles.

Meyjes begins his story in 1918, immediately after the Germans have suffered a crushing defeat in World War I and now face further humiliation in the form of punitive measures meted out by the Versailles Treaty. We see Hitler as essentially an embittered 30-year-old social misfit, a rootless, impoverished, down-on-his-luck painter whose work shows some promise but who keeps being told that he needs to find that "authentic voice" that will distinguish his work from that of his more successful artistic contemporaries. One of the people who tells him that is Max Rothman, a wealthy Jewish art dealer who, like Hitler, served his country in the war and who, also like Hitler, has a good reason to feel embittered about the experience. It seems that Rothman's career as a great and promising artist was cut short by the loss of his arm in battle. Thus, while Hitler burns with a sense of nationalistic fervor (he blames everyone but the Germans - at least the Aryan ones - for his country's defeat), Max seems less inclined to declare total devotion to his country. This is just one of the many points of contention that define this fascinating relationship between the two men.

What Meyjes is able to do so well is to show just how Hitler transitioned from being basically a petty angry young man filled with feelings of personal doubts and inadequacy to being a bold, confidant visionary of a new world order based on German domination with himself at the helm. Through these two main characters, Meyjes paints a brilliant portrait of the times, of a country in ruins, of a people desperate to find scapegoats on which to pin their suffering. Even Hitler's anti-Semitism is initially vague and ill defined until some army leaders groom him to become one of the spokesmen for their new system known as "propaganda." Hitler is, obviously, a tightly coiled malcontent who, when he discovers he cannot convey his ideas successfully on canvas, changes his medium to that of speechmaking. Max, who has been encouraging him to pour his feelings into his artwork and to stay away from rabblerousing in the streets and beer halls, can do little but sit back in awe watching this seemingly insignificant young man beginning to exert his influence on the world around them. Although Hitler in many ways admires and respects this Jewish "friend," he can't get beyond the burning envy he feels towards the easy life that money and a privileged family have bought for Max. It is the great irony at the end of the film that Max becomes the unwitting first victim of Hitler-inspired hooliganism and violence and that, through this action, Hitler himself loses his opportunity to make a name for himself in the art world. The closing scene has a kind of perfect symmetry about it. These two men's lives intersect at a crucial moment in history, not in the way they intended, perhaps, but more as the result of a cruel trick of fate. A great theme that runs throughout the film is the old "what if" scenario. What if Hitler had been able to find acceptance in the art world? What if the Treaty of Versailles had not exacted so harsh a penalty from the German people? This theme is beautifully caught in microcosm in a scene where Max stages a small play lamenting the loss of his arm and his ability to paint and pondering over what works he might have produced had things turned out differently.

Because we know what ended up happening in the years following the events depicted in the film, "Max" is filled with a haunting sense of sadness and foreboding. For instance, we see the Jews of Max's family enjoying their luxury and wealth totally unaware of what awaits them in the near future. It's as if the Sword of Damocles were poised precariously above their heads, yet they are serenely unaware of its existence and the danger they are in. Even the astute Max seems only vaguely cognizant of the threat Hitler and people like him pose to his way of life or the health and lives of those he loves. For without the 20/20 hindsight that experience affords, who could ever rationally conceive that a man like the Hitler portrayed here could bring the entire world crashing down around him? That, in fact, seems to be Meyjes' point, that "evil" can arise where we least think to look for it - in the banal, the mundane, the mediocre people who surround us unnoticed - until one day we wake up and see it all around us, when it is too late to do anything about it. The real tragedy of the story is that Max, for all his insight into life and art, cannot see that the ultimate evil of our times happens to be standing right there next to him in a shabby overcoat and worn out shoes. For much of the film's duration, Max sees Hitler as, essentially, a benign misfit, one who simply needs to channel his somewhat disturbing beliefs in a more positive direction, i.e. his artwork. It is Max's obliviousness to the true potential of his "protégé" that gives the film its air of chilling menace. Meyjes writes dialogue that is sharp, sophisticated and meaningfully witty. For instance, he embodies much of his theme in lines that grate on our ears and our sensibilities in their almost irreverent casualness, but which make perfect sense in the context of the story - lines like "I'd like you to meet Adolph Hitler...I've never heard of him" or "Hitler, let me buy you a lemonade." Such statements throw us off balance and make us giggle - until we realize just how beautifully they portray the meaning of the work, that at one time Hitler was just a name like any other, not imbued with any special evil significance - just like the man himself. We almost expect the people in the film to jump back in horror from his sheer presence or the mere mention of his name - yet how were they to know what was to come? How were they to know they needed to flee or at least do something proactive to counter his growing influence and power? These are the questions that haunt us.

John Cusack as Max and Noah Taylor as Hitler give brilliant, insightful performances. Taylor does the well nigh impossible job of making Hitler seem strangely human while, at the same time, helping us to understand just how quick a leap it can be from disillusioned outcast to maniacal dictator.

"Max" is a brave and noteworthy triumph, a film that takes chances and sets a high standard for future historical dramas on the subject.

Rating:
Summary: The frustrated artist Hitler looks for his "authentic voice"
Review: A standard question concerning ethics asks if you could go back in a time machine and have the chance to kill Adolf Hitler as a baby, would you do it? Another "what if?" concerning Hitler has to do with his attempts to be an artist. Hitler's artwork is rather cold and uninspiring, but it seems reasonable to speculate that if he had been a better artist he would not have turned to politics and the 20th century would have been completely different.

Writer-director Menno Meyjes explores this idea in the 2002 film "Max," in which Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) is still living in military barracks in Munich as Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles and is trying to make a name as an artist. He shows his work to Max Rothman (John Cusack), a Jewish art dealer who lost an arm in the World War and who is consumed by the idea of the subversiveness of modern art. Hitler disparages such ideas, considering them "blood poisoning." Rothman and Hitler argue about art, both in terms of the futurist movement and Hitler's lack of an "authentic voice" in his own work.

Meanwhile, at the barracks of the decommissioned army, Hitler is folding laundry and being courted by Captain Mayr (Ulrich Thomsen), who is teaching a class on propaganda. Mayr is a historic figure and it is in his responses to Mayr and others in the barracks that Hitler is his most articulate and persuasive in dispensing his particular brand of venom.

The major fault I find in this film is that both the script and Taylor's performance play too quickly to the ranting Hitler. One of the great distortions of Hitler's legacy is that the black & white film footage of Hitler speaking comes from the climax of his speeches, when he has worked himself and his audience into frenzy. But Hitler always built to such a crescendo. He would show up late for speeches, making his audience wait in anticipation, and then stand there until the audience got quiet, and then would stand some more, building the drama. Then he would begin speaking softly, so that his audience strained to hear him. Hitler was a devastatingly effective public speaker and every time his oratory is reduced to rants and raves we have an incomplete and inadequate understanding of the monster.

What lies at the heart of the film is the idea that you either take the view that Hitler is a madman born in sulfur who wrecked havoc on the world or that he was a kind of hustler. Meyjes goes with the later view, presenting Hitler as a frustrated artist whose evil was rooted in that frustration and his inability to express himself. It is in his engagements with Rothman and Mayr that Hitler finds his "authentic voice," and comes to the fatal conclusion that politics will be his art and the German people his canvas.

"Max" ends the relationship between Rothman and Hitler on an ironic note, which is exactly what I expected. After all, by both his failure and his success with Hitler, Rothman is pushing Hitler towards the horrors of Nazi Germany, and his fate in the film symbolisms what is to come. Meyjes is not trying to tell a true story here; after all, Hitler had a handlebar mustache during this period after the war, but having Taylor play the future Fuhrer clean-shaven seems appropriate for this provocative story.

Of course this film is provocative; it should be. Reducing Hitler and the Nazis to being anti-Semitism misses the whole fascist dynamic of the struggle towards order that became the Cold War mentality. Meyjes takes the rather simplistic idea that if someone like Rothman had been a better patron to Hitler the artist that everything would have been different. But the script is so intelligent and the performances so compelling for the most part that we are willing to think along these lines at look at Hitler in a new light. This does not mean that we see him as being a better person, but rather than we better see him for what he was by considering how he became that way.

Rating:
Summary: The frustrated artist Hitler looks for his "authentic voice"
Review: A standard question concerning ethics asks if you could go back in a time machine and have the chance to kill Adolf Hitler as a baby, would you do it? Another "what if?" concerning Hitler has to do with his attempts to be an artist. Hitler's artwork is rather cold and uninspiring, but it seems reasonable to speculate that if he had been a better artist he would not have turned to politics and the 20th century would have been completely different.

Writer-director Menno Meyjes explores this idea in the 2002 film "Max," in which Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) is still living in military barracks in Munich as Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles and is trying to make a name as an artist. He shows his work to Max Rothman (John Cusack), a Jewish art dealer who lost an arm in the World War and who is consumed by the idea of the subversiveness of modern art. Hitler disparages such ideas, considering them "blood poisoning." Rothman and Hitler argue about art, both in terms of the futurist movement and Hitler's lack of an "authentic voice" in his own work.

Meanwhile, at the barracks of the decommissioned army, Hitler is folding laundry and being courted by Captain Mayr (Ulrich Thomsen), who is teaching a class on propaganda. Mayr is a historic figure and it is in his responses to Mayr and others in the barracks that Hitler is his most articulate and persuasive in dispensing his particular brand of venom.

The major fault I find in this film is that both the script and Taylor's performance play too quickly to the ranting Hitler. One of the great distortions of Hitler's legacy is that the black & white film footage of Hitler speaking comes from the climax of his speeches, when he has worked himself and his audience into frenzy. But Hitler always built to such a crescendo. He would show up late for speeches, making his audience wait in anticipation, and then stand there until the audience got quiet, and then would stand some more, building the drama. Then he would begin speaking softly, so that his audience strained to hear him. Hitler was a devastatingly effective public speaker and every time his oratory is reduced to rants and raves we have an incomplete and inadequate understanding of the monster.

What lies at the heart of the film is the idea that you either take the view that Hitler is a madman born in sulfur who wrecked havoc on the world or that he was a kind of hustler. Meyjes goes with the later view, presenting Hitler as a frustrated artist whose evil was rooted in that frustration and his inability to express himself. It is in his engagements with Rothman and Mayr that Hitler finds his "authentic voice," and comes to the fatal conclusion that politics will be his art and the German people his canvas.

"Max" ends the relationship between Rothman and Hitler on an ironic note, which is exactly what I expected. After all, by both his failure and his success with Hitler, Rothman is pushing Hitler towards the horrors of Nazi Germany, and his fate in the film symbolisms what is to come. Meyjes is not trying to tell a true story here; after all, Hitler had a handlebar mustache during this period after the war, but having Taylor play the future Fuhrer clean-shaven seems appropriate for this provocative story.

Of course this film is provocative; it should be. Reducing Hitler and the Nazis to being anti-Semitism misses the whole fascist dynamic of the struggle towards order that became the Cold War mentality. Meyjes takes the rather simplistic idea that if someone like Rothman had been a better patron to Hitler the artist that everything would have been different. But the script is so intelligent and the performances so compelling for the most part that we are willing to think along these lines at look at Hitler in a new light. This does not mean that we see him as being a better person, but rather than we better see him for what he was by considering how he became that way.

Rating:
Summary: Possibly the worst film ever made...
Review: As a serious student of European history I found this joke of a movie a horrendous waste of time as well as a highly offensive. That anyone could take this farce seriously--or worse, actually think that facts played any role in its production-- just goes to show you how much ignorance is out there. I'm just wondering who, if anyone, was in charge of research on this flop. Apparently they either a.) were illiterate or b.) couldn't be bothered to pick up a history book.

Like many history fans I was curious about this film and bought it before previewing its actual content. After struggling through it I brought it back to the store the next day and got my money back. There is nothing positive I can say about it. I'm just hoping that I can save someone else in my situation from wasting their time and money.

But seriously, for those few enlightened of you who are actually serious about historical truth, read August Kubizek's book if you haven't already. Don't waste your time with this nonsense. No one has the right to re-write history, although many idiots try, and this steaming pile of lies is just a more recent example.

"Vomitrocious" pretty much sums it up.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Film of 2002
Review: First impressions can be deadly. Promises broken can cause real pain. Watch what you say and do because you never know who's watching. As a mainline protestant I believe that man, while he may strive to be good is essentially evil. `The road to hell is paved with good intentions,' if you will. I believe jealousy, greed, and avarice are very much a part of the human condition and its only through the grace of God we are not lost.

I say this to illustrate a point. MAX is the story of two men, each on a quest to do something good. Each has a noble goal and yet both end up on a collision course with History. The first man is Max Rothchild (John Cusak, High Fidelity) a German Jew who has just returned from WWI missing an arm. He has settled back into his comfortable life of wealth and prosperity, with his beautiful wife (Molly Parker, Kissed) and his beautiful children. He has a mistress (Leelee Sobieski, My First Mister), and is a chain smoker. He probably drinks more than he should as well. He is also unable to do what he really loves, which is paint, so he does the next best thing. He becomes an art dealer. If he cannot create art why not discover the next great artist.

The other man is Adolph Hitler (Noah Taylor, Almost Famous) a German, who has returned from the war with nothing. He lives in the army barracks because he cannot afford a home for himself. He follows the rules and is straitlaced. He will not smoke. He does not drink (not even coffee) and he loves his country, a German all the way. But he does long to be a great artist.

One day these two men start a relationship. It is amicable if strained. Max takes Hitler under his wing. Trying to get him to open up and embrace his art. Hitler becomes fed up and is dragged away from his art by the army. They have given him the platform he's always wanted, and with this platform Hitler begins to rail against the Jews, and those that threaten the great country that is Germany. In the end this one man is forced to chose between art and power. Real history tells us what decision he made.

MAX is a fictional account of the early life of one of history's most evil men. But what I really liked about it is that it makes an attempt to get to heart of why people make the decisions that they do. Why did German nationalism lead to violence and genocide? Why do some people who are tested by pain survive and thrive, and others can be in the same place and become bitter? Why and what turned Hitler himself into a monster? Did he have a run in with a Jew that broke a promise or treated him like crud? All these questions come to mind and MAX tries to come to gripes with them.

What I also like about this movie is it has no hero, but allows you as the audience to be empathetic to these men. Maybe Hitler has a point. Maybe he has the right the feel put upon by the world. Why, when he plays by the rules, does he live in the gutter, while a fast talking, hard drinking, chain smoking, adulterer has a warm bed? It would make me mad too and doesn't jealousy make us do some pretty drastic things.

Writer/ first time Director Menno Meyjes (The Seige `Screenplay') has crafted a compelling and challenging story. The film makes a monster into a human being, not by praising him but by asking the one question we all ask, why? It doesn't begin to editorialize on what Hitler became, but presents us with a man who can make the right decision or walk down the wrong road. Of course we can never change the past, but we can try to find out where it all went wrong.

John Cusack does a marvelous job of painting the picture of a good guy with a great heart, but too many flaws. There is a great scene near the end of the film where his wife confronts him with his adultery. Max never once says he's sorry, and I don't think his wife expects him too. But she loves him too much to run away. Will Max change his ways, maybe?

Noah Taylor's Hitler has the perfect nuance. On one hand he's a bottled up ball of rage about to explode, on the other he's this wide-eyed dreamer looking for a shot. This is the hardest kind of part to play because the audience already comes in with the picture of what and who Hitler is, and not who he is at this moment. While he is an object of scorn, and rightly so. You can and must empathize with him, or the performance is lost. Taylor plays the right chords, and it works.

My favorite scene in the films comes as Hitler is giving a speech about the supremacy of the Aryan race and Germany in a local bar and nobody is paying attention to him. Except one kid. Later in the film Hitler is giving a similar speech to a room of about a hundred people and guess who's sitting there. That single kid has turned into hundreds. An idea, no matter how wrong and misguided, has power. It reminds me of those KKK rallies, they show on the local news. Sure hundreds show up to berate these people, but if one person hears and is mad at the world, they can be easily swayed. Makes you think, that maybe what we say and do can have an effect on the people around us.

MAX was my favorite film from last year and rightly so. It's bold, controversial, and asks a lot of questions, other films haven't. But mostly it's a human story about two men and their unlikely friendship. It's about striving to do what's right and it's about the power of art. It's about propaganda and politics--Hero's and madmen. MAX is a great film. ***** (Out of 5)

Rating:
Summary: A YOUNG MAD ADOLF HITLER
Review: In post World War I Germany, a young Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) returns from serving four years in the trenches and pursues his interest in painting. He soon meets Max Hoffman (John Cusack) who eventually agrees to put Adolf's paintings in one of his art shows. But soon Adolf has to face the fact that he is a failure as an artist and instead becomes a speaker for a radical group within the German army that blame the Jews for the economic depression of their country. The fact that Max is a Jew eventually leads to a drastic change in their friendship.

The performance of Noah Taylor as a young Adolf Hitler completely steals the show. He brilliantly captures Adolf's insanity and social awkwardness, especially while public speaking, right down to the detail of having bad teeth. It's enough to leave goosebumps on your arms.

Without Taylor's excellent protrayal of Adolf Hitler the rest of the cast of MAX suffers. He is the only reason why I gave this movie four stars. Although this movie was titled MAX, John Cusack failed to engage me. I am not sure of the historical accuracy of MAX except for the fact that the character of Max Hoffman is fictional so I cannot account on that. But otherwise MAX is a good movie, if simply to witness the brilliant performance of Noah Taylor.

Rating:
Summary: Max is really, really, really, really, good. Really good.
Review: Innaccurate? Give it a break! 'Tis a work of art, a labour of Bohemian love and one of the few films I've seen with the line 'Hitler, c'mon, I'll buy you a lemonade' in it. Plus o'course, it's fiction... It's been a while since I saw it at the cinema, but I'm fairly sure that none of the events portrayed happened- I have a GCSE in history to prove it- so let's sit back, enjoy, spook ourselves with Taylor's frightening performance, bask in the warm glow of Cusack's benevolence, and wallow in the sheer perfection of acting in general, atmosphere and attention to (purely fictional, mark me) detail.
My dad complains at ikkle details of films, and it spoils it for him. James says: let the few descrepancies they take with history pass, and enjoy this thought-provoking flight of fantasy, I mean, we all know Hitler couldn't paint- but if John Cusack told me he was my father, I'd believe him.

Rating:
Summary: From Third-Rate Artist to Monster
Review: It starts in Germany in 1918. The army has lost; peace is about to be signed. Max Rothman (John Cusack), who lost an arm fighting, has set up a gallery in an old factory. He features modernist painters and sculptors who are just starting to break through, painters like Max Ernst and George Grosz. Max is skeptical of all the fine words about war and peace. He's smart, amusing, married with two kids, and has a mistress. After what he's been through in the war and sees in Germany around him..."There's no future in the future," he says. His Germany now is full of rampant poverty and unemployment, tremors of Socialist revolution, casual anti-Semitism among the priviledged, and Jewish scapegoating among many others. Max is Jewish.

He meets by chance a fellow who desperately wants to be a great painter, a corporal still in the army who happpened to be in Max's army unit. The painter's name is Adolph Hitler (Noah Taylor). Hitler is angry, resentful, clammy, thoroughly unlikeable. His sketches are competent but not exceptional. Max thinks there might be something in Hitler's work if Hitler would dig deep enough to put on canvas what he feels, not just what he sees.

Well, it didn't turn out that way, of course. Hitler has a third-rate talent for art, but a first-rate talent for inflaming people with the oratory of hate, of anti-Semitism, of blaming Jews, homosexuals, "mongrels" and foreigners for Germany's defeat. Since we know what happens historically, the interest and tension in the movie arises in the pull between art and politics. Hitler is not portrayed as a monster, but as a creepy, thoroughly unsympathetic creature who discovers that "politics is the new art!"

Cusack and Taylor give very strong performances. I think Cusask is an exceptional actor, and I was glad to see that he's starting to show his age. The lines around the mouth, the puffiness under the eyes give him much more dramatic weight. Noah Taylor is little short of amazing. He captures the terrible frustrations of a third rate artist who believes he's first rate...but can't deliver the goods. His Hitler oratory is loathsome and fascinating. I couldn't place the guy until I went to IMDb. He played the adolescent David Helfgott in Shine, another virtuoso performance.

This is a serious movie with some ascerbic moments that takes its time establishing the characters and setting up the premise. The ending packs a punch. The movie is well worth seeing.

The DVD transfer is first-rate.