Max

Rating:
Summary: AN EERIE "WHAT IF" STORY!
Review: The film "Max" poses a serious question: What if a Jewish art seller tried to help Adolph Hitler down the road of art instead of politics? This question is answered with exceptional poignancy in this eerie "What if" tale about Max Rothman, who tries and fails to keep Hitler on the path of art. John Cusak gives an amazing performance as Max Rothman. Noah Taylor gives an exciting and dramatic portrayal of the dictator-to-be, although he falls short of Robert Carlyle's portrayal in the still-superior CBS Miniseries "Hitler - The Rise of Evil." Fine supporting cast, including the talented and extremely beautiful LeeLee Sobeeski (I might have mispelled her name). The DVD features commentary and interviews that are fine for the DVD release. Give this film a look. Movie/DVD Grade: A-

Rating:
Summary: Art + Politics = Power
Review: The movie follows the life of one Max Rothman, former Jewish artist who lost an arm in WW1, now art dealer who takes his job to heart. Wars and tribulations have cast realism in art aside forever - the tide has turned towards modernism, and Rothman exploits this new vein. During an exposition, he meets a fellow veteran, now struggling artist, named Adolph Hitler.

Hitler has technique down pat, but he cannot transpose his emotion on the canvas. As they gravitate around each other, Rothman and Hitler become aware of the stark similarities, but also differences, between them. Rothman is rich, Hitler is poor. Rothman is not racist, while Hitler is obsessed with race and blood and, like most of his countrymen, resents the Jews. Rothman believes in feelings, while Hitler ardently desires only one feeling beyond all - power. Rothman, despite having been in the army, did not like the experience, which he starkingly illustrates in a performance art piece that gives new meaning to the metaphorical expression "meat-grinder". While both resent the Versailles Treaty, only one of them is willing to use racism to rouse the masses against it.

This is, like most good movies, a movie of ideas before all, of words. One of the insights which Rothman gains is that words weave the world around us. And as politics becomes popularized and propaganda is developed, the minds of the population can be manipulated to support war. As the demagogue's sermon shouts out the Rabbi's sermon, the bloody reign of democracy marches on.

I am somewhat of an amateur of Hitler and all things Nazis (for the same reason that I am an amateur of Scientology : power relations are the ultimate test of human nature). For that reason, it was inevitable that I wouldn't *love* Max. After all, we are most critical of things we know. But I am still smart enough to recognize a good movie.

John Cusack can be counted on to play nuances, and Max is no exception. Noah Taylor makes the best of a character who is really pretty superficial and greedily ambitious, as the real Hitler was. The cinematographic tone is not really to my liking - it's as if they tried to be "modernist" too in some places. Also, the ending sucks eggs. They were going for the crowd-pleaser, in order to ensure that no one would accuse Max of trying to humanize Hitler (as if he was not a human being in the first place). Let's face it, they would say that anyway - no PC critic ever watched the movies he criticizes. In the end, I loved this movie, but its lack of courage bothers me greatly. I will probably rate it higher later on... for now, it is #20 on my top movies list, edging out Citizen Kane.

(written by Hitler) "Art + Politics = Power"

Rating:
Summary: It is worth seeing as a movie on art.
Review: The movie sector has used the Nazi-Jewish issue abundantly and is probably going to continue using it. I have seen many movies made regarding this issue some are good some are not. However this one is quite different. There is art in it, both in terms of subjest matter and in terms of the way it is made. I am not going to give the summary of it since the previous reviewers have done it successfully. I would like to start with the technicalities of the movie. The imagery is beautiful, the angles, composition and the colors are incredible and since this movie is about artists in some ways, the picture definitely represents its subject matter. Especially in one of the final scenes where Max is beaten lying in the ground the bird's eye view of the plaza and the buildings around it is a remarkable frame.
Acting-wise John Cusack has done a great job as usual, he definitely has his own style which makes every role of his a pleasure to watch and Noah Taylor plays an excellent young Hitler.

I particularly enjoyed this film as a movie on art, the discussions of what is art and what is not represent the basic premise of the discussions of centuries. And in addition to that "what could have been?"

Rating:
Summary: Adolf Hitler, or A Portrai of the Artist as a Young Man
Review: This enigmatic film title "Max" can be switched into "Adolf When He Was Young." The film is about a then failed young artist Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) and a fictional art dealer Max Rothman (John Cusack). Before he led the whole nation to another violent war, Hitler was trying to make it as a painter, but he failed in the entrance exams for the art school. Now, the film gives a question -- What if he saw his life in a different way?

"Max" is set in 1918 in Munich, Germany. The post-war nation was suffering from the poverty and unemployment, and the distinction between those who have and those don't was too clear. It was the time of unrest for them, for many of the Germans considered their country was humiliated by unjust treaties. They are defeated, but still defiant.

Max Rothman is among the rich, dealing with avand-gard arts in the deserted factory. One day, he meets a struggling artist (so he thinks) Adolf Hilter at the backdoor of the building. He realizes that Hitler served in the previous war (Max lost one of his arms because of the war), and Max takes a pity on this miserably-clad small guy.

Then Hitler comes to him with his sketches, which Max thinks lacks the artist's inner voice. But we know Adolf was the son of the era, when everything was bleak and empty. And while Max encourages to find his own voice in the art, Adolf, constantly dissatisfied and angry, finds it in another quarter -- political speech.

The rest is history, as people say, and how the film ends does not matter. We know the outcome from the first. Still the film poses a question that is worth considering -- "Can he be anything else?" -- and more importantly, perhaps, "How could this small man with squeaking voice could move the whole nation in the tragic way?"

Molly Parker ("Kissed") appears as Max's wife, and Leelee Sobeski as his mistress. But their roles are not as big as the two leads, to whom "Max" belong exclusively.

Noah Tayler did an astounding job, making Hitler not a monster but someone who could have been different. He gives Hitler's slightly cartoonish images when we jeer at him, a deep meaning of its own -- frail, nervous, and eccentric -- all belong to the trait of some artists. But behind that pose of his self-importance, we see something very destructive.

Don't see the film for the story. See that as a character study against the background of the nihilistic world of the 1918 Germany. The photography (which reminds me of somber Eastern Europe films) capturing the grey city has its own power, like watching the hanging clouds before the rain. The cameraman Lajos Koltai's picture (actually set in Budapest) is itself a piece of art.

"Max" shows too many dialogues, and perhaps too introspective sometimes. But the film deserves our watching, and the theme is worth our considering. No wonder John Cusack did it without receiving money.

Rating:
Summary: Too much fiction, not enough fact
Review: This film would've carried more power if it had not used a "cut-up" of different art dealers and patched them into the fictional character of Max Rothman. The narrative is choppy as is the acting, but Noah Taylor's performance gives a reason to see this film. Taylor's portrayal, although a bit over the top at times, does create a humanity for Hitler that has never been attempted for and so a reason to see this film. It is an interesting film to be made at this time, in the midst of surging nationalism in the U.S. and the might-makes-right mindset of U.S. leaders.

Rating:
Summary: Portrait of the Hitler as a Young Artist
Review: This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen, excluding movies with words like "bikini" and "car wash" in the titles (that is, movies which aren't trying to be good). Yes, it explores the connection between power and aesthetics... but not in an interesting or entertaining way. John Cusack's acting was absolutely horrible as this role is clearly far too ambitious for his limited range. Don't get me wrong--I loved him in "High Fidelity," but he stunk up this film something awful. It takes what might conceivably be an interesting premise--that Hitler was, at heart, a frustrated artist who turned evil after he couldn't succeed at art but integrated art and aesthetic considerations into his rhetoric and other aspects of the reich--and makes it funnier and more ridiculous than any post-Dana Carvey-era SNL sketch. Everything about the film was unconvincing, from the young Hitler, to Cusack's missing arm... I was absolutely shocked to see the number of positive reviews this film had gotten. AVOID this movie. It is just bad, bad, bad. Take a cue from the fact that they are being sold used for under four dollars... SUCKS! See other reviews for discussions of historical inaccuracies.

Rating:
Summary: The monster
Review: This is a great movie that gets people thinking about how an evil dictator such as Adolph Hitler came into being by examining his younger days as an artist in Viena during the forming of the Nazi party. As a european "history" "student" pointed out in a previouse review it is not historically accurate. But movies are art, and unlike history which is always written from a point of bias or blandly with dull facts, they get people to think creatively and come to their own understandings.

To me the conflict is between Hitler's love of art which hinders him because he is simply not able to let go and create any piece of work. He is rigid, cold, logical, and a perfectionist when he attempts to create art and is unable to express himself, which many artists may have exerienced at on time or another. I produce music and sometimes I think too much about what the song I'm writing is accomplishing or going to accomplish rather than just writing it, and to Hitler every piece of art should have meaning and be better in technique than previous works of art. So Hitler, who is acted well by Noah Taylor, can't seem to release his feelings on a canvas. He finds his niche that allows him to vent his feeling of frustration and anger and starts doing horrendously rousing political speeches for a group affiliated with the army where he yells rants and raves like an unsuccessful artist would rant against the glamorous pop culture we have.

This is a great movie for those who like dark movies that deal with psychological reasons as to why someone is or would become a social outcast or a bad seed. If you liked "Taxi Driver" then you'll enjoy this movie.

Rating:
Summary: What Could Have Been
Review: This is an interesting flick about what could have been. A young Adolph Hitler, juts out of the trenches, struggles to find himself through art and politics. Just when he finally seems to have found himself a break as an artist, other factors/coincidences come into play to eventually disuade him from painting.

The relationship between the cocky Rothmann, who really tries to help Hitler succeed, and the angry, insecure Hitler was done extremely well. This is almost a five star film, but Cusack's acting seemed plastic, which detracted from the overall potentially powerful impact that this film should have on its viewers. Still, it's one of those that will no doubt linger on in my mind for some time.

Rating:
Summary: CusackCult.Com on MAX
Review: This is one of those "great pieces of art" that Cusack says he wants to do. This one is done very well.

My opinion of the viewing public, though, is that mostly it doesn't want to think this hard during a movie and particularly doesn't choose to understand the face of evil. (We might recognize it . . .)

Briefly we enter a movie cocoon. The one created for us. We want to be swept away, titillated, made to laugh, or cry, but not to think.

It (the public) wants to look at the evening news, see evil doers in other places in the world and then be able to turn off the set.

Max keeps it playing in your head.

I never heard of this film before I began my quest for all things Cusack . . . I know my life is limited to those things I allow in, and so I miss things . . . Sorry.

I bought Max last night because it was the next Cusack film I could find. It is dark and complicated and very POWERFUL. They never treat the subject matter lightly in this flick. It is meant, I think, to make you understand the descent into madness that comes with the urge to create. . . and how that madness can morph the creative, taking the person who owns it with them to anther place. (Sort of a scary concept considering my own drive to get a screenplay filmed.)

With Hitler there was the strange blend of politics as art . . . perhaps there is this with other politicians, too.

Perhaps politics is their art, when we think it is their vocation. And we would be part of their creation process, wouldn't we? As Max Rothman hoped to be part of Hitler's.

Rating:
Summary: Don't criticize art!
Review: This movie tells a story of Hitler becoming the great [...] leader because his frustrated attempts at being an artist were criticized by a Jewish art dealer.

I'd say this movie [...], but I am afraid it could spawn genocide.

Considering that possibility, I rate this movie highly!