Max (I) (2002) User Reviews

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Ogre

[lawprof · 7/10 · 2 January 2003]

Not very long ago several art historians sought an American publisher for a catalogue of paintings by Adolf Hitler that had survived the Gotterdamerung in the Berlin bunker and the acquisitive hordes of Russian occupiers, perhaps the greatest conquering locusts of modern times. No one would publish the book and several reasons were proffered. The most interesting was that it would be virtually obscene to examine a human side of the twentieth century's greatest monster (Stalin ranks up there too but this isn't the place for that digression).

Why shouldn't every aspect of Hitler's life be open for examination, including his paintings? Hitler was a human being: his younger years and his attempts to become an artist are part of the probably ultimately impenetrable mystery about his development. Let's study everything about him.

Director/Writer Menno Meyjes's "Max" brings the battle-scarred, thirty-year-old Austrian, Adolf Hitler, to turbulent 1918 Munich where he seeks to make sense of the battered city and country while pursuing his dream (fantasy, actually) of becoming a respected and original artist. So much of the film is true. The corporal, still in the army, largely but not exclusively painted the detailed but uninspired and flat urban scenes bought by tourists. Meyjes also has Hitler drawing his ideas about what would later be National Socialist iconography, a reflection of his increasing obsession witn politics..

"Max", a fictional character, is a womanizing, married art dealer. Max Rothman, like Hitler is a former soldier. Rothman literally gave his right arm for "Kaiser und Vaterland," but he seems to accept his sacrifice without deep bitterness. John Cusack as Rothman, the avatar of an emerging German Expressionism, is excellent as he enjoys his pre-Bauhaus mansion while seeking every opportunity to steal away from his lovely and devoted wife, Nina (well-played by Molly Parker) to exercise his libido with his mistress, Liselore (a sultry and cultured young woman whose spirit is captured by Leelee Sobieski).

Hitler shows up delivering a case of bubbly for a Rothman gallery soiree and a conversation begins a weird friendship. Max wants Hitler to be a better artist which in his view is synonymous with being a better man. What a project! Noah Taylor is intense, on fire, as the future fuehrer. Can this bantering Odd Couple seem real when we know what the future holds for Hitler and for Jewish families like the Rothmans who, both in this film and to a large degree in the Germany of the Versailles Treaty, had no inkling that anti-Semitism was being stoked and would emerge rampant before very long? Would we never have heard of the monster Hitler had he been accorded respect (and money) as a painter? That's the film's truly superficial question. Hitler's life wasn't that reductionist.

My answer is that this film should be absorbed as a bifurcated experience. As drama, the acting is compelling. The direction is strong and one scene in which Hitler's rants are rapidly alternated with a Jewish service is blindingly powerful. As German veterans decry a military defeat and the "Stab in the Back" theory begins its awful climb to a national excuse for losing the war the Rothmans, their children and extended family, seem to enjoy a barely inconvenienced life of sumptuousness. The story works well at that level.

Where it fails is that the projected Hitler-Rothman relationship lacks the depth some have found. More than a few critics have suggested that Meyjes sends a message about blindness because Max can't see the anti-Semitic screeching of Hitler as an adumbration of Germany's future. The real reason Max doesn't take Hitler all that seriously is that he himself isn't a very serious fellow except when he tries to sell art and pursue parallel but antagonistic romantic relationships.

How would a Max Rothman have divined the potential of a miserable, hungry corporal in a city where such fellows were common and where they constituted a public menace as the fear of communists and the shakiness of a wrecked economy brought disorder? Impossible. (A prologue title mentions that 100,000 Jews served in the German Army in World War I. My father was one of them and I recall his recollection of disarming warring, urban civilians and quasi-military bands after the Armistice.)

So Max puts his arm around Hitler, offers to buy him lemonade and tells him he isn't an easy guy to like. That brought one of the few guffaws in the theater today. It's not revelatory cinema, it's silly and superficial. The weakest parts of the film are when Max tries to be a pal to his new find.

Charlie Chaplin had Hitler's number and his impersonation of the by-then Nazi leader is an indelible screen classic, a work of acting genius. Noah Parker's younger Hitler is intense and mesmerizing. I wonder if an Oscar nomination can go to an actor portraying one of the most evil characters in all history, one whose mark leaves deep scars in many living today. I have my doubts. We'll see.

Original, different, flawed, often fascinating, in parts a bit foolish.

7/10.

There is no future in the future

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 7 February 2003]

Greetings again from the darkness. What a phenomenal script! Dealing with the absolute most controversial subject possible, Menno Meyjes (writer and director), provides a fascinating look at the early years of history's most despised figure. "What if" Hitler's art had won over his politics? So much of history would have changed, one can only imagine. As a matter of fact, how about a script showing what could have been? This one teases us with the fork in the road. Noah Taylor is absolutely chilling as a frustrated Hitler, just back form WWI and struggling to find his place in a crippled Germany. John Cusack, as art dealer Max Rothman, is tremendous in what is truly his first role as an adult (no wise-ass or chick flick here). Comparing the two and how they deal with post-war syndrome is enthralling. So similar, yet so different. I doubt this film gets made without Cusack and I doubt it will find much of an audience due to the fear of many to this day to even entertain the thought of Hitler as a human being. Trust me, this is not a sympathetic view of Hitler, merely a glimpse into his formation. Molly Parker has a nice turn as Cusack's wife. Where has she been? More than 20 film credits and I don't recognize her! It is always a pleasure to see Leelee Sobieski ("Joy Ride") although she has very little to do in this one. Wonderful script, mediocre direction and two fabulous performances make this one worth seeing ... although, sadly, very few will.

Max is a speculative story about Hitler and a Munich art dealer.

[holmest-2 · 5/10 · 20 November 2006]

Max has good acting, and some interesting ideas. But it is a mediocre film that is full of historical flaws. Namely, in 1918, Hitler was already working for the Abwehr in the role of political agitator, and anti-Marxist. As far as it is known, Hitler never pursued his interest in painting in a practical sense after the first world war, although Hitler always had a verbal opinion on the matter. (This is where I give the film kudos for at least giving us a hint at Hitler's artistic vision.) Another flaw, unless of course it was purposely contrived by the film's director, presents Hitler as a pathetic loner, shouting at disinterested war veterans and German civilians. The opposite is true. Hitler captivated his audiences from the start with his oratory. Also, Hitler was never intimidated by women, in fact women were among the basis of his popularity and entrance into the powerful circles of Munich society. Hitler was a man of willpower, I doubt that a Munich art dealer, or anyone else for that matter, could have successfully dissuaded Hitler from his self-appointed destiny.

A Profound Film

[danmcn61 · 25 March 2004]

I thought this movie was quite profound, and heartbreaking. I thought the filmmaker was obviously trying to make the point that if only Hitler had achieved some success as an artist, and had at least one true friend who he could bond with (esp. if that friend was a Jew)then the events of the 20th century would have been far different. The scene where Max tries to get Hitler laid was incredibly funny and sad at the same time. One can't help but think, this pathetic loser is destined to rule Europe in 20 years?

The film also proposes that perhaps the whole thing (siezing power, the war, the holocaust, ...) was just an elaborate art project for Hitler and nothing else. This may be preposterous, but I give the director credit for at least trying to say something so potentially controversial. Clearly the events of post WW1 Germany were far more complicated than are expressed in this film, and clearly Hitler as a young man was far more twisted and ambitious than the character portrayed here, but nevertheless I think this film was brilliant.

Politics is the new art!

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 7/10 · 24 April 2014]

A chance meeting. A relationship develops, and the art dealer Max Rothman (John Cusack) tries to direct the rage of Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) into painting.

Would things have turned out differently? Is it possible to see the humanity of Hitler, knowing what we know? An interesting premise for a film, but can we put aside our feelings and consider the possibilities?

Hitler was an ascetic. He didn't smoke, drink, or fool around. How could he find emotion to put into art, when he hasn't lived? He was caught up in the injustice of winners and losers, and wallowing in self-pity, looking for someone to blame.

Rothman was playing against the Army, who were looking to stoke the same anger in Hitler. They wanted another war after the shame of Versailles.

Hitler managed to put the two together and create a new art - politics. He found his scapegoat in the Jew. The irony of the ending was incredible.

Takes some liberties with history, but a very good idea, and a necessary film

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 13 June 2005]

Why this film is so seldom mentioned and so often put down is surprising, when you consider how well-made it actually is... but I suppose the explanation lies in the controversy of it, and peoples' inability to accept an idea so unheard of as true. The idea in this case is that Adolf Hitler was not born the Antichrist, but shaped by the world around him. As several other reviewers mention, this film and the ideas it presents as well as the character study of a young Hitler is long overdue. The film revolves around Hitler, who recently returned from war(WWI) and his relationship with Max Rothman, a Jewish art dealer. Rothman senses much talent and promise in Hitler, and encourages him to follow up on painting. Hitler, frustrated with an inability to create anything, and a talent for public speaking leans more towards a political career. I guess we all know how it ends... but the story itself is still interesting, even though we basically know the ending. I don't know how authentic this film is, but I do know that it takes some liberties with history. That doesn't bother me. The important thing is the core of it, and whether or not it has some interesting ideas to offer. And I think it does. Most definitely. All the well-known(and some lesser known) traits of Hitler's personality are there. One could argue that the Jews in the film are somewhat stereotypically presented, but it's about the environment as well as the characters. The reason Hitler had such ease with blaming the Jews for Germany's problems, the reason he could turn an entire nation against them was that was how people saw them. If we didn't understand that, if we didn't get a clear image of that, the film would be worthless. The acting was very good; Noah Taylor pretty much becomes Adolf Hitler. I don't care what you say, I felt his frustration and outrage; he made me feel for this man, recognize him as a fellow human being, despite how much time so many people have spent trying to make him appear as some inhumane monster. He was a terrible man, yes... but he was a man. A despicable human being... but still a human being. John Cusack brings a fire to his character that pretty much carries the film. The direction was quite impressive for a first time effort; the writer/director showed great promise, and I hope he will make more films like this. We definitely need them. I recommend this to anyone interested in the subject who isn't put off by a fairly loose approach to history. 7/10

John Cusack scores a tour de force in his role as Max

[rdschaffer · 7/10 · 25 August 2005]

An interesting premise. A beautifully shot film. The modern decor of the Rothman home is quite special. I wasn't quite sure where the film was going, but when it ended, I was satisfied with the abruptness. The young man who played Hitler seemed particularly unattractive, but nonetheless fascinating. This is a thoughtful film and could lead to an interesting post-viewing discussion. The juxtaposition of post WWI poverty with the wealth of the better-situated is striking. The constant smoking of Cusack annoyed me (for I, like Hitler, detested a smoker). The director, who also scripted the film, makes wonderful use of long shots and dramatic pauses . . . silence. Hitler's furious frustration with himself is unnerving. There are many levels of abstraction in this film which make it something more than just a story. It's certainly a study of moral behavior functioning and malfunctioning.

Sympathy For the Devil?

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 30 March 2004]

Well it's easy enough to make out the general idea behind this movie. Every German soldier returns from World War I (that's the one that started in 1914 and ended in 1918, kids. PS: We won.) embittered and humiliated. When you're so distressed there are a couple of things you can do about it. This movie narrows the choices down to two -- politics and art. (Freud called this "sublimation." That'll be fifteen cents.)

Hitler, Noah Taylor, has got his head and other body parts caught in a vice caused by these two more or less conflicting tendencies. He's not especially interested in politics, although he's cajoled by the most Aryan-looking ex-Army captain imaginable. He IS interested in art, but alas his muse eludes him. He forms a quasi-friendship with Max Rothman, the nationalized Jew who has lost an arm in the trenches and has returned home to a warm family and a warm mistress and enough resources to start an art market, featuring folks like Ernst and Klimt and Grosz. It's a little hard to come by Hitler's paintings in the real world. I think I saw a copy of one, once, and it wasn't that bad. The two or three examples we glimpse in this film are what Rothman calls "futuristic kitsch." There's, for instance, a dog's head, a kind of retriever it looks like, that resembles something that ought to be divided into geometric patches with numbers inside them, representing the number of the paint you use to fill up the patch. There's an eagle's head too, and a couple of ugly buildings and sketches of uniform details and a nascent Hackenkreutz. (Come to think of it, I'm not so sure it's that much worse than the cubistic puzzles that Rothman seems so fond of.) Hitler -- had Rothman just concentrated on his commercial possibilities instead of urging him to "let himself go" -- might have succeeded as an artist. Look at What's His Name -- Hugg's? -- tigers. Or Leroy Nieman. Or those tempera paintings of sailing ships found on the walls of thousands of better motels.

John Cusack has an easy role, the nice easy-going generous somewhat condescending artistic type. He deeply regrets the loss of his arm because he himself wanted to be a painter, not a merchant. But he has the strength, or let's say the resources, not to let his loss overwhelm him. The resources include a loving, understanding, and sophisticated wife played by Molly Parker. She's enough to make anybody forget about an arm. What a magnetic actress -- not exactly beautiful, her face is a bit long, but she sparkles with intelligence and something more, that suggests an understanding of things not immediately apparent in the film we're watching.

She can dance too. The toughest role is Noah Taylor's as Hitler and he's superb. First of all, he looks the part, small and unprepossessing, tousled and scowling. (He never laughs or smiles and seems to have no sense of humor.) Second, his body language would be hard to improve upon. He seems to always have his arms folded awkwardly across his stomach as if to keep the rest of the world at a distance. He doesn't smoke, drink, or eat meat. (God, he's a modern!) And he doesn't let women touch him. Third, his expressions are hard at work for him. He glares when he looks at something.

And his breakdown when faced with a canvas that is blank except for one tiny black spot he's put on it -- representing his deeper self -- is pitiful and, we sense, tragic in the end, not only for him but for the world. Maybe the most pathetic scene in the movie is in the art gallery when Rothman tries to explain to him that the world is changing and demands new myths, new approaches to painting, new everythings. And Hitler gloomily points out that he came back from the war with nothing -- none of Rothman's advantages -- except for a belief in traditional values and a veneration of Teutonic history, and now Rothman is trying to take that away from him. Hitler was right about one thing, when he shouts that he is the avant guard, that politics is the new art. He was more right than he could have imagined.

The last shot is devastatingly ironic. On one side of a wall, Rothman lies bleeding and dying from a beating given to him by a horde of goons just stirred up by one of Hitler's speeches, while on the other side of the wall Hitler marches along, head down, his portfolio under his arm, enraged that Rothman didn't show up for the appointment that was to promote Hitler's art.

The dialogue is mostly of the "newly translated" kind. "One doesn't like to think of such things." A couple of anachronisms creep in. "Newness does it for me." But, that aside, this is a well-done movie, worth watching, brimming with irony and a couple of very good performances.

Brilliant, totally non-offensive treatment of difficult subject

[Art Snob · 8/10 · 26 September 2002]

Sight unseen, the Jewish Defense League has urged Lions Gate Films to shelve this movie, due to its radical notion that Adolf Hitler was shaped by the world around him rather than being born the Antichrist. Specifically, the JDL protests that there is nothing "human about the most vicious, vile murderer in world history." As a person of Jewish extraction who has seen the movie (at the 2002 Toronto Film Festival), I would take exception to this stance and urge Lions Gate to proceed as planned. This film is a brilliant, engrossing, thought-provoking work that does Hitler no favors and sheds light on the real-world forces afoot in post WWI Munich that only could have nurtured his worst beliefs and talents.

Dutch-born Director Menno Meyjes has shown an affinity for tough ethnic and cultural clash themes in his career as a screenwriter (THE COLOR PURPLE, EMPIRE OF THE SUN and THE SIEGE are among his credits). But here, in his first chance to direct his own writing, he's come up with what's certainly his most fully realized work to-date. Eschewing simplistic notions, he weaves a fascinating story that deals at length with the career as a painter that Hitler is known to have unsuccessfully pursued at one time.

The title character of the film is a fictional (but based on a composite of real-life characters) Jewish German WWI vet named Max Rothman. He's lost one of his arms in battle, but is able to return to a much better situation than the average German vet: a loving wife and family, a gorgeous mistress, and family wealth that enables him to start an art gallery that prospers dealing in modern expressionist works. Hitler, by contrast, returns to pretty much nothing, and at age 30 is desperate to finally make the grade as a commercial artist.

Sensing that Hitler has a passion that there could be a market for if only he could find some way to get it out onto canvas, Max encourages him to experiment with schools of painting that seem a better fit for his temperament than the traditional ones he's decided to limit himself to. Unfortunately, Hitler's real artistic gift seems to be for a then-new form of performance art known as `propaganda,' and his Aryan war pals provide him with support for pursuing this field while simultaneously fanning his smoldering anti-Semitic sentiments.

Noah Taylor - who many feel got robbed of an Oscar nomination for his role as the young David Helfgott in SHINE - is mesmerizing in the Hitler role. Even made up to look gaunt, pallid, and thoroughly unappealing (although not freakish), you still can't take your eyes off of him. With body language, countenance, and tone of voice, he's able to suggest a raging intensity lurking just below the surface of his character's socially awkward loner exterior. Taylor still won't come up with any awards recognition for this role (it's WAY too hot a potato), but that doesn't change the fact that he's brilliantly conquered a daunting acting challenge.

John Cusack, in a welcome change from the light roles he's been playing lately, is also excellent as the title character, skillfully portraying a worldly businessman who's too focused on artistic images to ever notice the big picture. The subject matter allows near-zero latitude for levity, but SOME mirth is needed to keep the proceedings from becoming unrelentingly grim. Meyjes ingenious solution to this quandary is wry comments on art and (especially) the business of art by Max - a perfect fit for Cusack's deadpan delivery.

Even though you KNOW which career path Hitler is ultimately going down, the equilibrium between the forces pulling him in both directions and the incredible `what might have been' fascination factor keep you thoroughly transfixed throughout the film's near-2-hour running time. NOBODY in the huge auditorium where I saw the film got up or stirred from the opening scene through to the supremely ironic ending - not even to answer the call of nature. MAX is sure not `the feel-good film of the year,' but if you've been longing for a powerful, all-encompassing drama that doesn't require you to check your brain at the door, this is the film you've been waiting for.

a cautionary tale...

[kurtmhoward · 7/10 · 25 October 2010]

I just stumbled upon this film on HBO and must admit that I was taken a bit aback at first, seeing a portrayal of Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) as a post-WWI struggling artist and his relationship with a (Jewish!) art dealer (John Cusack). It's difficult for most of us to separate the monster from the strange, brooding and maladjusted but also rather bright human being who would become that monster. But I found myself rather absorbed. There are plenty of 'liberties' taken with actual history, but it IS a film after all...

Rothman's anti-war 'performance art' piece with the meat grinder was brilliant I thought, and the roiling art scene of post-war Germany (Dada and Surrealism were just getting off the ground) was portrayed pretty well. John Cusack is very good as usual, and Noah Taylor's performance as the mediocre artist turning politician is riveting... and disturbing.

I agree with Dr. Aaron's comments... As I said, there are some inaccuracies, but I applaud the effort. It took some guts to make this film. People should watch it, as there are some parallels with our current time that should be carefully... noted. You know what they say about those who forget history...

Wow! A NEW LOW in film-making

[inframan · 1/10 · 6 October 2005]

This movie is not to be believed. Where to start? It has its art history wrong. It has its politics wrong. It has its psychology wrong.

It even has its idiom wrong. An intellectual German in 1918 saying "I gave at the office" (referring sarcastically to his amputated arm) or "Listen Hitler, the train has left the station" sounds more like John Cusack doing his Grifters shtick and his art dealer character keeps calling everything "Kitsch" which is a totally 1980s New York decorator expression.

Noah Taylor, the actor playing young Hitler, looks like Iggy Pop doing David Bowie or vice versa. In some scenes he sports a germanic accent. In others, such as Hitler's first public speech (one of the few incidents in this travesty to be based on a true event) he turns into a limey. Great. Many waiters I've met feel they are born actors. Mr. Taylor was definitely born to be a waiter.

The greatest travesty has to be Rothman telling Hitler that he must learn to put his feelings on canvas, like Max Ernst does. Good grief! Max Ernst's genius reduced to psychobabble.

0 out of 10 *s.

Excellent for the art-house crowd, too deep for the popcorn crowd

[vestabrigit · 9/10 · 6 March 2005]

The tag line, "Art + Politics = Power," should give people some idea of the gravity of the film. This role may have been the Oscar that slipped through Cusack's hands due to the controversy surrounding the release. The sad part is, it was started by people who had not even seen the film, and when they had seen it, they retracted their statements. The movie was very well-executed and tasteful, and it was refreshing to see Cusack lose himself in a character. He does well with complexity, and it shows here.

Noah Taylor made a particularly realistic (and as a result particularly unsettling) performance as Hitler. Definitely see this film and don't expect blockbuster two-dimensional acting and predictable plot twists. Watch with a glass of wine and a group of friends who will explore the aspects and finer points with you. It's a conversational piece if nothing else, but one that will leave you on a tangent of what-ifs for quite some time.

Fictitious story about the relationship between a Jewish art dealer and a young Adolf Hitler

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 28 May 2013]

An interesting film studying the depiction of a friendship between an avant-garde art dealer named Rothman and his pupil , Adolf Hitler , a corporal veteran war . The picture has an attractive premise and is partially based on historical deeds , though many of them are imaginary . At the close of the First World War, Germany enters into the new Weimar Republic following the collapse of the Kaiser's Imperial Reich. In 1918 , Hitler (Noah Taylor) is an ambitious but starving young ; the embittered war veteran lives in Munich and wandering across the streets . Adolf is befriended by Max Rothman (John Cusack , to help get this controversial movie financed, he took no salary for acting in the lead role) , a Jewish art dealer and fellow veteran war who has just opened his own modernism gallery . Max , who lost an arm during World War , is happily married (to Molly Parker) but also has a lover (Leelee Sobieski) . Hitler's paintings are kitsch but Max encourages him anyway and shrugs of his rantings , which draw more attention from fellow Army officer Mayr (Ulrich Thomsen) . Hitler starts studying the art of public speaking and Mayr believes Hitler would make a good political spokesman, the latter was proved right .

Rothman well played by John Cusack is a fictional role ; however , Mayr perfectly performed by Ulrich Thomsen is not . Of course Adolf Hitler character is well described , being rightly interpreted by Noah Taylor , though sometimes overacting ; in fact , Hitler was an actual failure painter , who unfortunately failed in this activity and dedicated to politics . The film is pretty good though flawed , overlong and a little boring , including excessive dialog and speeches . The motion picture was professionally written and directed by Menno Meyjes . Writer/director reports that before the script was written, Steven Spielberg's Amblin company was interested in the project ; but Spielberg told Meyjes he couldn't bring himself to help make a movie he thought would dishonor Holocaust survivors. Nevertheless, he considered the script an excellent one and encouraged the director to push for its realization, but without Amblin.

The picture based on some true facts , these are the followings : At the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was a resident of Munich and volunteered to serve in the Bavarian Army as an Austrian citizen. Posted to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 , he served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium, spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines.He was present at the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele, and was wounded at the Somme.During his service at the headquarters, Hitler pursued his artwork, drawing cartoons and instructions for an army newspaper. Hitler became embittered over the collapse of the war effort, and his ideological development began to firmly take shape. He described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery. The experience reinforced his passionate German patriotism and he was shocked by Germany's capitulation in 1918 . The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany must relinquish several of its territories and demilitarise the Rhineland. The treaty imposed economic sanctions and levied heavy reparations on the country. Many Germans perceived the treaty which declared Germany responsible for the war as a humiliation.The Versailles Treaty and the economic, social, and political condit ions in Germany after the war were later exploited by Hitler for political gains .

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 5/10 · 3 September 2005]

A film with a fascinating premise of a Jewish art dealer befriending a painter in post-World War I Munich called Adolf Hitler, such an idea is nevertheless the extent of where the material peaks. Inevitably, the idea brings with it a few scenes and some dialogue that are thought-provoking, but the overall effect does not leave a strong impression. Noah Taylor has a number of interesting moments as Hitler, but then again, it often feels like he is slipping into caricature. The really big question though is why make a movie about Max, when he is totally devoid of interest? Noah Taylor has the most interesting element of the film in his possession, however he pretty much is sidelined during the course of the film. The film being fictitious is no help to grasping one's attention, and there are a few sound recording problems, with the background noises and speech recorded at the same level, but there are other more important issues preventing it from being what it potentially could have been. The film has interesting elements either way, but it is not quite as fascinating to watch as it is to think about the premise.

not bad, but misunderstood

[dr_saaron · 6 January 2004]

Overall, I would say the film wasn't bad. Full marks for embracing the radical concept that Hitler was a human being.

Reading many of the comments posted here, I would say that the film has been somewhat misunderstood. Understandably, the viewers focus on the portrayal of Hitler. But the film is titled "Max", not "Adolf." Max, the art dealer, is the focal character of the story, not Hitler. I think that the film shows the blindness of so many Germans in the interwar years, people who saw what they wanted to see in Hitler and ignored the rest. Max saw Hitler as an amusing ex-soldier artist and futurist, and brushed off the ideology underlying his futurist visions. Max is emblematic of an army that saw his desire to rearm and ignored the ideology that would strip the army of its historic identity, of business owners who saw his committment to controling labor but ignored the ideology which would also put a stranglehold on business, of ordinary Germans who saw a strong leader to deal with their country's problems but ignored his desire for war and conquest. As recently pointed out in Woody Allen's "Anything Else", there were German Jews who supported Hitler, because they saw a strong leader. To me, "Max" is the story of the blindness that overcame so many Germans, blindness that paved the way for Hitler's rise to power.

I've read in a few comments that Hitler claims, in the film, to have not been anti-Semitic. That is not correct. Rather, as he says in the barracks, he opposes "emotional" anti-Semitism. In his mind, anti-Semitism should be based on "scientific" fact rather than raw emotions. To him, it is a self-evident truth arrived at logically by observing the Jews and their ways. This is historically correct. His big anti-Semitic speech at the end of the film is taken straight out of Mein Kampf, and shows this approach.

An optimistic attempt

[Chris_Docker · 6/10 · 2 July 2003]

The question of any human aspect of Adolf Hitler (as opposed to a simple demonized portrayal) is a difficult and controversial one, and Max is to be applauded for making a serious attempt. Sadly, its success does not go much beyond scratching the surface or paving the way for a better film along similar lines. Max Rothman (played by John Cusack) is a well to do art dealer (and Jew) who befriends an embittered young artist called Adolf Hitler. Even given that the general outcome of the story will be well-known, the film lacks any feeling of authenticity (the mixture of British and American accents and mannerisms hardly convince us we are in 1920s Germany) and, although there is some intellectual appeal in the cursory examination of the relationship between art and politics, there is nothing to allow us to leave the cinema feeling satisfied. 'Max' needed an experienced director who could bring the story, period and characters alive rather than simply intone them on celluloid, and perhaps a scriptwriter who could more eloquently engage us on the merits and flaws of philosophers of the time such as Nitschke as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the popular 'pure blood' ideas that are apparent in Aryanism but also in Jewish culture. The film attempts to move beyond the simplistic portrayals of the evils of Hitler and the martyr-glory of the Jews, but it fails to supply a rigorous analysis of the roots of anti-Semitism or to realistically explain the appeal and success of the Nazi movement. Worst of all, the film ends just as we might be vainly hoping that it would live up to its promises.

Fictional look at Hitler as a young man

[rosscinema · 6/10 · 3 March 2004]

This is a story that basically asks what if Hitler had decided to pursue his ambitions to be an artist instead of world politics? An interesting premise that ends up with lukewarm results despite the earnest performances from it's lead actors. Story takes place in the following years after the first world war in Munich where Max Rothman (John Cusack) runs an art gallery. Rothman is half Jewish and fought in the war where he lost an arm that ended his dreams of becoming an artist himself. One night during one of his art shows he meets a delivery man named Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) and the two of them discover their history together in the war. Hitler mentions his drawings and is encouraged to bring them by to be looked at. During the next few weeks Rothman finds Hitler a difficult person to be friendly with but he attempts to help this young angry and dysfunctional man.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Meanwhile, Hitler is persuaded by a splinter outfit to make public speeches about the affairs of Germany and he's successful but now he must decide which avenue to go down as far as his future. Rothman tries to make him channel his rage and energy as an artist but it is to no avail as Hitler mixes art and politics and considers his public speaking as his art form.

This film is directed by Menno Meyjes who wrote the screenplay for "The Color Purple" and this is his directorial debut and while it's an intriguing idea the film as a whole seems to just be more of an interesting effort that's not fully explored. I am recommending this film because of the interesting story and the performances of Cusack and Taylor. The film is more about the character of Rothman than Hitler and the script seems to ask could someone who's basically good at heart survive what Germany was slowly becoming? Another interesting part of this story is the relationship of the two because they really are different in every aspects. But they have two things in common that is all that's needed to have a casual friendship and the first is that they both fought in the war and were deeply affected by it. Rothman lost an arm but Hitler was definitely affected psychologically. The second thing they have in common is art. When the two of them have conversations and are frequently at odds they seem to communicate better when talking about this subject. Film never delivers anything really insightful but since there are no films about what influenced Hitler as a young man this is an interesting subject and something most filmmakers would never attempt.

Hitler as the new art

[steveha · 6/10 · 8 January 2004]

This movie has some interesting ideas, but they never really jell. It puts a bit of a human face on Hitler, showing him as a destitute artist who doesn't really know what he wants. But more than half of the screen time is devoted to the title character, Max, and I have to say that much of that time is wasted. Connecting the modern art scene of 1918 with post-World War I Germany and with Hitler is intriguing, yet the ending is entirely too predictable and not much fun to watch. The best single scene is the one where Hitler triumphantly tells Max that politics is the new modern art.

For every merit I can think of a demerit. I don't really recommend this movie.

The Failed Artist

[karl_consiglio · 7/10 · 14 May 2006]

All the comments neglecting this film are very respectable and quite correct. However I could not help appreciating this film, first of all for the fact that i was always curious about Hitler in this period of his life before he evolved into what we all know him as, secondly for Noah Taylor's performance of the persona, that was already enough to make me want to see the movie again. Then of course this movie has its faults, directing for one thing. Cusack did not act at all, he was very inadequately a modern American. This is a film which needed a handful more research before approaching it. The meat grinder as a detail is pathetic. I also wonder if Hitler really had his whole Nazi regime sketched in his portfolio as depicted here at this point of his life, but who knows, ultimately this film is fiction based on facts.

Powerful Performance by Noah Taylor

[LivingDog · 10/10 · 13 August 2006]

There are only 2 actors you need to watch: John Cusack and Noah Taylor. John Cusack plays a rich Jewish art dealer who tries to help a not-so-young unknown artist find his "inner voice." The two go through the art world and all its patrons. Max Rothman, played by Cusack, is an intelligent nihilist who tries to guide this unknown into finding the core of his artistic endeavor. And the not-so-young unknown artist, played utterly convincingly - utterly committed - utterly profoundly, by Noah Taylor is Adolf Hitler. I have been glued to my seat before with films and movies, but this goes beyond those films and movies. I usually get a sense of focus on the action, script and scenery. This time it is utter silence. I was listening and watching for every nuance ... and Mr. Taylor's performance is nothing but unbelievably wondrous. It is 100.000% utter professional commitment to the role. Mr. Taylor disappears and Hitler, the evil maniacal horror emerges. I was GLUED to my seat like never before... I was sorry to see this movie end. His performance was just so amazing to watch. I can't compare it to anyone else's acting since Mr. Taylor has gone beyond any performance ever before ... and maybe ever again! 20/10. -LD

Totally unconvincing (visually)

[max.vermeij · 6/10 · 2 June 2003]

The story in itself is excellent, but the art direction and set decoration are appallingly bad and spoil the story. Not for a single moment was I convinced to see people moving about in 1918-1919 Germany. Well kept and (during nighttime) lit streets and squares, an inviting shopping promenade, balconies (overlooking the courtyard where Max Rothmann eventually perishes) decorated with electric X-mas lights. Germany in 1918 was very much a country on the brink of civil war, where people died of starvation in their thousands after years of allied naval blockade. Actors and extras simply looked too well fed and dressed. And finally, an art gallery in an abandoned factory building: how very 1980-ish (instead of 1918-ish).

poor art direction /poor script

[stephendon3 · 3/10 · 6 March 2006]

I'm a big fan of John Cusack, so my disappointment with 'Max' isn't laid at his feet. Cusack is always watchable, but virtually little else was worth watching in a film that strained too much to make of the subject of young Adolf Hitler and his artistic strivings a film full of drama and tension. Tension was absent almost entirely and was replaced with a pseudo-intellectual veneer of third rate comments about Art. The atmosphere of post-war Germany just wasn't created. There was nothing to indicate that it was 1919 or 1929 or any other decade. This may have been a problem of budget but then a filmmaker has to find ways round the budget. Yes, there were some objets d'art from the post-war period but spot the Ikea lamps in Max Rothman's house! As in so many films dealing with 'ideas', there was far too much interaction and not enough action. Contrast, if you will, this film with 'Cabaret'. In the latter there is plenty of interaction but at the very least it is witty, superbly crafted dialogue that hints at much without spelling it out. I also thought Noah Taylor just wasn't convincing as Hitler, though I loved his performance in 'Shine'.

Interesting

[Joe-560 · 10/10 · 30 November 2003]

Already people are criticizing this movie because of the suggestion that if Hitler had become an artist, we might have prevented the Holocaust. I would have to disagree with them, in that this is not what the film was trying to convey. What this movie was about was Hitler's odd relationship with a Jewish art dealer named Max Hoffman. This takes place when Hitler was aged 30 years old (post WWI, pre WWII). Hitler is trying to be an artists, but refuses to listen to advice and seems to find the slight in every comment about him or what he stands for. He claims NOT to be an Anti-Semite, but what I got from the film was he was sort-of peer pressured into the propaganda.

By then end of the movie, Hitler has failed as an artist, as he did in real life. He claims to have disovered a new art in politics, and pursues a career in the Socialist Party rather than becoming an artist. Does this sound familiar?

While this movie may not be a true account of what actually happened, it did portray Hitler's falling out of his pursuit towards being an artist, boasting the message: some people can't be changed. Cusack's character, Max, constantly tries to become Hitler's friend throughout the movie, but this is difficult because hitler is anti-social, rude, closed-minded (obviously), basically just a hard person to like. The film's message is not to show what could have been, but what never, ever had a chance of happening. Even if Hitler had succeeded as an artist, nothing would have changed.

The movie succeeded in what it was trying to do, which I think was show how Hitler had every opportunity to choose a different path, but he didn't. He had a Jewish friend that never did him wrong, yet he failed to see the goodness and humanity, the common link that binds us all. Perhaps the movie's message was, some people can't be helped, no matter how hard you try.

I'm sure the idea when it was being written was, what if Hitler had a Jewish friend that could have made a differnce? There you have it. None at all. The rest, as they say, is history.

I thought this was a brilliant film. The acting was terriffic, the directing good, and the pacing was not slow at all, it's just the audience that's impatient. Bonus: the camera-pull back in the end to show the architecture of the squares forming a swatstika, ingenius.

An interesting and insightful look into Adolf Hitler but this isn't a film that remains consistent throughout.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 25 December 2007]

As far as the genre of 'Biopics' go, there have been critical hits in the form of Ed Wood and Walk the Line and then there have been even bigger hits in the form of Raging Bull. Whilst I liked all those films to a certain degree, I am always sceptical on whether or not someone's life story will actually make for good film material. Film's are supposed to suspend reality by transporting us into a fictional world with fictional people and various acts – it can be Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or it can be Pulp Fiction; it doesn't matter – truth is none of it's real and the odd obvious continuity error that pops up now and again only convinces us further.

So, for someone to actually have their life put into a world of film must mean that they've gone through some pretty harsh lessons and come out on the other side for the best. It doesn't matter if you're Edward Wood, Jake La Motta, Johnny Cash or even Adolf Hitler – if your story isn't interesting or doesn't make for good film material then it isn't going to make a good or great film. You must remember that the film Max is called Max after Max Rothman (Cusak); not 'Adolf' after Adolf Hitler which is an easy thing to do seeing as the film revolves around Hitler, played by Noah Taylor whose previous film to this was Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – perhaps on it's own a biopic of a computer game character? What is fascinating in this film is the character study of Hitler; ruler of Germany from 1933 and reason so many people needlessly died during the second world war and the holocaust. What isn't as fascinating is the story of Max Rothman and the character of him: a 1910s German equivalent of perhaps a yuppie as he does his best to live the ultra-good life. Funny then, how the film is indeed called Max as the emphasis is supposedly supposed to be on him.

In terms of authenticity of the era; watching Noah Taylor act Adolf Hitler rather well and the overall theme of the film, you can have few complaints. A minor quibble may be the accents early on regarding Hitler's soldier comrades as they flick between English and Scottish as Hitler remains German and the general feeling Max feels like a TV Movie but showing Hitler in a light such as this one is a very rare and thankful thing to achieve, especially given the fact director Menno Meyjes is Dutch and the fact Holland lost a lot of life as well as scenery due to Hitler and his ideas of a perfect Europe. If the film had been made by a German showing Hitler as a somewhat misunderstood being, you can probably predict the uproar that'd happen – it's worth saying here that I haven't seen 2004's Downfall yet.

Max is a film that suggests Hitler didn't necessarily start out 'evil' but of course none of us do. Dictator's such as Hitler; Saddam Hussein; Joseph Stalin and Julius Cesar all have events and incidences in their lives that sway them into that realm of insanity through power and they took it out on their own people. Most of us will know Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in the First World War; something that is mentioned at the very beginning of the film when a statistic comes up: most of the Germans dead in WWI were Jewish; thus, they failed to "win the war for us". But this thinking is blurred and Max is a film that shows how Hitler came to this conclusion in a rather messy and inconsistent way. I'm not sure when Hitler discovered this statistic of Jews in WWI but when it comes to anti-Semitic remarks around his person and puppet shows mimicking the Jews and giving of a message that they are polluting Germany, Hitler is unimpressed and labels them all anti-Semitic fools. But here's the flaw: if Hitler like everyone else knew of the statistic given to us at the beginning of the film then why didn't he join in the mocking of the Jews? Consequently, perhaps these events like the puppet show and everything else never happened and this is a poor representation of Hitler in his youth if this is the case.

A film that deals with a descent into madness can often be extremely effective: Taxi Driver, American Psycho and perhaps a further biopic: Raging Bull but Max deals with Hitler's descent in a heavy handed way. The film suggests that things like puppet shows; soldier banter and anti-Semitic lectures from captains got to Hitler and swayed him. I feel this is inaccurate since the real reason Hitler rose and became the enthusiastic dictator he was was due to the Treaty of Versailles: Germany's limitation of national defence which angered Hitler. The film also shows Hitler to be more worried about his lack of artistic skills and his need to dictate rather than focus on what really made Hitler angry: the Treaty; Germany's actual state in terms of defence and finance and Jews "loosing them the war". I don't want this to sound like I'm knocking the film too much or supporting Hitler in any way at all. The film is shot well and given great mise-en-scene; Hitler's dictator scenes are fascinating as are the pieces of art he comes up with nearer the end to do with the Nazi regime but by this point, I was not convinced Hitler as a character had been developed in the final third that well; nor were his reasons for becoming 'evil'. It's because of this that the film perhaps feels like it is leaving a little too much up to our own knowledge of Hitler and WWII to fill in the gaps.

Fails on almost every level, this film is not worth your time.

[nickradford · 1/10 · 26 February 2005]

Films about Hitler always tread a fine line. There is so much literature and awareness about the man, that getting it right historically is always going to be difficult. Unfortunately this film does not.

It is a film that fails on almost every level. The casting is very poor. John Cusack, although accomplished, simply does not fit the role of a Jewish art dealer. He should really stick to playing unconventional, awkward metropolitan characters (such as Rob Gordon in High Fidelity, or Eddie Thomas in America's Sweethearts). You spend the first 30 mins of the film trying to work out whether Max Rothman is American or German.

Noah Taylor is an equally unconvincing Hitler. His German accent is appalling (as are all the accents in the film) and what is supposed to be passionate speech delivery just comes across as deranged shouting, hardly motivating. It certainly is not his finest hour as an actor either. In fact, all the acting is awkward and slow. At no point do you feel entranced by the story.

The makers of this film look to portray Hitler as a very disturbed outsider, someone who you would not consider normal. However, this does not reflect popular historical opinion . Hitler was a normal man; and there-in lies the terror. He cared for his family, was a loving father and was no different from many other man you might meet on the street. That is why he is so terrifying, as he reflects the terrible potential of the human race, the potential that all of us have. He was simply a product of the political climate of his country at the time. The major problem with this film is that they ignore this, they impose the atrocities of WWII onto the early Hitler character. They portray him as a half formed monster, ready to tip over the edge of sanity and start on his quest for power. Something that does not hold water as you watch it. Again, another area where this film fails. The suspense that I imagine the producers were hoping to generate, of whether Hitler might be saved from politics by art, is completely lacking.

This film is trying to make you think and be a bit alternative. Quite simply, it fails to do this.