Eichmann (2007) User Reviews

Not great, but not rubbish

[lexo1770 · 6/10 · 17 October 2008]

There are a lot of things about "Eichmann" which seem curiously wrong. For one thing, this Eichmann is a lot more interesting and colourful than the real man appears to have been. There's a bizarre scene in which he is challenged by his very weird Hungarian mistress to shoot a baby; I won't give away whether or not he does so, but it's not something I've ever heard of before. This Eichmann is a womaniser, a bit of a boozer, altogether a more louche and raffish figure than the rather dull bureaucrat that I've always read Eichmann described as.

Yes, the film suffers from some weird accents. Thomas Kretschmann, as Eichmann himself, speaks in a clipped German accent; Troy Garity, Franka Potente and Stephen Fry (in a bizarre but oddly convincing performance as, of all things, the Israeli Minister of Justice) all have indeterminately foreign accents, and none of it really makes sense.

Having said that, Kretschmann carries off the job he has been asked to do, and Garity is really very good as Avner Less, who was not Eichmann's prosecutor (as someone else stated) but his interrogator. Less was not a lawyer but a police officer. The subplot of his wife being chronically ill is presumably there because it was true; it would have been better if they'd left it out, because what drama there is in this film is the battle of wills between Less the dogged interrogator and Eichmann the stolidly evasive interrogatee.

I note in passing that Stephen Fry might almost be the rather more well-fed first cousin, or perhaps uncle, of Ciaran Hinds in "Munich". The accent is the same, and the tallness, slicked-down hair and intimidating bulk is very similar.

If they'd toned down the lurid stuff about Eichmann's sex life and focused on what he actually did for a living, this could have been as good as "Conspiracy". Pity.

Intriguing war crimes film

[Prof-Hieronymos-Grost · 7/10 · 9 February 2009]

Renowned war criminal Adolf Eichmann has been found at large in Argentina by Israeli agents, where he is promptly kidnapped and brought to Israel for trial. Avner Less is appointed as his interrogator before the trial. The Israeli nation is baying for his blood outside, which makes Less's task of being impartial all the harder. The film revolves around their interviews, Eichmann's replies to certain questions about his past atrocities bringing us back through flashback to the war. Eichmann naturally denies the offences and puts most down to obeying orders. The cat and mouse of the interviewing process and its gradual progression is very interesting and well crafted. Thomas Kretschmann's performance in particular as Eichmann is excellent and the film belongs to him.

Not nearly as good as it could have been!

[luiza do brasil · 6/10 · 20 October 2007]

This version of EICHMANN (as a biography, biographical, or as any of the several excellent documentaries about his trails) apparently has a dream cast and technical crew to make the "definite" EICHMANN "fictionalized" film. Was Thomas Kretschmann born to play the perfect Nazi of our nightmares and dreams, or what?

Well, here his "Naziness",in total contrast to his brief but impactive appearance in Polanski's THE PIANIST, and in DER UNTERGANG (as Hitler's brother-in-law)is a waste. It's a waste because the script of the film is horrible. His stereotype Nazi features would have been better spent in the USA 1960's sitcom HOGAN'S HEROES.

I live in Brazil and have spent a good part of my life here, in Argentina and in Germany, though I'm American and grew up in the 60s when WWII was still as fresh as the collapse of the USSR is now. So, any well-rounded movie fan from this area (or news junkie) would have as a compulsory experience, followed on radio and TV (no cable back then) the before & post-war antics of these Eichamnns, Klaus Barbies and their cohorts.

Now, I sat through a 5 or 6 hour film in Berlin in 1998 or 1999 (or was it two 4 hour sittings)of the COMPLETE Eichmann trial in Israel. The documentary was a "big release" as Documentaries go. It was playing in several art cinemas in Berlin, one near the Memorial Church, another in Kreuzberg,and in the Oranienburgerstrasse "art film multiplex" where I saw it.

If anyone knows which film I'm talking about, please submit as anew title or e-mail me. It is not any of the options this site gives: (Displaying 8 Results) 1.The Man Who Captured Eichmann (1996) (TV) 2."Adolf Eichmann 2003) (TV) aka I Met Adolf Eichmann" - UK 3."L'Hidato Shel Adolf Eichmann" (1994) 4.Operation Eichmann (1961) 5. Eichmann Trial (1961) (TV) 6. "Eichmann and the Third Reich" (1961) 7. The Trial of Adolf Eichmann(1997) (TV) 8. Witnesses to the Holocaust-the Trial of Adolf Eichmann(1987)(TV).

I thought it was Number 7 (the 1997 TV version), but it's too short and has a moderator, which the long film I saw lacked). Anyway, with that film as DEFINITE, REAL and irrefutable genuine human emotion, tragedies, and wrecked lives revealed, WHY make a feature film?

Well, as the list of seven above show, there was no shortage of "Eichmann films" when this film was shot, and released. And it has been released. In the Rio Festival, EICHMANN had 4 screenings in the main large cinemas, and was held over for a third week of "Last Chance For the Best of Rio" which ended last week. And the copy had burned subtitles in French, with electronic Portuguese subtitles below the screen. So, it has been somewhat shown around the world.

As this looks like a probable straight to DVD release. I had never even read about the filming of this feature, which also (mis) casted the German (but dark and with a star power name) Franka Potente as the Israeli's prosecutor's wife in one of the boring and pointless subplots. Potente, like everyone else including Eichmann, only spoke English, though she and her Prosecutor husband had met in France, and supposedly spoke French with each other.

But not a word of German, Yiddish, French or Hebrew is heard.

FINE. English is the international language. But this being a criminal court case movie, with loads of depositions, at least one of the victims could have spoken in the 4 major languages related to the case. Just for effect, like Arien Brody's attempts at German in the PIANIST, for some authenticity, with English, though not one of the four languages related to the case, as the main language, but not as-the language spoken 100% of the time!

Anyway, there is a "real film" with authentic testimony from the actual victims in their mother tongues, plus a couple of hours in Austrian-accented German deposition Eichmann gave. That documentary was basically in Hebrew, but both sides staunchly used their national identity languages. Eichmann spoke only German, and the Israeli prosecutor, judges, and victims did too - but chose to ask in Hebrew (so the crowd could understand apparently). Thus the translations to French, English, Russian & Yiddish, which I'm counting here as German added to an already long documentary, in black & white, with no visual power film of it all, two sets of subtitles running all the time. It was difficult to watch, but authentic, and a real treasure, something this EICHMANN is not.

Again, the hours of the real trial is what you should look for. The Israeli Prosecutor was not a gorgeous and elegant leading man, nor was Eichmann nearly as attractive and "Nazi-like" (as defined by the Hollywood stereotype).

This film gives NO new insight on Eichmann. The screenplay is shamefully bad, and the scenery is SO not-Israel. It screams MALTA (where it was shot),though NO southern Mediterranean island would have given us something that looks like Tel Aviv. These islands are ancient, and Tel Aviv started to become a city in the late 1920s and 30s (not in the 15th century).

My suggestion: if you are die-hard Thomas Kretschmann and Franka Potente fans, go. But just to see them. You won't find any substance or anything new in this movie - such a terrible waste of time, money, story, and great (and beautiful) German actors!

Biography about officer charged with the destruction of millions of Jews

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 11 January 2010]

The film begins with some introductory lines as , ¨Holocaust (1933-1945)¨ : Extermination of European Jews and others by the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazi persecution reached its peak in the Final solution , a programme of mass extermination adopted in 1942 and carried out with murderous efficiency by Adolf Eichmann ¨. In addition, ¨Adolf Eichmann¨: German administrator, he was responsible for carrying out Hitler's Final solution and for administrating the concentration camps in which 6 million Jewish perished. After the war he went into hiding in Argentina and eluded the Nuremberg trials. World Encyclopedia , Oxford University Press.

This is a historic drama with biographic elements dealing with Adolf Eichman and his interrogator officer Avner Less well performed by Thomas Kretschmann and Troy Garity, respectively. Furthermore, Stephen Fry as Jewish Minister and Franka Potente as affecting Avner's wife. The story is carried out by means of various flashbacks describing the cruel existence of Eichmannn. Atmospheric musical score by Richard Harvey and cold cinematography by Mike Connor. The motion picture is professionally by Robert Young.

Adding more remarks along with the widely narrated on the movie referred to Adolf Eichmann, his life is the following : Eichmann (1906-62) was born in Austria. After starting as a lowly file clerk , he learned that there was an opening in Heinrich Himmler's SD, the information center for the Gestapo . Himmler, who believed that Eichmann could speak Hebrew, made him head of the Scientific Museum Jewish Affairs. In 1937 Eichmann paid a short visit to Palestine to get in touch with Arab leaders , but the was ordered out of the country by the British. On his return to Germany he was rapidly promoted. After service in the Reich Central Office of Jewish Emigration he was made chief of Subsection IV-B-4 of the RSHA, the Reich Central Security Office, as an expert on Jewish affairs. He was present at the Wansee Conference on January 20 , 1942, when it was decided to deport Jews to the extermination camps. In August 1944 Eichmann reported to Himmler that, although the death camps kept no exact statistics , 4 million Jews had died in them and that 2 million more had been shot or killed by mobile units. Arrested at the end of WWII, Eichmann escaped unrecognized from an internment camp in the American zone in 1946 and disappeared. On May 11, 1969, the Israeli secret service found him in Argentina and smuggling him back to Israel . His trial , which took place in Jerusalem from April 11 to August 14, 1961, aroused worldwide attention. He was charged with crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Found guilty, he was hanged at Ramle on May 31,1962.

Not bad, though it could have been better

[Andy-296 · 7/10 · 26 February 2011]

This acceptable biopic deals basically with the pretrial interrogation of Adolf Eichmann after he was captured in Argentina and brought to Israel. In the interrogation, he insists his role in the Holocaust was minor, just a sort of transport commissioner who has to make sure the different prisoners arrive on time at each concentration camp. This is contrasted with flashbacks from Eichmann during World War II, showing him directly in charge of the extermination of Jews. His main interrogator is a police captain, and the movie shows some of his background, how his role affects his family life, etc. German actor Thomas Kretschmann, who has made a career of playing Nazi officers (in Downfall, Stalingrad and Valkyrie, for instance) is very good as the Nazi criminal. So is Troy Garity playing the Israeli detective. Maybe the movie would have benefited from a larger scope – it includes nothing of Eichmann during the trial itself, very few about his life in Argentina, his capture is dealt in just one quick scene. And there were a few scenes that sounded false to me. For example, Eichmann is seen making love to a Hungarian mistress during the war and to get her hot he tells her the amounts of people he ordered killed. Or in another scene the same lady dares Eichmann to kill a baby. Maybe it really happened but the way it is portrayed in the movie sounded downright false and tasteless to me. These few objections aside, this is not a bad film.

Read Hannah Arendt's book instead

[dflo1966 · 3/10 · 27 April 2011]

I do not typically submit such reviews, but this film cries out for comments. "Using" the inherently dramatic and compelling nature of the Nazi period to create a largely inaccurate film seems to be another kind of crime. Such a period of evil deserves the most sober treatment possible and should not be used to create a kind of historic horror film.

All of that is leading up to my strong suggestion that you skip the film and read Hannah Arendt's amazing book about the actual Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Here you will find a non-dramatic, non-titillating version of the story that neither exaggerates nor diminishes Eichmann's evil, but rather reveals him in a matter-of-fact way as an opportunist, a careerist who merely wanted to advance, climb the ladder, attain the next "title," etc. He apparently did not have any particular hatred toward Jews. None of this in my estimation makes him less evil; the book actually reveals the "banality" of his evil by taking away the specter of a crazed monster. His evil lies in its being sane and in a sense "ordinary." Therefore, given its serious subject matter, I feel the film only partially reflects the facts Arendt reveals so clearly, obscuring them with with sex and useless side stories. The performances are good, the film is well made, etc. That's not my point. If you want to make a formulaic film, a horror film, a sexy film, or any other kind of film, have at it. But don't use Eichmann as your subject matter. The subject matter is too serious to be misused in any way. Read the book, please.

Duel.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 14 October 2014]

There are a couple of ways of looking at Eichmann's capture, conviction, and execution -- and they lead to different conclusions.

Morally, of course, the guy was responsible for the brutalization and deaths of more than six million innocent people. "More" than six million because nobody really knows how many, and the homosexuals, mentally retarded, political undesirables, gypsies, and the rest are often forgotten. It was morally right for Eichmann to be hanged.

Psychologically, I'm not so sure. We all need enemies. They serve as bad examples for the rest of us. They hold us together. When they've escaped justice, they animate our existence. We can see the dynamic at work today in America. The air is full of hatred. With the execution of Eichmann, part of our reason for being disappeared. It's like achieving any other grand goal to which you've dedicated years. What follows the initial celebration is an emotional let down. I wonder how many of us slumped when we learned that Josef Mengele was confirmed to have been long dead, deep down, underneath the gratitude paid to Fortune.

Sociologically, the results are mixed. Religious offenses are carried across generations. Anyone of Jewish background is less likely to forgive and forget. Not a family went unscathed. Germany will always be the villain for all of us, although every German who participated in any way in the Nazi genocidal program is now dead. The Shi'ites and Sunni have been at each others' throats, on and off, for more than a thousand years.

The film is told mostly from Eichmann's point of view when he was a captive being interrogated. A fine performance from Thomas Kretschmann, whether as the young SS officer or the self-justifying prisoner. And from Franke Potente as the interrogator's wife, Vera, although she's dubbed. Troy Garity, as Avner Less, the interrogator, is particularly weak. There are times when it seems that he's never acted before.

The flashbacks begin when Eichmann is already a colonel in the SS, and he's a heartless and treacherous bastard. He may love his children -- it sounds like it -- but he's an adulterer and manipulator. In Budapest, he takes up with a succulent baroness, Tereza Srbová, with whom, under other circumstances, any normally depraved man would willingly take up.

Some of it is literally hard to believe. The baroness gets Eichmann all hot and glandular by having him recite the number of Jews he's killed from different countries while sitting naked on his lap. Later, she brings him a cheerful baby in a basket, tells Eichmann that the baby's blood is tainted, and orders him to kill the baby on the spot. And don't worry. The flesh will be fed to the dogs and the tiny bones ground up for fertilizer. "I've always heard the cabbages from Budapest are the best." Eichmann hesitates, then shoots the babe with his pistol. Murdering the toddler, yes. He murdered a million toddlers. But shooting it in its cradle in front of his anti-Semitic girl friend? It's easier to believe that the Chief Interrogator drove a Volkswagon in 1963 Jerusalem, which he does.

At least we're spared the horrors of the concentration camp films, and Eichmann isn't presented as a slavering monster. The narrative is really a duel between the solemn Jewish interrogator and the suave Eichmann. Most flashbacks are brief. We listen to a list of Eichmann's many sins and watch him smoothly deny them. "Die Wannseekonferenz" captures the younger Eichmann as little more than a secretary when the Nazis were trying to unravel the numerous knots of the "final solution." It's a more informative film than this because it tells us things we didn't already know.

Or DO we know about Eichmann and the Nazi genocide? A survey of 1,000 secondary school pupils aged 11-16 revealed that 15% were not sure what Auschwitz was. 10% thought the infamous Nazi camp was a country bordering Germany and 2% thought it was a brand of beer. A further 2% identified Auschwitz as a religious festival, while a worrying 1% believed it was a type of bread. The poll also found that 60% did not know what the Final Solution was, with a 20% thinking it was the name given to the peace talks which ended the Second World War. (sky.com)

A waste of time, and an insult for intelligence

[Big Max · 2/10 · 30 September 2011]

When a film's starting sentence is 'based on a true story' or if you know that the story behind the film actually took place, you expect at least the facts to be close to reality. I'll put aside the embarrassing mistakes in Hebrew (didn't you have Israeli actors on the set?), what troubles me more is the inaccuracies in historical facts, and the actual 'creation' of allegedly legal documentations that never existed. Furthermore, the addition of plot lines that portray Eichmann as a brutal murderer, and as a 'valentino', are not correct, add nothing to the plot (apart from the female nudity, which is entirely not required in this movie), and miss the horrible fact that Eichmann, like many many officers in the German Reich was a gray man, who just filed documents that sent millions to their death. This movie is a shame for the viewers' intelligence. Ignoring the historical errors and the made up plot lines, the movie itself is not interesting, the characters are superficial and empty, and if there's an intention to create a 'duel' between Eichmann and Less, it is artificial and is futile.

Good

[ofpsmith · 6/10 · 15 April 2014]

This movie like 12 Angry Men(1957) takes place mostly in one room. Obviously there are scenes outside of the room, nut most of the important scenes are in the cell. I love the casting for Adolf Eichmann and Avner Less, especially. And seeing as how these are the two characters that we see the most in the film that is a good thing. Thomas Kretschmann plays Eichmann brilliantly. Troy Garity is also good as Captain Less. The movie often shows flashbacks of the war during the interrogation scenes. But mainly I like the scenes themselves. The movie mainly focuses on Avner dealing with the controversy of interrogating Eichmann. Everyone seems to be against him. Things get worse when they find out that Avner's dad was killed at Auschwitz. And Kretschmann as Eichmann is perfect. He seems to capture perfectly the emotions of an evil man trying to cover up his horrible crimes. He even tells Avner that he was never against the Jewish people. It's a very good movie, so go check it out.

Too much rumours and fantasy

[damkina · 1/10 · 22 December 2009]

They say is based upon the israeli documents. But would be correctly to say we can see a typically classic nazi portrait, based upon newspapers with great fantasy. This is recognizable principally in his privat life.

The real Eichmann had an autrian mistress, named Maria Masenbucher in Doppel. The filmmakers changed her story to a Jewish mistress's, furthermore created a fictitious name to her, although even her exist is not really fact.

And the other mistress Ingrid. However she existed but her acts and portray is also fiction. She was not a hungarian noble descendant, her name is after her husband. Eichmann started an affair with her in 1944 and before the end of the year brought her over to Austria. Avner Less has never mentioned her, but Eichmann only in one sentence, that she was lived with her mother in Hungary and had a factory, and called her Ihne (not Ihama). Well, this baby story is from a newspaper, in what a guard (not she) brought a baby into Eichmann office in Poland and not in Hungary. So in accordance with this cheat, they changed the smart and dashing real hungarian mistress to a crazed and gruesome fictitious blonde, and created a new affair for them in two scenes. While he's sitting in uniform she's arriving naked, statistics about deportation in bedroom, a baby in office? Rather in a nazi-blonde parody, please not in a documentary-drama.

I'm sorry, the creators have bungled the movie with these fakes. It is a thing that he was, who deported the jews to the camps, but why need to take this into his privat life and change his affairs, furthermore to make a pretence his entire life was about the jews?

Unmasking the Monster

[gradyharp · 9/10 · 20 January 2011]

EICHMANN is not an easy film to view: revisiting the atrocities of the Nazi Third Reich through the greasy, smooth, denying words of Adolf Eichmann is a nightmare, but a nightmare we must revisit periodically to remind us of just how heinous was that period of history. The film is set in 160 - 1962 and is based on transcripts obtained by the Israeli forces from the files of the concentration camps and Nazi regime, transcripts that document the words of Adolf Eichmann that lead to his final confession of his participation in the Third Reich atrocities as unveiled under the slow and insidious interview by Police Captain Avner Less.

The film opens after the 1960 capture of Eichmann from his home in Argentina, the country where he and his wife and four sons had been in hiding since the end of WW II. Adolf Eichmann (brilliantly portrayed by Thomas Kretschmann) had been the World's Most Wanted Man and his transport to Israel was met by jeering crowds. The Israeli Minister Tormer (Stephen Fry) elects police captain Avner Less (Troy Garity) to conduct the interview in what is supposed to be a top-secret assignment. But the news escapes and Avner's wife Vera (Franka Potente), suffering from polio of the spine, and the Avner children are marked as targets by the Israeli's who do not appreciate the duty of Avner Less's obligation to interrogate and gain a complete confession from Eichmann before he can be tried. The months that the interrogations take prove that the Israeli's believed in justice: the facts must be proved completely before the prisoner is tried for atrocities.

During the interrogation months Eichmann is shown in flashbacks to have been not only following the orders of Hitler, but being committed to the purification of the 'Aryan race'. What screenwriter Snoo Wilson and director Robert Young allow is for us to see the human weakness of Eichmann as portrayed By Kretschmann: he had mistresses, including one Austrian Jewess and a Hungarian Countess who urged him to complete the Final Solution, he coldly signed extermination orders 'because he had to follow Hitler's orders', yet he also was an apparently devoted father to his own sons. Equal time is given to allow the audience to see the interaction between the conflicted parties of the interrogation: Avner was convinced he must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prisoner was indeed guilty of all of the crimes fro which he was accused. The interrogations become a battle of wills between the smarmy, oily, manipulative Eichmann and the personally distraught Avner. At the close of the film the real Avner E. Less provides voice over regarding the hanging of Eichmann along with statistics of the Nazi atrocities that no matter how often they are quoted continue to astonish our ability to comprehend.

The only artistic aspect of the film that is ultimately distracting is the director's choice to have cinematographer Michael Conner use near black and white/sepia toning for the film. Certain scenes break into real color but the tone of the film footage seems dirty - and perhaps that is the reason for the choice. Richard Harvey adds the musical score, and there are some very fine cameo roles by Delaine Yates, Tereza Srbova, and Judit Viktor. But in the end it is the performance by Thomas Kretschmann that is terrifyingly real: he deserves awards for his courage to accept this role and for his unforgettable impersonation of a man so evil that under other actor's skills would be simply unbelievable. It is Kretschmann's extraordinary performance that brings home the terror of his film.

Grady Harp

Wooden script and lead performance

[sunraider · 3/10 · 12 February 2011]

As I'm sure is the case with others, I'm familiar with the story of the kidnapping of Eichmann from Argentina through the many made-for-TV movies depicting the event. Those movies were always interesting and watchable as they tended to focus more on the Mossad operation put together to capture Eichmann. This film is basically nothing more than an interrogation (with some flashback scenes thrown in) and, as such, really a battle of wits between Eichmann, who tries to portray himself solely as an uber-efficient paper pusher, and the Israeli interrogator tasked with getting a confession out of him. The problem is, while Eichmann is somewhat fleshed out in the flashback scenes and Kretschmann does a fine job with what he's given, the character of the Israeli interrogator is flat-out boring and the actor's performance simply wooden. There are no sparks between the cop and the bad guy. No witty repartee or shock disclosures that make the interrogator question his assumptions, even if just for a moment. The ending of this film is ridiculous. Not even a shot of the hangman's noose to give us closure! Just someone talking over a radio in the background. This was a very poorly constructed movie featuring one of the most wooden performances I've seen in years.

poaching on the holocaust

[hanabluma · 3/10 · 20 February 2011]

The makers of this movie took advantage of the intrinsic implications of the evil life of Eichmann to make a film that adds nothing to the knowledge of the subject, but tries to "enliven" it with gratuitous nude scenes, incomprehensible and uninteresting forays into the interrogator's private life, and reprehensible attempts at parallels between the lives of the Israeli and the Nazi. Steven Fry played his role as if he were running a sales office, the rest of the cast were uninteresting at best. And no, the Eichmann portrayal really wasn't particularly outstanding - just less boring than the others. But what actor couldn't sink his teeth into Eichmann - essentially a blank slate onto which he could project whatever vision he and the director chose? What we have are movie-makers incapable of making a profound film hijacking a profound subject and pretending that they've done so. Talk about immoral

Less Drama

[act_of_bob · 4/10 · 14 October 2009]

I have to agree with everything lexo said about this drama; and I say drama because I was never wholly convinced I was witnessing history.

When I bought this title I was expecting a detailed examination of "the architect of Hitler's plan"; no matter the bias. All I received in return was a turgid family drama set against a few pointless conversations between the police captain Less and Eichmann. Once sensationalised by dubious episodes in the man's Nazi career all that remained were constant accusations and denials by Less and Eichmann. Admittedly this man may not have been exciting or even entertaining within the Nazi regime, but one thing he most certainly was, was life-changing.

There is an interested audience for films that seek to examine the minds of the "architects of Hitler's plan", as Oliver Hirschbiegel's "Downfall" has shown. Studying German history I was more concerned with the Socialists than the National Socialists, but the Nazi motivation and objectives are still a fascinating aspect of 20th Century History. "Eichmann" however does nothing to advance the understanding of the Nazis, nor the Eichmann that oiled the wheels of the Holocaust, and seems more like Jewish apologia for interrogating Eichmann by a man who suffered personal tragedy in the Holocaust, convicted him on mere supposition and rumour, and murdered him because of intense social and political pressure.

so many mistakes

[karagoz-emre · 1/10 · 27 November 2015]

i stopped watching the movie when i saw a

2-minute long scene which shows a map of Europe in the background with Russia, Croatia, Slovakia... while the movies was supposed to take place in 60s.

what an amateur mistake.

don't watch it.

that cant be tolerated. this was all wanted to say. but i have to enter at least 10 lines because the site says so.

Kretschmann does not look sexy in this one, so don't get your saliva out.

why would Israel let Islamic prayer to be heard?

A really enjoyable and important movie at LA Jewish Film Festival!

[Sammy_LA · 9/10 · 12 May 2008]

I went out yesterday for mother's day with my mom to the LA Jewish Film Festival where this movie was showing and can't disagree enough with a couple of the comments that I read on here. We both really enjoyed it (had my mom in tears)! I thought it was a eye-opening insight into what happened before Eichmann went to trial, about his interrogation and most importantly giving recognition to the little known police captain Avner Less. It isn't true that other languages are not spoken- I heard German and Hebrew spoken. I think the comments made were by people who wanted to see a remake of the story of the trial which as they point out has been done many times- where this is telling the untold, and more interesting story and background to the trail and examines what Eichmann was actually responsible for. I've also have to disagree with scenery not looking Israel enough having been there many times I thought it very real. Amazing performance by Thomas Kretchmann, with an OK one by Troy Garity supported well by Franka Potente. A really important movie for Jewish people!

Movie way too biased.... Not a real documentary!

[victorcharlie1 · 1/10 · 18 November 2010]

I saw this movie and got the impression that all Jews are wonderful and genteel. While all German women are whores and the men, ravenous killers. Why did they show so many German women naked and not one Jewish woman? Why did they show Eichmann having sex with his wife and not show the Jewish reporter doing the same with his wife? Why did they not show Eichmann hanging from a rope at the end of the movie? The reason is that whoever made this movie wanted to give the world the impression that Jews are a non-violent, peace loving people. They would not even dare show Eichmann hanging from a rope because that might damage their spin that they are just as hateful and corrupt as any other group of people. What about all the Israeli atrocities against Palestinian women and children. Why don't they make a movie about that?

Liberties Taken With the Truth End Up Burying This Movie (and the good acting work)

[srvblooze · 4/10 · 6 July 2013]

First, the good stuff:

Thomas Kretschmann's work here is superb, truly superb, particularly in light of the fact that the film interrupts this superb acting with cutaways to various scenes while the voice of Kretschmann as Eichmann is heard writing letters to his children. I don't CARE. Give me more of Kretschmann being interrogated. He is riveting.

Now, the bad stuff:

The 'artistic license' this film takes is shameful in that it is an insult to every single jew who was murdered by the Nazi regime. There is no good reason for the filmmakers to have given Eichmann a Viennese Jew for a mistress. The notes of Eichmann's interrogator, Avner Less, do not mention anything about this, nor did it come up in Eichmann's Nuremberg trial-in-absentia or the Israeli trial. Nor was there a need to make Eichmann the lover of a Hungarian mistress who was so insatiable for the deaths of jews that she would reprimand him for not killing enough while they engaged in foreplay. This is obscene and it obscures the larger truth that seemingly inconsequential, everyday men can do terrible damage.

To take these liberties is an attempt to obscure the monster that Eichmann really was. To remove the inexplicable terror that is the result of banal men doing unspeakable things in the name of ideology and / or the protection of a larger group of criminals, is misguided at best and an insult to every Jewish man, woman and child who walked into those building thinking they were going to get a shower.

They should have stuck to the text of "The Eichmann Interrogation" and let the actors use their skills to produce the tension. That's what they are paid for, after all, and I would have liked to have seen more of the interaction between the two main characters.

I give it a '4' on the strength of Thomas Kretschmann's acting alone. Otherwise this movie is a terrible waste of time.

Missed Opportunity

[davidhill-94841 · 1/10 · 14 February 2018]

Okay so you have a cast of excellent actors and an seriously important story that needs, like 'Shchindler's List', to be told, so why make an unbelievable, disjointed, completely out of place titillating, mess of telling it.

This Adolf Eichmann, in flash backs, had more in common with a stock character out of the British WW2 sitcom 'Alo Alo' than the blandly evil man he really was.

There should be some sort of tacit agreement in Holywood under which all drama/documentaries, on the subject of the holocaust, are to follow strict guidelines of authenticity and due respect for the subject matter.

TK is an amazing actor

[echosheng90731 · 10/10 · 8 June 2009]

Karl Adolf Eichmann ("the architect of the Holocaust"), was a Nazi and SS-Obersturmbannführer (equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel). Because of his organizational talents and ideological reliability, he was charged by Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich with the task of facilitating and managing the logistics of mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe.

After the war, he travelled to Argentina using a fraudulently obtained laissez-passer issued by the International Red Cross[2][3] and lived there under a false identity working for Mercedes-Benz until 1960. He was captured by Israeli Mossad operatives in Argentina and tried in an Israeli court on 15 criminal charges, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was convicted and hanged in 1962.

Thomas Kretschmann gave a very convincing and impressive performance in this movie. However, I wish not to see him playing any more Mazi roles in the future. This immensely gifted actor was trapped in the stereotype and bypassed for other complex and great roles.

The Banality Of Cinema

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 23 July 2013]

There's an irony of the worst criminals in history , those ruling the regime of Nazi Germany 1933-45 were so unremarkable , so much so that the phrase " The banality of evil " was coined for them . This film directed by Robert Young chronicles the interrogation of the most banal man of the Nazi regime Adolph Eichmann who was kidnapped by Mossad while he was living in Argentina and put on trial in Israel in 1961 . If Young has heard of the phrase banality of evil then he's taken it a little too literally because this is a rather banal movie

There are some good points such as the opening that has Muslim immans calling the faithful to prayer via loudhailers . Forget all the nonsense you've heard about Israel being an apartheid state because 15% of the Israeli population is Arab who are citizens of the country and are awarded the same rights as the Jewish population . On the subject of democracy the end credits has a voice over from Avner Less who describes the system that saw Eichmann commit his crimes would never happen in a democracy and that democracy is the only political system worth fighting for . The film also has impressive cinematography where the scenes set in 1960s Israel has a brownish sepia tone . It makes a nice change to see a film where the primary colours aren't prominent since films nowadays have an indistinguishable look

Nothing else about EICHMANN is distinguished and is a rather dull movie as we shown countless scenes of Less interrogating Eichmann as to his crimes . History has it that Eichmann was bullied at school because his peers thought he was Jewish and I would have liked to have seen the possibility that so many high ranking Nazis might have been of Jewish descent themselves . Instead we get something along he lines of a sleazy soap opera where Eichmann meets several hot high class women for sex including a Hungarian Countess . At any moment you're expecting Joan Collins to come swanning in to a scene where THE COLBYS meets SCHINDLERS LIST

And that's the problem . SCHINDLERS LIST has a monopoly on holocaust films . If you're doing a movie featuring the real life crimes of Nazi Germany then you have to bring something new and remarkable to the table and this bland banal drama doesn't

nicely acted quasi fiction

[deadbull-95171 · 1/10 · 1 March 2021]

I suppose having lost several people in what steve spielberg renamed the "holocaust" for dramatic /financial purposes with his blockbuster hit , what was always referred to with the less apocalyptic terms of extermination or death camps, has influenced my opinion. Having read a lot of H. Arendt's seminal work, seen the smuggled artwork of Kantor and reviewed a tremendous number of personal documents, interviews, it is obvious that this period of germam/european history is one of the most extensively and accurately periods of time in the existence of human civilization. The Nazis were nothing if not spectacular recorders of every detail of their activities, despite hopeless last-minute attempts to destroy some records. They were immensely proud of their 'achievements' in slaughter. As such the third reich is a historians dream come true. Not one german sausage fart has escaped notation. As a precocious child the first book I read to conclusion at the age of 8 when it was published around 1060 was Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. While a good read, there are far more detailed and 'respectable studies......but I still recall shirer admiring deutsche record keeping. The point is, from all I have gathered , none of it from hollywood productions or whatever this is, though there is no shortage of actual footage and transcription available about the events of Nuremberg and the reich, this movies depiction of Eichmann insults realities by it's unfocussed juicing up the biography of a very boring ice cold bureaucrat with continual scenes, all speculative at best, about the 'star's' perverse sexual exploits, the family troubles of the main interrogator due to the stresses of his voluminous job matching wits with one of histories most notorious and brilliant sociopath's. It is far more interesting , if you are interested in actual events, to view the actual existent footage of Eichmann , as prisoner, or in the field where such photographic records exist. I'm not here to provide citations though. As a Primer I'd say read 'The Banality of Evil' For very different reasons this movie reminds me in its poor focus to 'Hunger'..the story of Bobby Sands as a political prisoner. In that case, if you like most have not the attention span for a book, a better view is offered by '66''. Had i not been born on the cusp of WW2 and to a family that lost people to the nazi effort, I would have given this movie another star for the quality of it's acting. But though non religious, i consider this a a 'sacred' topic and should be treated with the dignity of accuracy,, the very least we owe the millions burned to particulate ash which will rain down on germany until the end of its wretched existence.