Good

I watched this film expecting little. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find the film educational and interesting throughout. It paints a picture of the 'Jewish Question' and events leading up to it, focusing on a few characters to give it a personal feel.

Granted, some of the acting was a little ropey, but I would urge people not to let that put them off. I have a particular interest in the second World War, and perhaps that makes me biased, but suspect that even those with no interest in that period of time would still be able to let the film absorb them into the plot.

Recommended, 9/10.

Germany 1933, at the raising Nazi Regime, John Haider (Viggo Mortensen) is a good man, a brilliant professor of literature who has to care his ill mother (Gemma Jones), wife and sons. The professor suffers interruption of some radicals students who burn books in his University's courtyard . He writes a book that defends the euthanasia as method to sure a dignity death to ills. His novel is a upright success in the III Reich hierarchy (Mark Strong, Steven Mckintosh), including Hitler who takes his novel as justifying oneself the dreadful crimes against Jews. The Nazi authorities press and threaten Haider to collaborate with Gestapo and write about legalize euthanasia. Haider is going into the spiral of Nazi savagery. Meanwhile he falls in love with a student (Jodie Whitaker)and his Jewish friend (Jason Isaacs)being besieged by the Nazi pursuers.

This is a splendid drama set on Nazi epoch with thoughtful plot and slick direction .From the sage play by C.P. Taylor, as the producers wish to thanks Royal Shakespeare Company and the original cast and crew of the play. It packs a colorful and appropriate cinematography by Andrew Dunn. Enjoyable musical score by Simon Lacey and including Mahler songs . The flick is well produced by Miriam Segal , as the film is made in memory of his father Ronald Segal whose life's work was dedicated to the betterment of the rights of the others. The motion picture is professionally directed by Austria-Brazilian director Vicente Amorim.

The movie talks about various historic events as happens ¨The night of the broken glass¨ well re-enacted in the film, as the night of November 9, 1938, when terror attacks were made on Jewish synagogues and stores. Two days earlier, Vom Rath, Third Secretary of the German Embassy in Paris , had been assassinated by Grynszpan, a Polish Jew. In retaliation, Himmler (though doesn't appear at the movie is continuously appointed) and Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the SD, ordered the destruction of all Jewish places of worship in Germany and Austria.The assault had been long prepared , the murder provided an opportunity to begin the attack. In fifteen hours 101 synagogues were destroyed by fire and 76 were demolished. Bands of Nazis (one of them is our starring Viggo Mortensen, though unaware) destroyed 7.500 Jewish-owned stores. The pillage and looting went on through the night. Streets were covered with broken glass , hence the name Kristallnacht. Three days later Hermann Goering along with Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbles ( played by Adrian Schiller) called a meeting of the top hierarchy at the Air Ministry to assess the damage done during the night and place responsibility for it. Goebbles proposed that Jews no longer be allowed to use the public parks. It was decided that the Jews would have to pay for the damage they had provoked.

I never give much attention to the titles of films. Usually titles represent an idea of a film, or a line, or a character. The context of "Good" implies that it was wanted to say "Virtuous people" by the title.

Were SS good people? Decent? Average? Normal? OK? Bearable? "Good" presents a point of view of a person who thought himself to be virtuous, but then faced a society which was completely different, but thought so too.

Viggo Mortensem gives us an interesting character with it's ups and downs, and these ups and downs are in the behavior of a character, not the acting.

Furthermore, it was not the acting or an idea that dragged the film down and bored me or others at certain moments. It was the fact that WWII has been discussed for many times, so there are only minor differences between one film and the other.

Those who haven't watched a lot of WWII films or who would like to see one more example of censure will like "Good".

An easily Seduced Academic is separated from His Wife and His Conscience by a Flirtatious Blonde Student and a Allure of an Easy Life from the Nazis. A Weak Intellectual Type is probably an Easy Mark for both. The "Good" Man who does nothing while Evil is all around Him is the Heart and Soul of the Film, Subtly and Methodically showing how it can readily happen.

The Movie is so easily paced that it lacks a few Hard and Disturbing Scenes to jar the Viewer into some sort of Urgency. Nothing here seems at all Desperate until it is too late and that's the Thesis. But in Cinematic Terms it all just sort of happens and the Impact of the Implications and the Fingerpointing gets smothered in a Lethargic Pace and the Exclamation Points become Periods.

Not a Bad Movie, it is quite Good. However, the Profound Warnings it attempts to Reflect with its Historical Mirror are never given enough Hutzpah to be anything more than a Muse. A Sincere and Important Muse to be sure, but it fails to use its Fiction and its Medium to bring Home its Message. Apathy is nothing but Self-Preservation at the Expense of Everything Else.

it is not good, it is not bad. it is a mirror. the subject is delicate and old. the action is not amazing. the innocence is a not interesting stuff. and yet, it is a beautiful story. a real beautiful story. as a lake in evening. as a rain in park. because, in fact, its subject is not Nazi regime, limits of friendship, need of refuges, relation with political circle but art of survive. way to be yourself. that is axis and purpose is not create a masterpiece but occasion to meditate. the central character is a crumb of family, job or events. innocent, frustrated, for who each door may be escape by himself. he is not a hero. and price of desire to not be hero is sufferance in many nuances, more heavy. in concentration camp he discover color of reality. not the reality. because reality is a mirror who presents his face.