Cenizas sin gloria

Richard Basehart is OK as Hitler, even if a bit over the top. The rest of the cast is horrible, frankly. The film is an attempt to render Hitler from a psychological perspective, but the insights it offers are cartoonish oversimplifications at best, and can't make up its mind what Hitler's "problem" was. At one point it is implied he was impotent, at another point it is suggested he was homosexual. And always the business about his mother. The film offers more speculation than fact. The time frame of the film is a bit skewed too. Nothing of Hitler's youth is presented for a supposed psychological study. The year 1934 takes up nearly half the film; World War II gets at most ten minutes start to finish. In the end you have no more understanding of Hitler's personality, or his appeal to Germans, than you did at the outset. Which marks the film as a failure.

Technically atrocious and hysterically inaccurate in almost all ways. Events maddeningly out of order... characters come and go almost randomly. Not a single character plays out realistically... from Basehart's histrionics to the actress who plays Eva Braun with strange stoicism which was not her primary characteristic. Even Martin Kosleck -- an otherwise talented actor -- plays Goebbles strangely and with an odd sense of sympathy, which was assuredly not a trait he had.

It's not as if we don't know what occurred, but apparently the writer didn't have a clue.

Inexcusable garbage, created by a hack director and the remnants of Monogram Studios in the guise of Allied Artists, though released through Warner Bros.

Portraying Hitler as being in a virtually perpetually hysterical state, as this film does, is contrary to any historical reality. There are two interesting omissions in it. First, there is no mention, as far as I could ascertain, of what appears to have been Hitler's central obsession, his hatred of Jews, for the destruction of whom he devoted substantial resources which could have been used to further another of his obsessions, world conquest. Second, in the brief portrayal of the conquest of Poland, the film depicts the blackening of the entirety of a map of Poland to represent the Nazi conquest. However, the Nazis did not occupy all of Poland; they split Poland with their then ally, the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, with whom they had entered into an agreement beforehand to divide Poland between them, and pursuant to which the Soviets invaded and occupied the eastern half of Poland. Surely the producers of this film were aware of this fact, so why did did they omit it?

I was very excited to see the film being a History Major in college and somewhat of a World War 2 buff , but I found the movie to be slow and silly. Eva Braun was nothing like the portrayal of her done in this film. She was a silly, and light hearted girl who laughed a lot. This movie portrays Hitler as a sexually frustrated weirdo who is obsessed with his mother, when those who lived around Hitler swear that he had a healthy sexual relationship with Braun. The acting was good, but the script was just not even close to accurate. Also, Stauffenburg was not hanged..he was shot. The film takes to many liberties with the historical record in my opinion.

Richard Basehart delivers a great performance, the psychological analysis within the film is at moments hilarious... I enjoy all these old Hitler films and this one is well worth watching ...