Opiniones de usuarios

An excellent speculative drama backed up with actual WWII footage to add realism. I believe that if history had turned out differently, it may very well have happened just as this movie portrayed it. The premise of the Normandy invasion being repelled causing America to pull out of Europe and revert to isolationism, as well as America turning its wrath to and defeating Japan to avenge Pearl Harbor are completely believable and not the least bit hokey. It has an interesting and engaging murder plot, as well as a good amount of suspense as the various players try to reveal the truth about Nazi war crimes and evade capture by the Gestapo. Nazi callousness, like March's colleague about the "pure-blooded Aryan and a Pollock caught in the act", the Gestapo chief's nonchalance toward the need of evidence, and the retired actress' anti-Semitic take on America's "Jewish Problem", are well played out without overused, propaganda-style vitriol. Hauer's performance as March is impeccable. Miranda Richardson is very good as well. Actually, good performances were rendered by all cast members. This movie is very entertaining and sparks the imagination with one of the ultimate "what ifs?". I highly recommend it.

First of all, I haven't read the book. That means I can't compare it with the movie, if anyone is interested in that. The story here is quite interesting. The movie takes place about 20 years after World War II, a war won by Germany. That means many differences from what really happened:

• All Europe is one single country, Germania (I think)

• Germania is still at war with the Soviet Union

• No one really knows about the extermination of the Jews. The official story is that they were deported to Ukraine.

• The celebration of Hitler's 75th birthday is soon about to take place. The American President is going to make him a visit.

This makes the background for what happens in this movie. A man is found dead, and the investigator gets a mystery to solve that grows bigger as he digs up information.

The movie is quite good, just take into consideration that it's a bit low budget. Remember, it's a TV-movie.

(Something totally different: It was funny seeing a poster of "The Beatles" called "Die Beatles").

Berlin, 1964, Nazi Germany.

"Fatherland" is one of Ruger Hauer's better recent movies. It takes a look at what would have happened if Nazi Germany had survived, even if the US had never gone to war with Germany.

The movie shows the grandiose architectural empire that Hitler had planned to make out of Berlin, as it would look on his 75th birthday. The special effects are notable more for their subtlety than dramatics, many of the fictional monuments look perfectly natural. The appearance of Nazi era clothes and uniforms against a sixties era eastern europe looks both plausible and surreal.

The movie itself focuses on a patriotic cop (Hauer) and an american journalist who look into a series of murders that involved the "greatest secret" of the Reich.

"Fatherland" is a better than average drama and at the same a very disturbing look at how history could have turned out differently.

I thought this film was interesting and engrossing. Miranda Richardson and Rutger Hauer were both good in their roles and the sets very well done too. I did find the ending a bit hard to swallow though. I read the book and found it to be much better. I never like when a film differentiates from the book. I was very impressed with Jean Marsh though. Marsh should have had a much bigger role than what she had. I absolutely loved her small but significant part. I have never seen such dedicated Nazi in any movie before. She made my blood run cold! I would have loved to see a sequel that focused on Anna Von Hagen very much. Jean Marsh Rocks!!!

This is a great film, The plot follows the novel throughout but some Christian and western influence is added. This spoils the tag line from my opinion.

Comparing this film with the novel might not be fair. The novel is great and this film is also, but in different way.

The visual effects are great as well as the acting. 60s Nazi Reich spirit is captured well. The Third Reich painted in the film is credible, and very nice attention is paid to the details.

I'd suggest watching this film first and then reading the Robert Harris' novel. That way you'll get the best of the both.

I've been waiting for about ten years to see the filmation, and this was a bit of a disappointment. Seeing the Auschwitz death camps in person last year was a shocking experience. They're preserved in extraordinary way by the Polish. I'd suggest all the viewers to visit the survived concentration and extermination camps and feel the "spirit" of the Nazi Germany. It's a life-changing experience for you even if you are a extreme right believer or a person interested in the history.

The movie alone 9/10, compared to the novel 6/10.

Fatherland by Robert Harris is truly one of the best novels ever written and I did find myself thinking "this could be a great film one day" many times while reading it. I was therefore delighted to see it made but disappointed with the result.

Most of the actors work for me - this is a film that should be cast with Europeans - especially Rutger Hauer (ever growing in stature as an older statesman) as Xavier March. But one big flaw is the lack of chemistry with Richardsson.

But this is a book that deserved the big screen and a well known director. Lets hope for a re-make.

It must also be said that one of the most disappointing facts about the movie is how the film never really portrays the Berlin and Germany of a victorious Third Reich well enough. The monumental architecture that is so well described in Harris's book (taken from the historical facts of Hitler and Speer's plans) never really gets a fair showing. Just imagine what Industrial Light and Magic could do with this.

I made the unfortunate mistake of watching this film before reading the book. At the time of writing, the only reliable way to see Fatherland is to watch it on Youtube. I would love to see a proper DVD/Blu-ray release.

Without any knowledge of the book, the film is excellent. A tense thriller set in a unique setting with presentation that makes anyone who enjoys historical stuff (like myself) engrossed. The alternative history, the Albert Speer architecture, the carefully thought out references to actual historical events such as the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan. Both of which are considered war crimes by many, allowing for a small hint of socio-political commentary.

The flaws lie in the plot, which has significantly deviated from the book, in that the ending seems over-dramatic. I will not spoil it but those of you who have read the book will possibly agree that the ending to the novel is more intense, subtle and powerful. Rutger Hauer's performance is excellent, well acted and his style is perfectly fitting of a character like Xavier March. Miranda Richardson plays the role of Charlie Maguire solidly, at times a little wooden and restrained.

All in all, the film is a decent homage to Robert Harris' most famous, and arguably his best, novel. For a low budget, mid 90s TV movie, I am impressed. I would love to see a new adaptation of the book, perhaps with a longer runtime (less condensation) and with a larger budget?

This film is just about worth watching, containing interesting graphics which are somewhat similar to Ridley Scott's Gladiator (2000), not-to-mention numerous computer games on classical civilisations.

Both films recall the famous/infamous film director Leni Riefenstahl, and her shots of the Nuremburg rallies, with lots of classical buildings and shots of eagles and other imagery. This time, in Fatherland, there is the monumental and gigantic Hall of the People, actually planned in real-life by the Reich architect Albert Speer. It is here rendered rather well on film, actually quite convincingly, and is suitably ubiquitous throughout the entire film. Rutger Hauer can even see it from his bedroom window.

Rutger Hauer is adequate in his role as the sort of 'good' SS officer, but Miranda Richardson is just boring as the American journalist.

The film really only works on the level of style, with all the different pictures of what Hitler would've looked like in 1963 while about to meet President 'Joe' Kennedy (the father of JFK). Plus all the paraphenalia of Nazi rule and society, with symbols everywhere, etc. It's really quite convincing and presumably realistic. They loved their symbols, those Nazis.

The plot is rubbish, however. Really it amounts to finding some pictures which suggest that there was a holocaust - then everyone in the photos is eliminated, one-by-one. Then it ends.

Still worth watching.

A great book has been completely desecrated by this movie. The filmmakers have created a sort of 'soap opera thriller' that has absolutely nothing to do with the outstanding novel it is supposed to be based on. Where are the wonderfully described murky atmospheres of the book, the gray shades of everyday life in post WW2 Nazi Germany that are so vivid in the book you can feel them, they are almost palpable. Where is the suspense, where is the thriller?

Unfortunately, none of this is present in the movie, which spends far too much time in explaining to the viewers that R. Hauer is a good Nazi, showing him being a good father to his kid, etc... The film lacks also in pace, it lacks credibility (the depiction of the Nazis, the SS, the Gestapo, etc. is nothing less than grotesque, totally unreal), it seems as if the director actually never even read the book... And then the ending to top it all off... What a pity. Maybe someone in the future will attempt a second filming of this novel with better success. Let's hope so...

I read the Robert Harris' novel, which this Tv movie is very close to. In the line of what the American political thrillers of the seventies brought to us: for instance PARALLAX VIEW. Instead of Kennedy assassination, the topic is set in a Germany that won WW2. And the lead investigator character is a SS officer !!! He has the same role that Yves Montand had in I COMME ICARE, or Warren Beatty in PARALLAX VIEW. That's the first time in the movie history that a SS is shown as a "good" guy, a hero. After all, for an uchronia, it is so believable, so terrific. In France, you had a politician whose death was very similar to the murder case that begins this film: Robert Boulin. But that's another story.

Notwithstanding the fine acting, directing, and character development, the premise of the film is interesting but frankly implausible. That a failed operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, would cause the Allies to quit the liberation of Europe is untenable for a host of historical reasons, as follows. Nearly complete allied air supremacy existed over Europe in June, 1944 as it was a prerequisite for the D-day invasion. Likewise, the German U-boat threat was largely eliminated after May, 1943 and so threats and disruption of shipping in the Atlantic had been markedly reduced by then. Thus, even with a failed allied invasion of Normandy, the allies would not have been placed at a sufficiently great risk so as to sue for peace with Hitler. Moreover, the surrender of Japan in the wake of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left the U.S. as the world's sole nuclear power in August, 1945. The dramatic surrender of Japan would have further released massive additional U.S. resources in the Pacific, such as carrier and battleship groups as well as 100's if not 1000's of B29 Superfortresses for re-tasking to Europe. Further massive conventional bombing would have eventually neutralized German fortified positions along the coast and likely would have decimated the Wehrmacht's infantry and Panzer divisions in France. In the unlikely event that such massive augmented air power would have still failed, the U.S. might have employed its nascent nuclear stockpile in late 1945 to obliterate Hitler's "Atlantic Wall." Tactical use of the atomic bomb in an amphibious invasion of Japan was already being debated for the planned "Operation Downfall" in the event that Imperial Japan would refuse to capitulate. Moreover, in the wake of the release of the nuclear genie, it is extremely implausible that any allied commander-in-chief would sue for peace and permit a technological juggernaut like Nazi Germany to rest, regroup, and ultimately develop its own atomic weapons. The fear of a Nazi atomic weapons program itself provided the impetus for the Manhattan project. In short, while the film is certainly entertaining, worth watching, and thought provoking, functional students of history can realize the implausibility of the plot's premise.

Rutger Hauer plays a police officer in an imaginary world where the nazis had won the war and become a real country. In this setting Hauer's character is the typical honest cop who wants to do his job and seek the truth...but then stumbles into dark secrets about the war.

At first I was a bit disappointed because I expected an action movie but then had to admit that the movie works pretty well as a thriller. It's a bit slow at times but the plot is paced well enough to stay interesting. I also expected more of a cheesy b-movie style but it was actually very serious and believable story.

The nazi setting creates a fresh take on the detective thriller genre and makes it even more thrilling. There's not much graphic violence, only a little bit of shooting, but the overall story is a bit unsettling...which it's supposed to be.

If you think the concept of this movie seems interesting to you, see it. And also of course if you're a fan of Rutger Hauer.

I do not usually compare books to movies because they are two different means of expression. Books give lots more details and let the readers work with their imagination. Movies give us the director's vision, which is usually different from ours, but may add interest to a known story.

In the case of Fatherland, however, having read the novel years ago and stumbled upon the movie only a few nights ago, I was disappointed. The novel is based on historical facts (up to 1942) and accurately researched, but still manages to get us involved with two interesting and believable main characters, Xavier March and Charlie Maguire.

They live in a scary, dystopian past-future of the year 1964, with the Nazi as winners of WWII, a Cold War between Germany and the US and guerrilla between the Russians and the Germans. March is a police office and honorary SS, investigating a suspicious suicide, Maguire is an American who wants to report on the meeting of the 75 yo Hitler with US president Joseph Kennedy.

The film has a great performance by Hauer as the weary March and a totally miscast British Richardson as the American journalist Maguire. Her character is described as a young, rebellious child of the 60s. Richardson looks like a bored middle-aged matron.

Another major change in the plot is March's son. In the book he is described as a malevolent, brainwashed creature, while in the film… you can see for yourself. The idea of the Nazi regime as pure evil is a lot stronger in the book and the punch of the final revelation watered down in the movie, by the fact that the audience already knows what really happened. Also the ending feels really rushed and a bit silly.

It is interesting but depressing to see what could have happened if the Nazi had won. Perhaps the main purpose of this movie is to make us happy that it did not happened. But if you want to dig deep, the book is very well written and gives the full picture.

A great film!

At my first watching this film I was very impressed. This fictionary history was so horrible to imagine that this had could been reality. I think this is one of Rutger Hauer's best films he ever made. He shows very good how his character changed his minds and his kind of thinking during the film.

Also the end of this film is very dramatic and a little bit surprising. But I don't want to tell you too much about the story. If you have the chance to see this movie ... do it!

BtW: The boy who played the role of Rutger Hauer characters son did a great job too.

It is rarely possible to watch the movie of a book that you have read before, and be impressed by the movie. Fatherland is not an exception. Of course changes have to be made to any story to adapt it to the film-medium, but in Fatherland, as in so many other cases, incomprehensible and unnecessary changes are made to the entire plot, changing the whole feel of the story, turning an intelligent and though-provoking book into an over-simplified, mindless action-movie. And of course they had to change the ending, we must have happy endings, mustn't we?

I probably wouldn't have been so harsh in my judgement had I not read the book before I saw the film, that I admit. The film definitely has its good points. But since I have read the book, I know that the film could have been so much better! Save your video-money, go to the library and lend the book!

Re-baptized LE CREPUSCULE DES AIGLES (TWILIGHT OF THE EAGLES) by a French cable-TV chain, it was the only watchable movie on a raining election afternoon when I watched it, after mistaking it for a WWI air combat film starring George Peppard. To my great surprise, I learned from the introduction sequence that the Allies had been stormed back into the Channel in June 1944, then the US brought home the G.I's,Edward VIII came back with Queen Wallis, while Churchill retired to Canada, and Joe Kennedy became President of the United States, scheduled to meet Hitler in 1964, for the latter's 75th birthday. Then I understood I was watching a TV rendition of Robert Harris' masterpiece, which I had savoured almost ten years ago... Rutger Hauer was unusually mysterious as a quiet SS man, the setting (made in the Baranov studios of Prague, a bargain for advantageous filming of mid-century action) was excellent, with an interesting suggestion of the Albert Speer monumental project. I wonder who had the idea to schedule this film the very day when the French voters sent an unanimous rejection of the extreme right (May 5th, 2002), and under an enigmatic name (it had never been shown before, either on TV or theatres). harry carasso, paris

Fatherland is a simple movie, it doesn't touch on particularly deep themes and there's not a whole lot of depth or subtlety to the plot, but therein lies the charm.

Seeing Fatherland reminded me of Threads (another made-for-TV film from a decade earlier) in that they're both simple films that somehow manage to have more coherent scene structure and pacing than many films released today.

Isn't it lovely when what's shown on screen makes a bit of basic sense?

The overdubbed child actor and heavy handed third act does bring down the overall impression however.

Rutger Hauers Police station is built of glass and concrete, an architectural style Hitler hated. "Das Beatles' poster on the wall obviously to try to allude to a certain decade, the 1960's but again, this sort of music would have been deemed degenerate...and the four Liverpool mop tops would have probably been enlisted by then. Overall, what could have been a decent film that matched the books content etc ended up looking like it had been made by three different directors. Finally, the Grand idea of a new Berlin and Germania just does not come across in the lazy production values. So, what could have come across as a really interesting and scary alternative future for Europe and the USA falls flat on its face I fear.

I am so glad, that I have read the book first (total master piece, even better than Da Vinci's code, which integrated quite a lot of elements from Fatherland), cause the movie was a total disaster. In first 5 minutes the original story line is changed 4 times! after that I rather stopped counting mistakes. After half an hour I had to shot it down. I just couldn't stand the massacre of Harris's master piece. My advice to those who want to know the story is to read the book before seeing the movie cause there is a big possibility you will lose all your interest in the story if you start with that terrible movie. And missing this story is a sin! And now, can anybody answer me, why Americans always destroy all the good stories, when they turn them into movies?

The scenario in "Fatherland" is what would have happened if Germany had won WWII. Much of Europe will still be under Nazi rule and the Russians and Germans kept fighting. Our two main charecters is a divorced father who spends time with his son and is also an SS officer. The other one is a female American Journalist assigned to cover the peace summit with Adolph Hitler and US president Kennedy. This events also coincides with what would have been Hitler's 75th birthday. Together they gradually uncover an aweful crime committed durring the war and the gestapo is resorting to any means neccesery to keep it quiet. Mant High ranking Nazi officials end up dead. I found this to be an enjoyable movie. It's more of a thriller than a Drama! You almost think that did really happen. 9/10