Compelling.
It's an exceptionally good television movie. The performances are uniformly fine, the photography is crisp, judicious use is made of computer-generated effect, and the narrative covering the last seven months of Field Marshall Ervin Rommel is convincing.
It's less dramatic and more believable than James Mason's tortured Rommel in "The Desert Fox," less corny actually. This Rommel never kisses his wife, Lucy. He just nuzzles her. And he does not stop on the doorstep every time he leaves and whisper, "Good-bye, Darling." Ulrich Tukur's Rommel marches through his battles and finds himself in a conundrum with only one solution. He's all business and dignity. The effect is less dramatic but more believable.
In "The Desert Fox" we are never told exactly what it was that Rommel did that earned him a death sentence. Here, we learn that he knew of the plot against Hitler but refused involvement. He would have gone along with Hitler's arrest but not his assassination. That accords with what I've read elsewhere. He knew something was afoot, and he knew many of the men behind the plan, but not exactly what they intended.
In "The Desert Fox," Mason as Rommel protests that he is a soldier, not a politician. Here the message is spelled out in boldface. He had wistful dreams, not mentioned in this film, of surrendering peacefully to the Western Allies and perhaps even forming an alliance with them against the Bolsheviks. That's not a politician speaking.
The story is a kind of docudrama in which events are presented pretty much as they happened. Private conversations, of course, are fabricated. However, it's gripping throughout -- a docudrama, yes, but a very carefully thought-out and executed docudrama.
It's less dramatic and more believable than James Mason's tortured Rommel in "The Desert Fox," less corny actually. This Rommel never kisses his wife, Lucy. He just nuzzles her. And he does not stop on the doorstep every time he leaves and whisper, "Good-bye, Darling." Ulrich Tukur's Rommel marches through his battles and finds himself in a conundrum with only one solution. He's all business and dignity. The effect is less dramatic but more believable.
In "The Desert Fox" we are never told exactly what it was that Rommel did that earned him a death sentence. Here, we learn that he knew of the plot against Hitler but refused involvement. He would have gone along with Hitler's arrest but not his assassination. That accords with what I've read elsewhere. He knew something was afoot, and he knew many of the men behind the plan, but not exactly what they intended.
In "The Desert Fox," Mason as Rommel protests that he is a soldier, not a politician. Here the message is spelled out in boldface. He had wistful dreams, not mentioned in this film, of surrendering peacefully to the Western Allies and perhaps even forming an alliance with them against the Bolsheviks. That's not a politician speaking.
The story is a kind of docudrama in which events are presented pretty much as they happened. Private conversations, of course, are fabricated. However, it's gripping throughout -- a docudrama, yes, but a very carefully thought-out and executed docudrama.
- rmax304823
- 9 sep 2015