Commentaires des utilisateurs

Too much focus personal intrigues and too little focus on the history

It's a fine movie about a interesting person in Danish history. To be hornets I didn't know Henrik Kaufmann and the history of him before this movie. It's a interesting man and a interesting story. The play from the actors is really good from all. Go to the theater and see the movie. It's worth it.

I love films where I learned something I did not know before about world events. This film is one of those movies. I did not know the exact circumstances of Denmark previous to the US entry into World War 2. This film clarifies it perfectly.

The only drawback to the film is the subplot of a jealous wife for her husband and sister, which I found to be non-essential to the basic plot of the movie.

The acting and direction is very good, and the Hamlet reference is fairly obvious at the conclusion, but the political negotiations between the US and Denmark before and during the war were fascinating. And the solutions created by the creative Ambassador of Denmark were nothing short of brilliant. Money always wins.

Great story. It could have been much better with a simultaneously running story following the war in Denmark and less jealous woman theme. Also a greater budget allowing more actions would have made a huge difference.

I liked the cadence of the move (others have complained), it is not a war action movie, it demonstrates the complexities going on behind the scenes and how brave people can become even when it is not popular to do so.

Nobody at the time could have predicted the outcomes, so yes it was brave to take a stance and do whatever means necessary to defeat a threat to your country's democracy.

Entertainment value: 5 Visuals: 6 Soundtrack: 4 Plot: 4 World building and depth: 6 Characters and dialog: 4 Total: 5

The good: Nice setting in the American 40s.

The bad: The dialog felt bland. The acting was not that good most of the time. The main character did not fit his role in my opinion. The American president was the sweetest old man, dunno if theodore roosevelt was that man in reality.

I much enjoyed, the story, the acting and the script.

His wife is not very attractive.

This would have been a better movie if there was more attention paid to the Danish Freedom fighters during the war. Instead there is a 4 year gap in the story from 1941-1945.

I have seen many WWI-II movies with more action, excitement, suspense, drama, etc. This movie is bland. I know that there is a book on Henrik Kauffmann called "Defiant Diplomacy." I hope that the book is better than this movie.

After i've seen another great movie "The idealist" also from the hand of Christina Rosendal, it was with some expectations I watched this movie and I was so disappointed. Well, I must admit I hadn't done any homework, reading or doing research about the history regarding the plot on this movie. That was perhaps a great mistake of me.. don't know.. but I hate to read all about a movie before I go to see it, nor do I ever see trailers that either total spoils every expense within the movie or show to much so that you actually have seen the whole movie. This movie is so boring in many ways IF you go and see it just as a "thriller" or "drama" or what it was supposed to be?? Do yourself a favor BEFORE you see the movie, read and do research about world war 2 and Henrik Kauffman, then you perhaps will find some moment of interest in this looong, talking, talking, talking and more talking movie. Don't let you fool by watching the trailers..there is absolutely no thrill, action, or suspense in "The good traitor" Maybe and only maybe, it could be used in a school project and be shown in class time. So sorry Christina.. Not sure what went wrong here.. There are so many good actors, all doing their best, but in my opinion it's obviously that they have a hard time to find the right, how should I say, feelings. hmm..!? It just don't feel right.

Interesting story but the casting and sets were definitely low budget and not convincing. The actor portraying FDR did not look, sound, or bear any resemblance to Roosevelt. FDR and Churchill sitting around a kitchen table having a late night snack was ridiculous. Incredibly, this "Roosevelt" could walk unaided in his leg braces.

There was a lot of sitting around a garden pool and none of the interior sets looked real. Nevertheless, the story line did flesh out the fascinating story of Kauffman's work to represent the "Free and Independent" Danish government during WWII. More information on how the governors of Greenland were convinced to sign the treaty allowing a U. S. air base would have been welcome.

The sound track is flooded with the sounds of birds, explosions that didn't fit the scene, and just continuing noise that flooded the dialogue. It's one of those movies that you continue to watch thinking it might get better but it doesn't. The Roosevelt and Churchill characters were the worst portrayl I have ever seen in 65 years of watching movies like this. The writers and director need a good kick in the derriere for this flop. Leaders of countries and their ambassadors would rarely refer to each other by their last names in their presence. Further, it would be unlikely for an embassy to host a huge gala party during war time when soldiers were dying in the field, in my opinion. Putting US cash in envelopes to send (mail ?) to other Danish Embassies was a bit of a stretch. I'm sure they had banks to facilitate these transactions. The scene with the gold bullion in the bank vault was absurd since there would be Certificates of Deposit available. Allowing children to visit the gold deposits was also a stretch.