Rommel

a correct film. the choice of actors, the atmosphere, the portrait of Rommel who is not only realistic but, in same measure, useful for discover the man behind the hero are inspired ingredients for create coherent fresco of principles, sense of duty, courage and wise vision about the situation of Germany from a Nazi officer who represents the traits of a lost world under dictatorship. a film about principles more than about a man. because the actions of Rommel are fruits of a faith who , translate in smart manner in each scene, represents a kind of map of the contemporary society. a correct film. and that is more important than great, beautiful or profound. because it propose not only a biography but a model.

This movie has the German stamp of quality: Good acting, good attention to details (uniforms, military equipment), great scenery and great sense of authenticity. If you are interested in history, this movie will take you in the atmosphere of those days. And it will do that so good that you'll have the impression that you see the actual events taking place. However, it lacks the story. Yes, the events did take place as they were presented, but the subject had tremendous potential: Hitler was a crazy and was obviously leading the entire country to disaster. Edwin Rommel could have been representative to all generals around the world who were torn apart between the sworn allegiance to their country and the resistance to the lunatic currently in charge. This could have been the symbol movie for all other military in similar cases: The STASI police, who let the Berlin wall fall although in other occasions they shot everyone who fled into West Berlin. The Romanian generals who refused to shot their own population, although they were ordered to do so by Ceausescu. And all other crazy dictators like Antonio Salazar, Rafael Trujillo, Mohamad Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko, François Duvalier or Kim Jong Il, they all had honest generals in their army serving their countries. Maybe not many, but some of them had problems with their conscience in one way or another and they were forced to make difficult decisions.

Same with Rommel here. Yes, he betrays the Fuhrer, but Hitler is not Germany. Yes, he could be killed if he fails. He will probably be killed too if they're on the losing side of the war. But this maniac would rather give cyanide pills to all Germany than to surrender. What's the right thing to do? To whom does a military sworn allegiance to? To the leader or to the people? Instead of exploiting all this drama, the director of this movie chose to make this film a documentary.

admirable ambition to present Rommel's last months. and, in same time, to create an answer to Walkiria. only problem is the result, the film itself. it is half documentary, half artistic movie. it seems be a kind of labyrinth and this fact is almost strange. maybe, the sin is viewer expectation. and the pieces from another movies about events. but the great effort, the too realistic scenes, the portrait - obvious pledge for a hero - are too much and, in same time, too little. sure, it is a honest film. the good intentions of director are basic virtue and it is difficult to ignore that. the preoccupations for details gives not the expected result. but, must see the glass half full - it is a German attempt to present a great man. and, after all, each portrait is subjective.

To paint career German military in a better light. Lets not forget that the Wehrmacht swore an oath of allegiance to Hitler and kept that oath until things stopped going their way. When Rommel started having a crisis of conscience about the brutality of the Third Reich, Rommel's wife summed up the state of mind of the average German at the time, "Let's not talk about those things".

After being promoted to field marshal and being nicknamed the "Desert Fox" in North Africa, Erwin Rommel (Ulrich Tukur) is put in command of the German forces in northern France to defend against the imminent Allied invasion. Meanwhile there's a plot to assassinate Hitler and negotiate with the Allies since the writing was on the wall. What did Rommel know and not know about this intrigue? Benjamin Sadler (Gen. Speidel), Tim Bergmann (Hofacker) and Johannes Silberschneider (Hitler) are on hand.

A German/French/Austrian production, "Rommel" (2012) focuses on the behind-the-scenes events of the German high command mixed with occasional real-life B&W footage. It's a war drama rather than action flick and is a nice counterbalance to "Saving Private Ryan" (1997), which shows the Allied invasion, and "Valkyrie" (2008), which details Colonel von Stauffenberg's modified Operation Valkyrie to seize control of Germany from the Nazis. The events shown in "Fury" (2014) occur several months later.

While made-for-TV, this is a top-notch production in the same league as "The Longest Day" (1962) and "The Young Lions" (1958), albeit in living color and without the action. It boggles the mind to consider how the filmmakers were able to keep all the details in order to produce such an engaging war drama. I should add that the bulk of the dialogue is in German (or French), so you'll have to use the subtitles if you don't know those languages.

The film runs 1 hour, 58 minutes, and was shot in France (La Roche Guyon & Audinghen, Pas-de-Calais) and Germany.

GRADE: B+