L'Étau de Munich

The final lines of the movie, saying that the time won by Chamberlain enabled the allies to prepare for the war and defeat Germany, spoiled a bit an impression of the film. The fascism was stopped at the cost of millions and millions of Russians killed (incommensurable losses: they were practically cannon fodder) in the first place. Nowadays it's convenient to forget it.

Overall, the movie is produced very well. The leading actors were great.

Well hopefully not - I did not think of the Russia/Ukraine conflict when I watched this (a few days ago), but thinking about it now ... and it is quite eerie to be honest. Let's hope there is not really a connection there or a repeat to be more to the point.

Having said that and while I reckon we can argue about how one feels about Putin (and a comparison to Hitler that I sort of did above), the second world war and certain things that led up to it ... seem almost inevitable. Or are they? If you know history, you know what transpired overall and where or rather how the movie ends. So there should not be a big surprise there. Still the movie is tension filled and even when you know that certain things could not have happened ... you kind of still expect (hope?) for something different to happen ... don't hold your breath though.

The acting is more than solid and you see historical figures doing their thing ... trying their best to be either as diplomatic as they can or hammering a point across (warning or whatever one wants to call it). There are other comparisons one can draw here - but I'll leave them up to you. I'll just tell you that this movie is very well made ... although I guess you kind of expected that anyway.

Munich: The Edge of War is an entertaining movie to watch. Just don't get mislead by the title though. It's not really a war movie, more of a drama. You won't see any shooting or killing, just political conversations about going to war or not. Sounds boring but it isn't. It's an interesting story based on a novel, certainly not accurate to what really happened, something we will never really know. The cast was excellent, good acting from all of them. Nice cinematography as well, it's all quality. Just don't expect action because there isn't any.

I am all for revising understanding of history for the better as we learn more. But this film, like the novel it is based on, is not that at all, but rather an apologia and whitewash of Chamberlin's very real, naïve and ghastly mistake at Munich.

Robert's Harris' novel, Munich, on which this film is based isn't simply somewhat wrong, it is totally wrong. In fact Chamberlin was not thoughtful, and was NOT a skilled diplomat. He was a vain, pompous and petty dupe. The idea that he somehow outsmarted Hitler is ludicrous, Hitler got everything he wanted.

We even see in the crawl text at the of the film the claim that "The extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Great Britain and her allies to prepare for the war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat." Errr.. no. That is completely wrong. All the data on industrial capacity trends, submarine production, armored vehicle and aircraft production tends, as well as oil and other fuel reserves, shows that the UK and France were in a stronger position in 1938 than in 1939. The Munich agreement also had a massively deleterious effect on both strategic and popular views in the US and the USSR. It convinced Stalin to ally with Hitler. Which was the only way Hitler could invade Poland. The delay of the inevitable war resulted in the annihilation of Poland, the actualization of Japan's closer and more effective alliance with the Nazi's, and by all analysis made the holocaust 3x more effective by allowing the Germans to ally with the Soviets giving the Nazi more control of more of E. Europe where they mass murdered the Jewish populations. American isolationists got a massive boost from the blunder at Munich as well.

We know from Hitler's "second book" (go to youtube and search "Gerhard Weinberg Hitler's second book. For an excellent panel talk on it) we know that Hitler for considered the United States as the ultimate enemy of Nazis. He thought Great Britain would fold (and it initially did due to Chamberlin), that France would be easy to defeat if the war with them started in 1939 instead of 1938 (and it was), that he could fool the Soviets (and he he did for several key years). He thought the non-racial based nationalism of the US, which is to say the US's people's love of democracy, was the ultimate threat to the Nazis.

So in "Edge of War" we are left with a film that has some nice period elements, certainly fine acting, but is also severe disinformation on what went on at Munich. We know for a fact that Goering wrote the agreement, that no British changes were accepted, and that Chamberlin signed off without an argument which stunned even the Nazis.

The subject is a fascinating one and part of me was intrigued in seeing what 'Munich: The Edge of War' would do with the much maligned Neville Chamberlain, here given a more sympathetic treatment than what is often said and written about him. Robert Harris' book is a hugely compelling read, George McKay impressed me hugely in '1917' (one of 2019's best films) and Jeremy Irons is one of my all time favourite actors and has been ever since his iconic voice work in 'The Lion King'.

Watching 'Munich: The Edge of War' earlier last year (am behind with reviewing so it's taken a while to get round to talking about films seen last year), it turned out to be very interesting and well done. It did have potential to be better than it was, as not all the storytelling is there and there is a major casting blunder. But it does well with maintaining the book's intrigue and tension and there is one performance in particular that one could spend all night raving about. 'Munich: The Edge of War' was good if not great, but is one of those films that should be taken on its own terms for anybody expecting historical truth will be disappointed.

'Munich: The Edge of War' has many good things. The best aspect being the phenomenal performance of Irons in one of his best ever performances as Chamberlain (who he bears an uncanny resemblance to here), he brings wit, nuance and gravitas to an interestingly sympathetically written interpretation of a maligned figure in history. In the film though, it and the book do make a good case for him not being as bad as reputed in my view (something that won't be shared by others). One of my favourite performances of the year actually and that it didn't get any awards attention is a crime. McKay carries the film very commandingly, loved his increasingly tense chemistry with Jannis Niewohner.

Also thought that the costumes and sets/scenery were handsome and atmospheric, with a good sense of period. The music is haunting and doesn't over emphasise the mood. The film is very intelligently scripted (apart from some anachronistic language), especially Chamberlain's dialogue and had no problem with the German or the subtitles. Everything with the agreement has intrigue and tension and all of Chamberlain's scenes are a delight, both when more eventful and in smaller moments.

It's not a perfect film though. The camera work is rather dizzying and had a very feeling sick on a ship feel to it in some of the second half. All the female roles are severely underwritten, as is the too brief and not that necessary family/romance subplot that could have been excised.

Do have to agree with everybody panning Ulrich Matthes, whose casting as Hitler is one big catastrophic miscast. Too old, too thin/gaunt and nowhere near sinister enough, perfect for Goebbels but completely wrong for Hitler.

Overall, interesting and well done, with Irons being reason alone to see it, but it could have been more. 7/10.