Why on Earth was this film made? I mean, really? Didn't anyone stop to think about what they were doing? In this fantasy tale in we get to see Adolf Hitler as a tortured artist. But here's the problem. This story didn't happen. And why in heaven's name do we need to see a fantasy about, for God's sake, Adolf Hitler? Don't get me wrong. I'm not offended per se by never-coulda-happened movies about Adolf Hitler. I loved "Hitler Dead or Alive." "Inglorious Basterds" was a wonderful thrill ride. But when you film an earnest character study about the formative years of the fellow who becomes the greatest evil ever known, you owe it to your audience to ground the story in reality.Things LIKE this story happened. But not this particular story. So we wind up with something so incredibly false that when I sat in my living room watching it on cable TV last night my jaw about fell open. And running through my head was the title song from "Springtime for Hitler," that brilliant musical-within-a-movie from "The Producers." At least we knew that was supposed to be a joke.I read a book years ago about Hitler's starving-artist period, and as the movie began I thought this might be an interesting story about a little-known chapter of Hitler's life. But any illusion I might have had about the movie's reality was dispelled when I saw John Cusack listening to an early-'30s tombstone radio (in 1919!), to a radio report about the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Umm, radio broadcasting started in 1920; newscasts came later. It's sort of like seeing a movie in which Lewis and Clark settle in for the winter and spend it playing Super Mario Brothers.That was when the truth began to dawn on me, and I put the movie on pause to check the Internet and confirm my suspicion. Yes, they were making the whole thing up.From that point I watched with a growing sense of horror. Like when Hitler explains that his political speeches are actually a new form of art. Or when I watched John Cusack deliver the line, deadpan, "You're a hard man to like, Hitler." We see Hitler in 1920 or so sketching his plans for the Nuremberg rally of 1936 and for the shimmering imperial city we know from the never-built blueprints of Albert Speer. His buddy Cusack, an art dealer, delightedly pronounces them "future kitsch!" So Hitler readies them for an art exhibition that never comes off -- and because it doesn't happen he takes a different path and becomes Fuhrer instead. And the Astoundingly Manipulative Coincidence that ends the movie is really, really just too much to bear.This movie is so wretched in its conception, so appalling in its construction, and so serious about it all, that it deserves a place of honor among the worst films of all time. Heartily recommended for fans of "Plan Nine From Outer Space," but now that I've seen it I'll skip a repeat showing and go watch Hogan's Heroes instead.

A chance meeting. A relationship develops, and the art dealer Max Rothman (John Cusack) tries to direct the rage of Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) into painting.Would things have turned out differently? Is it possible to see the humanity of Hitler, knowing what we know? An interesting premise for a film, but can we put aside our feelings and consider the possibilities?Hitler was an ascetic. He didn't smoke, drink, or fool around. How could he find emotion to put into art, when he hasn't lived? He was caught up in the injustice of winners and losers, and wallowing in self-pity, looking for someone to blame.Rothman was playing against the Army, who were looking to stoke the same anger in Hitler. They wanted another war after the shame of Versailles. Hitler managed to put the two together and create a new art - politics. He found his scapegoat in the Jew. The irony of the ending was incredible.

In the year 1918 a man named Adolf Hitler wants to become an artist.Maybe a Jewish art dealer named Max Rothman would help him in achieving his dream.But soon Hitler finds out that politics is the new art.And what would work better for the crowds than the anti-Semitism? Max (2002) is the first movie Menno Meyjes both wrote and directed.John Cusack does brilliant job as Max Rothman, a character who didn't actually exist.Noah Taylor is terrific as Adolf Hitler, a role not everyone can do.Leelee Sobieski is marvelous as Liselore Von Peltz, Max' lover.Molly Parker does very fine job as Max' wife, Nina Rothman.Ulrich Thomsen is very good as Captain Mayr.Great job by David Horovitch and Janet Suzman, who play Max' parents.Max shows two frustrated men.Max Rothman is frustrated because he lost his right arm in the World War I, Hitler is frustrated his dream of becoming an artist just isn't going to happen.This movie shows another side of Hitler.We don't see the rampaging monster who wanted to put every Jew in the concentration camp and have them killed.This Hitler what we see here is a man who wanted to be an artist.I heard recently that some of his paintings were found in a farm in Austria.Those paintings are going on sale.Of course I would never have a Hitler on my wall, no matter how good of an artist he was.One might ask does this movie humanize Hitler too much.When you take off the monster's cloak, what does he become? A human? You can ask that from yourself.

As far as the genre of 'Biopics' go, there have been critical hits in the form of Ed Wood and Walk the Line and then there have been even bigger hits in the form of Raging Bull. Whilst I liked all those films to a certain degree, I am always sceptical on whether or not someone's life story will actually make for good film material. Film's are supposed to suspend reality by transporting us into a fictional world with fictional people and various acts – it can be Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle or it can be Pulp Fiction; it doesn't matter – truth is none of it's real and the odd obvious continuity error that pops up now and again only convinces us further.So, for someone to actually have their life put into a world of film must mean that they've gone through some pretty harsh lessons and come out on the other side for the best. It doesn't matter if you're Edward Wood, Jake La Motta, Johnny Cash or even Adolf Hitler – if your story isn't interesting or doesn't make for good film material then it isn't going to make a good or great film. You must remember that the film Max is called Max after Max Rothman (Cusak); not 'Adolf' after Adolf Hitler which is an easy thing to do seeing as the film revolves around Hitler, played by Noah Taylor whose previous film to this was Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – perhaps on it's own a biopic of a computer game character? What is fascinating in this film is the character study of Hitler; ruler of Germany from 1933 and reason so many people needlessly died during the second world war and the holocaust. What isn't as fascinating is the story of Max Rothman and the character of him: a 1910s German equivalent of perhaps a yuppie as he does his best to live the ultra-good life. Funny then, how the film is indeed called Max as the emphasis is supposedly supposed to be on him.In terms of authenticity of the era; watching Noah Taylor act Adolf Hitler rather well and the overall theme of the film, you can have few complaints. A minor quibble may be the accents early on regarding Hitler's soldier comrades as they flick between English and Scottish as Hitler remains German and the general feeling Max feels like a TV Movie but showing Hitler in a light such as this one is a very rare and thankful thing to achieve, especially given the fact director Menno Meyjes is Dutch and the fact Holland lost a lot of life as well as scenery due to Hitler and his ideas of a perfect Europe. If the film had been made by a German showing Hitler as a somewhat misunderstood being, you can probably predict the uproar that'd happen – it's worth saying here that I haven't seen 2004's Downfall yet.Max is a film that suggests Hitler didn't necessarily start out 'evil' but of course none of us do. Dictator's such as Hitler; Saddam Hussein; Joseph Stalin and Julius Cesar all have events and incidences in their lives that sway them into that realm of insanity through power and they took it out on their own people. Most of us will know Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in the First World War; something that is mentioned at the very beginning of the film when a statistic comes up: most of the Germans dead in WWI were Jewish; thus, they failed to "win the war for us". But this thinking is blurred and Max is a film that shows how Hitler came to this conclusion in a rather messy and inconsistent way. I'm not sure when Hitler discovered this statistic of Jews in WWI but when it comes to anti-Semitic remarks around his person and puppet shows mimicking the Jews and giving of a message that they are polluting Germany, Hitler is unimpressed and labels them all anti-Semitic fools. But here's the flaw: if Hitler like everyone else knew of the statistic given to us at the beginning of the film then why didn't he join in the mocking of the Jews? Consequently, perhaps these events like the puppet show and everything else never happened and this is a poor representation of Hitler in his youth if this is the case.A film that deals with a descent into madness can often be extremely effective: Taxi Driver, American Psycho and perhaps a further biopic: Raging Bull but Max deals with Hitler's descent in a heavy handed way. The film suggests that things like puppet shows; soldier banter and anti-Semitic lectures from captains got to Hitler and swayed him. I feel this is inaccurate since the real reason Hitler rose and became the enthusiastic dictator he was was due to the Treaty of Versailles: Germany's limitation of national defence which angered Hitler. The film also shows Hitler to be more worried about his lack of artistic skills and his need to dictate rather than focus on what really made Hitler angry: the Treaty; Germany's actual state in terms of defence and finance and Jews "loosing them the war". I don't want this to sound like I'm knocking the film too much or supporting Hitler in any way at all. The film is shot well and given great mise-en-scene; Hitler's dictator scenes are fascinating as are the pieces of art he comes up with nearer the end to do with the Nazi regime but by this point, I was not convinced Hitler as a character had been developed in the final third that well; nor were his reasons for becoming 'evil'. It's because of this that the film perhaps feels like it is leaving a little too much up to our own knowledge of Hitler and WWII to fill in the gaps.