I do not believe this movie was designed to make any political statements. All the characters and their views are far too shallow for that. I think the goal was one thing and one thing only - the moral of the story. And, to interpret the moral of the story, you have to understand the ending. I think there are several plausible interpretations.
The most obvious is that they got what they deserved. They committed murder and they deserved to pay for it. That's nice and clean and follows the format for a million other movies.
Another option is that they became the very thing they had grown to hate - that being the intolerance of others.
A third option is that they had their chance to kill Hitler, but they were unable to see Hitler in front of their eyes. The point being that the Hitlers of the world survive to commit crimes because people fail to see their evil until it is too late - as it was for them.
A fourth option is that all the extremists in the movie die except for the one person who walks the political fence. The point being that the only way to succeed (or even to have a meaningful message) is to manipulate the audience.
A fifth option is that they weren't "murdered" at all. He couldn't have known the wine was poison. He simply didn't want to take any chances. The point being that if you play with fire, you will get burned. And, in his case, the more perceptive and inquisitive you are, the better your odds of survival.
As to the movie as a whole, it was very average. The acting was generally weak to non existent. However, Ron Perlman was excellent as the lone survivor. A few of the worm feeders were relatively good too. But, ironically (and perhaps not coincidentally) the 5 primary actors sucked. They really did. I honestly wonder if they didn't cast a bunch of weak actors in those roles JUST SO they would show how pathetic their killing rationale was as a balance to the pathetic political rationale of their victims.
The most obvious is that they got what they deserved. They committed murder and they deserved to pay for it. That's nice and clean and follows the format for a million other movies.
Another option is that they became the very thing they had grown to hate - that being the intolerance of others.
A third option is that they had their chance to kill Hitler, but they were unable to see Hitler in front of their eyes. The point being that the Hitlers of the world survive to commit crimes because people fail to see their evil until it is too late - as it was for them.
A fourth option is that all the extremists in the movie die except for the one person who walks the political fence. The point being that the only way to succeed (or even to have a meaningful message) is to manipulate the audience.
A fifth option is that they weren't "murdered" at all. He couldn't have known the wine was poison. He simply didn't want to take any chances. The point being that if you play with fire, you will get burned. And, in his case, the more perceptive and inquisitive you are, the better your odds of survival.
As to the movie as a whole, it was very average. The acting was generally weak to non existent. However, Ron Perlman was excellent as the lone survivor. A few of the worm feeders were relatively good too. But, ironically (and perhaps not coincidentally) the 5 primary actors sucked. They really did. I honestly wonder if they didn't cast a bunch of weak actors in those roles JUST SO they would show how pathetic their killing rationale was as a balance to the pathetic political rationale of their victims.