Max (I) (2002) User Reviews

Brilliant, totally non-offensive treatment of difficult subject

[Art Snob · 8/10 · 26 September 2002]

Sight unseen, the Jewish Defense League has urged Lions Gate Films to shelve this movie, due to its radical notion that Adolf Hitler was shaped by the world around him rather than being born the Antichrist. Specifically, the JDL protests that there is nothing "human about the most vicious, vile murderer in world history." As a person of Jewish extraction who has seen the movie (at the 2002 Toronto Film Festival), I would take exception to this stance and urge Lions Gate to proceed as planned. This film is a brilliant, engrossing, thought-provoking work that does Hitler no favors and sheds light on the real-world forces afoot in post WWI Munich that only could have nurtured his worst beliefs and talents.

Dutch-born Director Menno Meyjes has shown an affinity for tough ethnic and cultural clash themes in his career as a screenwriter (THE COLOR PURPLE, EMPIRE OF THE SUN and THE SIEGE are among his credits). But here, in his first chance to direct his own writing, he's come up with what's certainly his most fully realized work to-date. Eschewing simplistic notions, he weaves a fascinating story that deals at length with the career as a painter that Hitler is known to have unsuccessfully pursued at one time.

The title character of the film is a fictional (but based on a composite of real-life characters) Jewish German WWI vet named Max Rothman. He's lost one of his arms in battle, but is able to return to a much better situation than the average German vet: a loving wife and family, a gorgeous mistress, and family wealth that enables him to start an art gallery that prospers dealing in modern expressionist works. Hitler, by contrast, returns to pretty much nothing, and at age 30 is desperate to finally make the grade as a commercial artist.

Sensing that Hitler has a passion that there could be a market for if only he could find some way to get it out onto canvas, Max encourages him to experiment with schools of painting that seem a better fit for his temperament than the traditional ones he's decided to limit himself to. Unfortunately, Hitler's real artistic gift seems to be for a then-new form of performance art known as `propaganda,' and his Aryan war pals provide him with support for pursuing this field while simultaneously fanning his smoldering anti-Semitic sentiments.

Noah Taylor - who many feel got robbed of an Oscar nomination for his role as the young David Helfgott in SHINE - is mesmerizing in the Hitler role. Even made up to look gaunt, pallid, and thoroughly unappealing (although not freakish), you still can't take your eyes off of him. With body language, countenance, and tone of voice, he's able to suggest a raging intensity lurking just below the surface of his character's socially awkward loner exterior. Taylor still won't come up with any awards recognition for this role (it's WAY too hot a potato), but that doesn't change the fact that he's brilliantly conquered a daunting acting challenge.

John Cusack, in a welcome change from the light roles he's been playing lately, is also excellent as the title character, skillfully portraying a worldly businessman who's too focused on artistic images to ever notice the big picture. The subject matter allows near-zero latitude for levity, but SOME mirth is needed to keep the proceedings from becoming unrelentingly grim. Meyjes ingenious solution to this quandary is wry comments on art and (especially) the business of art by Max - a perfect fit for Cusack's deadpan delivery.

Even though you KNOW which career path Hitler is ultimately going down, the equilibrium between the forces pulling him in both directions and the incredible `what might have been' fascination factor keep you thoroughly transfixed throughout the film's near-2-hour running time. NOBODY in the huge auditorium where I saw the film got up or stirred from the opening scene through to the supremely ironic ending - not even to answer the call of nature. MAX is sure not `the feel-good film of the year,' but if you've been longing for a powerful, all-encompassing drama that doesn't require you to check your brain at the door, this is the film you've been waiting for.

A Profound Film

[danmcn61 · 25 March 2004]

I thought this movie was quite profound, and heartbreaking. I thought the filmmaker was obviously trying to make the point that if only Hitler had achieved some success as an artist, and had at least one true friend who he could bond with (esp. if that friend was a Jew)then the events of the 20th century would have been far different. The scene where Max tries to get Hitler laid was incredibly funny and sad at the same time. One can't help but think, this pathetic loser is destined to rule Europe in 20 years?

The film also proposes that perhaps the whole thing (siezing power, the war, the holocaust, ...) was just an elaborate art project for Hitler and nothing else. This may be preposterous, but I give the director credit for at least trying to say something so potentially controversial. Clearly the events of post WW1 Germany were far more complicated than are expressed in this film, and clearly Hitler as a young man was far more twisted and ambitious than the character portrayed here, but nevertheless I think this film was brilliant.

not bad, but misunderstood

[dr_saaron · 6 January 2004]

Overall, I would say the film wasn't bad. Full marks for embracing the radical concept that Hitler was a human being.

Reading many of the comments posted here, I would say that the film has been somewhat misunderstood. Understandably, the viewers focus on the portrayal of Hitler. But the film is titled "Max", not "Adolf." Max, the art dealer, is the focal character of the story, not Hitler. I think that the film shows the blindness of so many Germans in the interwar years, people who saw what they wanted to see in Hitler and ignored the rest. Max saw Hitler as an amusing ex-soldier artist and futurist, and brushed off the ideology underlying his futurist visions. Max is emblematic of an army that saw his desire to rearm and ignored the ideology that would strip the army of its historic identity, of business owners who saw his committment to controling labor but ignored the ideology which would also put a stranglehold on business, of ordinary Germans who saw a strong leader to deal with their country's problems but ignored his desire for war and conquest. As recently pointed out in Woody Allen's "Anything Else", there were German Jews who supported Hitler, because they saw a strong leader. To me, "Max" is the story of the blindness that overcame so many Germans, blindness that paved the way for Hitler's rise to power.

I've read in a few comments that Hitler claims, in the film, to have not been anti-Semitic. That is not correct. Rather, as he says in the barracks, he opposes "emotional" anti-Semitism. In his mind, anti-Semitism should be based on "scientific" fact rather than raw emotions. To him, it is a self-evident truth arrived at logically by observing the Jews and their ways. This is historically correct. His big anti-Semitic speech at the end of the film is taken straight out of Mein Kampf, and shows this approach.

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Ogre

[lawprof · 7/10 · 2 January 2003]

Not very long ago several art historians sought an American publisher for a catalogue of paintings by Adolf Hitler that had survived the Gotterdamerung in the Berlin bunker and the acquisitive hordes of Russian occupiers, perhaps the greatest conquering locusts of modern times. No one would publish the book and several reasons were proffered. The most interesting was that it would be virtually obscene to examine a human side of the twentieth century's greatest monster (Stalin ranks up there too but this isn't the place for that digression).

Why shouldn't every aspect of Hitler's life be open for examination, including his paintings? Hitler was a human being: his younger years and his attempts to become an artist are part of the probably ultimately impenetrable mystery about his development. Let's study everything about him.

Director/Writer Menno Meyjes's "Max" brings the battle-scarred, thirty-year-old Austrian, Adolf Hitler, to turbulent 1918 Munich where he seeks to make sense of the battered city and country while pursuing his dream (fantasy, actually) of becoming a respected and original artist. So much of the film is true. The corporal, still in the army, largely but not exclusively painted the detailed but uninspired and flat urban scenes bought by tourists. Meyjes also has Hitler drawing his ideas about what would later be National Socialist iconography, a reflection of his increasing obsession witn politics..

"Max", a fictional character, is a womanizing, married art dealer. Max Rothman, like Hitler is a former soldier. Rothman literally gave his right arm for "Kaiser und Vaterland," but he seems to accept his sacrifice without deep bitterness. John Cusack as Rothman, the avatar of an emerging German Expressionism, is excellent as he enjoys his pre-Bauhaus mansion while seeking every opportunity to steal away from his lovely and devoted wife, Nina (well-played by Molly Parker) to exercise his libido with his mistress, Liselore (a sultry and cultured young woman whose spirit is captured by Leelee Sobieski).

Hitler shows up delivering a case of bubbly for a Rothman gallery soiree and a conversation begins a weird friendship. Max wants Hitler to be a better artist which in his view is synonymous with being a better man. What a project! Noah Taylor is intense, on fire, as the future fuehrer. Can this bantering Odd Couple seem real when we know what the future holds for Hitler and for Jewish families like the Rothmans who, both in this film and to a large degree in the Germany of the Versailles Treaty, had no inkling that anti-Semitism was being stoked and would emerge rampant before very long? Would we never have heard of the monster Hitler had he been accorded respect (and money) as a painter? That's the film's truly superficial question. Hitler's life wasn't that reductionist.

My answer is that this film should be absorbed as a bifurcated experience. As drama, the acting is compelling. The direction is strong and one scene in which Hitler's rants are rapidly alternated with a Jewish service is blindingly powerful. As German veterans decry a military defeat and the "Stab in the Back" theory begins its awful climb to a national excuse for losing the war the Rothmans, their children and extended family, seem to enjoy a barely inconvenienced life of sumptuousness. The story works well at that level.

Where it fails is that the projected Hitler-Rothman relationship lacks the depth some have found. More than a few critics have suggested that Meyjes sends a message about blindness because Max can't see the anti-Semitic screeching of Hitler as an adumbration of Germany's future. The real reason Max doesn't take Hitler all that seriously is that he himself isn't a very serious fellow except when he tries to sell art and pursue parallel but antagonistic romantic relationships.

How would a Max Rothman have divined the potential of a miserable, hungry corporal in a city where such fellows were common and where they constituted a public menace as the fear of communists and the shakiness of a wrecked economy brought disorder? Impossible. (A prologue title mentions that 100,000 Jews served in the German Army in World War I. My father was one of them and I recall his recollection of disarming warring, urban civilians and quasi-military bands after the Armistice.)

So Max puts his arm around Hitler, offers to buy him lemonade and tells him he isn't an easy guy to like. That brought one of the few guffaws in the theater today. It's not revelatory cinema, it's silly and superficial. The weakest parts of the film are when Max tries to be a pal to his new find.

Charlie Chaplin had Hitler's number and his impersonation of the by-then Nazi leader is an indelible screen classic, a work of acting genius. Noah Parker's younger Hitler is intense and mesmerizing. I wonder if an Oscar nomination can go to an actor portraying one of the most evil characters in all history, one whose mark leaves deep scars in many living today. I have my doubts. We'll see.

Original, different, flawed, often fascinating, in parts a bit foolish.

7/10.

Interesting

[Joe-560 · 10/10 · 30 November 2003]

Already people are criticizing this movie because of the suggestion that if Hitler had become an artist, we might have prevented the Holocaust. I would have to disagree with them, in that this is not what the film was trying to convey. What this movie was about was Hitler's odd relationship with a Jewish art dealer named Max Hoffman. This takes place when Hitler was aged 30 years old (post WWI, pre WWII). Hitler is trying to be an artists, but refuses to listen to advice and seems to find the slight in every comment about him or what he stands for. He claims NOT to be an Anti-Semite, but what I got from the film was he was sort-of peer pressured into the propaganda.

By then end of the movie, Hitler has failed as an artist, as he did in real life. He claims to have disovered a new art in politics, and pursues a career in the Socialist Party rather than becoming an artist. Does this sound familiar?

While this movie may not be a true account of what actually happened, it did portray Hitler's falling out of his pursuit towards being an artist, boasting the message: some people can't be changed. Cusack's character, Max, constantly tries to become Hitler's friend throughout the movie, but this is difficult because hitler is anti-social, rude, closed-minded (obviously), basically just a hard person to like. The film's message is not to show what could have been, but what never, ever had a chance of happening. Even if Hitler had succeeded as an artist, nothing would have changed.

The movie succeeded in what it was trying to do, which I think was show how Hitler had every opportunity to choose a different path, but he didn't. He had a Jewish friend that never did him wrong, yet he failed to see the goodness and humanity, the common link that binds us all. Perhaps the movie's message was, some people can't be helped, no matter how hard you try.

I'm sure the idea when it was being written was, what if Hitler had a Jewish friend that could have made a differnce? There you have it. None at all. The rest, as they say, is history.

I thought this was a brilliant film. The acting was terriffic, the directing good, and the pacing was not slow at all, it's just the audience that's impatient. Bonus: the camera-pull back in the end to show the architecture of the squares forming a swatstika, ingenius.

"Come on Hitler, I'll buy you a lemonade"

[CinemaParadisco · 12 February 2003]

This movie was fantastic if you are open minded enough to view it with a "what if" attitude. Of course there are plenty of people out there complaining because they cannot separate fiction from reality and entertain the idea of Hitler having taken a different path. However, this movie is worth seeing. Great performances by Cusack(Max Rothman) and Noah Taylor(Adolph Hitler).

Also people always wonder how Hitler could be so influential if he was so whacko and the movie gives a great insight as to how it might have happened.

If for no other reason, the movie is worth seeing just to hear the line "Come on Hitler, I'll buy you a lemonade..."

I never would have guessed I'd hear that line in a million years.

There is no future in the future

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 7 February 2003]

Greetings again from the darkness. What a phenomenal script! Dealing with the absolute most controversial subject possible, Menno Meyjes (writer and director), provides a fascinating look at the early years of history's most despised figure. "What if" Hitler's art had won over his politics? So much of history would have changed, one can only imagine. As a matter of fact, how about a script showing what could have been? This one teases us with the fork in the road. Noah Taylor is absolutely chilling as a frustrated Hitler, just back form WWI and struggling to find his place in a crippled Germany. John Cusack, as art dealer Max Rothman, is tremendous in what is truly his first role as an adult (no wise-ass or chick flick here). Comparing the two and how they deal with post-war syndrome is enthralling. So similar, yet so different. I doubt this film gets made without Cusack and I doubt it will find much of an audience due to the fear of many to this day to even entertain the thought of Hitler as a human being. Trust me, this is not a sympathetic view of Hitler, merely a glimpse into his formation. Molly Parker has a nice turn as Cusack's wife. Where has she been? More than 20 film credits and I don't recognize her! It is always a pleasure to see Leelee Sobieski ("Joy Ride") although she has very little to do in this one. Wonderful script, mediocre direction and two fabulous performances make this one worth seeing ... although, sadly, very few will.

Excellent for the art-house crowd, too deep for the popcorn crowd

[vestabrigit · 9/10 · 6 March 2005]

The tag line, "Art + Politics = Power," should give people some idea of the gravity of the film. This role may have been the Oscar that slipped through Cusack's hands due to the controversy surrounding the release. The sad part is, it was started by people who had not even seen the film, and when they had seen it, they retracted their statements. The movie was very well-executed and tasteful, and it was refreshing to see Cusack lose himself in a character. He does well with complexity, and it shows here.

Noah Taylor made a particularly realistic (and as a result particularly unsettling) performance as Hitler. Definitely see this film and don't expect blockbuster two-dimensional acting and predictable plot twists. Watch with a glass of wine and a group of friends who will explore the aspects and finer points with you. It's a conversational piece if nothing else, but one that will leave you on a tangent of what-ifs for quite some time.

Powerful Performance by Noah Taylor

[LivingDog · 10/10 · 13 August 2006]

There are only 2 actors you need to watch: John Cusack and Noah Taylor. John Cusack plays a rich Jewish art dealer who tries to help a not-so-young unknown artist find his "inner voice." The two go through the art world and all its patrons. Max Rothman, played by Cusack, is an intelligent nihilist who tries to guide this unknown into finding the core of his artistic endeavor. And the not-so-young unknown artist, played utterly convincingly - utterly committed - utterly profoundly, by Noah Taylor is Adolf Hitler. I have been glued to my seat before with films and movies, but this goes beyond those films and movies. I usually get a sense of focus on the action, script and scenery. This time it is utter silence. I was listening and watching for every nuance ... and Mr. Taylor's performance is nothing but unbelievably wondrous. It is 100.000% utter professional commitment to the role. Mr. Taylor disappears and Hitler, the evil maniacal horror emerges. I was GLUED to my seat like never before... I was sorry to see this movie end. His performance was just so amazing to watch. I can't compare it to anyone else's acting since Mr. Taylor has gone beyond any performance ever before ... and maybe ever again! 20/10. -LD

What if Hitler had become the Thomas Kinkade of Weimar Germany?

[HickNHixville · 25 May 2003]

I like bad art. I really do. I have several C. M. Coolidge prints hanging in my den (you know, those poker playing dogs). I prefer the bloated Vegas Elvis who covered Frank Sinatra songs to the leaner King of Rock and Roll. One of my favorite writers is Howard Phillips Lovecraft, the `king of the pulps' who's florid, overblown prose and surreal, overly extended other dimensional metaphors redefined hack sci-fi and fantasy literature.

So, god forbid, would I buy a Hitler painting? The answer is a conditional yes, as you will see.

But first, I need to tell you I like bad art so much I decide to create some myself a few years back. I took an introductory black and white photography course at a local community college near where I live on the suggestion of a moody, bi-polar ex-friend of mine, who also signed up. Besides us, most of those in the class were just eager kids of limited artistic vision and lots of desire to create masterpieces. The instructor fed their delusions of greatness with the typical prodding to think abstractly and expressively.

So when it came time for everyone to put up samples of their work, the walls were full of grainy or out of focus images of isolated sections of zig zagging stairwells, distorted shadows cast on the ground by playground equipment, and other such interpretive stuff. Everyone was oohing and aahhing, including the teacher. Then it was my turn to show. All I had managed to produce was contrasty and technically well exposed and developed shots of old barns, waterfalls, mountain vistas, farm animals, clapboard country churches and such. I had violated the first rule of fine art. Which is make the viewer guess.

I like the movie `Max' because it makes the viewer guess what might have been.

Here we see the Hitler I have always wanted to see in a movie. Not the cardboard demonic Gross Deutsches Fuehrer that Hollywood `jackboot' operas, and `educational' TV are famous for. Not a prancing Chaplin or Mel Brooks buffoon either. Not even the sex pervert who liked to be peed on by frumpy dumb blondes almost half his age.

The Adolf Hitler of 1918 Munich in `Max' was a twitchy and socially awkward, army barracks dwelling, intellectually restless Southern (Austrian) hick (the German equivalent) who had acquired through self-directed reading just enough eclectic knowledge about philosophy and art to think he was really cultured, and who was just articulate enough to sometimes get by as a curiosity and hanger-on among those who were cultured. Didn't matter that most of the time he managed to relate everything to some haphazard knowledge he had picked up along the way about dubious, but nonetheless at that time in history, semi-respectable `sciences' like eugenics. That just added to the curiosity and amusement factor. When accused of being anti-Semitic for sarcastically praising Jews because they kept their blood `pure,' Hitler bristled. Anti-Semitism was for small minds, and he was not anti-Semitic. His views had nothing to do with old fashioned religious intolerance and sporadic pogroms. The Jews, and blood purity, were issues of public health, maintained the teetotaling, non-smoking Adolf. `Like sewage.'

As far as Adolf was concerned, if the world couldn't see and embrace `the facts', then damn it.

The film `Max' posits two possible ways for the world to embrace Hitler as an artist. It can follow the route already taken; it can embrace his emerging political vision as performance art, along with all the consequences that follow from that. Or it can possibly still embrace his visual art, which he had not yet totally given up on.

Almost all established opinion about Hitler's artistic skill, filtered through the hindsight of over 35 million dead in Europe as a result of WWII, holds that he was completely without talent as an untrained and untrainable wannabe painter. All he could manage was the most appallingly pedestrian and poorly executed renderings of public buildings in Vienna and elsewhere. Never any people in them.

What if that view were not quite right? `Max' almost makes you believe it isn't. I've actually seen some of Hitler's real artwork. Not all of it was droll architectural renderings. He did still life, animal studies (dogs were a favorite, one of his better dog drawings is actually in the movie, watch for it), bucolic country scenes, and even nudes (of women!), and portraits. None of it was abstract, expressionist, or strikingly original in concept, but it wasn't all technically incompetent either.

*spoilers*

The fictional mentor for Hitler in the movie `Max' was a man named Max Rothman. Rothman was a Jew, the independently wealthy son of a businessman. A painter himself, he lost his right arm in World War I, and had to fall back onto the role of art dealer afterward. He opened up a gallery of sorts in one of his father's abandoned warehouses where he hawked and promoted the `degenerate' and ambivalent art of such Weimar luminaries as George Grosz. He sometime bared his naked, stumped arm in a kind of Guerilla Theater, minus the cabaret, that ridiculed pre-war German militarism and the needless slaughter that resulted from it. Max Rothman was exactly what you would think might be Hitler's perfect excuse for the Holocaust. He was the kind of person that made a man like Adolf think about the things he didn't want to think about.

Rothman; however, wanted to do exactly that; he had plans for history's most prolific mass murderer (unless you count Stalin maybe). Max, the eternally liberal and optimistic Jew, rejected conventional historical wisdom and assumed that all Hitler really needed to flourish as a passable painter was a mentor to train and prod the monster within to come forth with discipline and structure on the canvas rather than in the beer hall. Instead of killing millions, the worst he would do might be to insult the tastes of millions with kitschy pictures of panting, friendly dogs and serene alpine landscapes.

If; however, he could go deep within his angry soul, maybe he was capable of painting and drawing something more daring, like a dazzling and demented vision of a Germanic future full of clover leafed autobahns crowded with sleek bug-like cars available for everyone, soaring vistas of symmetrically designed and uncongested cityscapes, full of art deco eagles, and red, black and white banners with curious crooked crosses on them fluttering everywhere. A future where smiling clean cut boys with good teeth, and golden haired girls with goldilocks braids in traditional Bavarian peasant dress marched in these sterile cities, and carried torches hailing their Germanic purity and pride in the new, better, modern world where everyone was protected by benevolent Robocop looking troopers, and there was never any garbage in the streets and the sewers never overflowed. `The future as a return to the past,' exclaimed Rothman, excited at the striking kitsch vision. It would be a really big exhibition.

Adolf Hitler, `Painter of Germania.' (trade name reserved)

Hitler as the first mass consumed conceptual pop artist. Where `Metropolis' meets Darth Vader, the Jetsons, and Wagner's Ring mythology. If not a whole new synthetic `postmodern' movement to counter Bauhaus, at least maybe a lucrative career as a comic book series illustrator. Thirty-five million lives saved for the sake of a little bad fascist art. Go to any suburban mall gallery, or any role playing gamer's shop, and I'll bet you can find worse.

It wasn't to be though. Even in Max's alternate world, Hitler had begun to be noticed by other reactionary, but artless men. He had already made a few speeches in a few beer halls. When his political mentor, an uncreative anti-Semitic army officer, got wind that Hitler was going to meet his Jewish artistic mentor to seal the deal on an exhibition that might be his big break and exit from politics, the world's fate was sealed. While Hitler waited anxiously at the appointed place for Rothman, the luckless art dealer became the first victim of the future Holocaust when a gang of beer hall refuse sent by the officer to seal his own deal with Hitler bludgeoned and kicked Max to death in a dimly lit apartment courtyard he was walking through on a shortcut route to meet the future of German art. Killed by men who most likely a few years later would be flesh and blood storm troops in a real Germanic future less than dazzling.

Hitler a bad artist on paper or canvas you say? Would you instead prefer Hitler the performance, deconstructive artist ripping up the map of Europe? I think if I could save just one of those 35 million lives by buying a Hitler print, I would be willing to put one in every room of my house (including the closets and bathrooms).

Great........

[Pasafist · 21 August 2003]

First impressions can be deadly. Promises broken can cause real pain. Watch what you say and do because you never know who's watching. As a mainline protestant I believe that man, while he may strive to be good is essentially evil. `The road to hell is paved with good intentions,' if you will. I believe jealousy, greed, and avarice are very much a part of the human condition and its only through the grace of God we are not lost.

I say this to illustrate a point. MAX is the story of two men, each on a quest to do something good. Each has a noble goal and yet both end up on a collision course with History. The first man is Max Rothchild (John Cusak, High Fidelity) a German Jew who has just returned from WWI missing an arm. He has settled back into his comfortable life of wealth and prosperity, with his beautiful wife (Molly Parker, Kissed) and his beautiful children. He has a mistress (Leelee Sobieski, My First Mister), and is a chain smoker. He probably drinks more than he should as well. He is also unable to do what he really loves, which is paint, so he does the next best thing. He becomes an art dealer. If he cannot create art why not discover the next great artist.

The other man is Adolph Hitler (Noah Taylor, Almost Famous) a German, who has returned from the war with nothing. He lives in the army barracks because he cannot afford a home for himself. He follows the rules and is straitlaced. He will not smoke. He does not drink (not even coffee) and he loves his country, a German all the way. But he does long to be a great artist.

One day these two men start a relationship. It is amicable if strained. Max takes Hitler under his wing. Trying to get him to open up and embrace his art. Hitler becomes fed up and is dragged away from his art by the army. They have given him the platform he's always wanted, and with this platform Hitler begins to rail against the Jews, and those that threaten the great country that is Germany. In the end this one man is forced to chose between art and power. Real history tells us what decision he made.

MAX is a fictional account of the early life of one of history's most evil men. But what I really liked about it is that it makes an attempt to get to heart of why people make the decisions that they do. Why did German nationalism lead to violence and genocide? Why do some people who are tested by pain survive and thrive, and others can be in the same place and become bitter? Why and what turned Hitler himself into a monster? Did he have a run in with a Jew that broke a promise or treated him like crud? All these questions come to mind and MAX tries to come to gripes with them.

What I also like about this movie is it has no hero, but allows you as the audience to be empathetic to these men. Maybe Hitler has a point. Maybe he has the right the feel put upon by the world. Why, when he plays by the rules, does he live in the gutter, while a fast talking, hard drinking, chain smoking, adulterer has a warm bed? It would make me mad too and doesn't jealousy make us do some pretty drastic things.

Writer/ first time Director Menno Meyjes (The Seige `Screenplay') has crafted a compelling and challenging story. The film makes a monster into a human being, not by praising him but by asking the one question we all ask, why? It doesn't begin to editorialize on what Hitler became, but presents us with a man who can make the right decision or walk down the wrong road. Of course we can never change the past, but we can try to find out where it all went wrong.

John Cusack does a marvelous job of painting the picture of a good guy with a great heart, but too many flaws. There is a great scene near the end of the film where his wife confronts him with his adultery. Max never once says he's sorry, and I don't think his wife expects him too. But she loves him too much to run away. Will Max change his ways, maybe?

Noah Taylor's Hitler has the perfect nuance. On one hand he's a bottled up ball of rage about to explode, on the other he's this wide-eyed dreamer looking for a shot. This is the hardest kind of part to play because the audience already comes in with the picture of what and who Hitler is, and not who he is at this moment. While he is an object of scorn, and rightly so. You can and must empathize with him, or the performance is lost. Taylor plays the right chords, and it works.

My favorite scene in the films comes as Hitler is giving a speech about the supremacy of the Aryan race and Germany in a local bar and nobody is paying attention to him. Except one kid. Later in the film Hitler is giving a similar speech to a room of about a hundred people and guess who's sitting there. That single kid has turned into hundreds. An idea, no matter how wrong and misguided, has power. It reminds me of those KKK rallies, they show on the local news. Sure hundreds show up to berate these people, but if one person hears and is mad at the world, they can be easily swayed. Makes you think, that maybe what we say and do can have an effect on the people around us.

MAX was my favorite film from last year and rightly so. It's bold, controversial, and asks a lot of questions, other films haven't. But mostly it's a human story about two men and their unlikely friendship. It's about striving to do what's right and it's about the power of art. It's about propaganda and politics--Hero's and madmen. MAX is a great film. ***** (Out of 5)

Long overdue character study of the young Adolf Hitler

[vic-12 · 8/10 · 8 February 2003]

It is too bad that some commentators have negatively critiqued this long-overdue depiction of the young Hitler. Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, for example preferred the Hitler as 'evil-incarnate,' giving him the status as symbol, fearing he might be viewed more compassionately as a human being. Ebert mentioned in his review that Hitler is, in fact, a human being, and needs to be seen as such, if we are to understand the underpinnings of WWII and the potential of any human being. Shakespearean villains are analyzed as flawed characters who cause tragic consequences. Freudian analytic methods try to explain historical events and the unconscious roots of behavior, including large group behavior, such as the national psychosis of Nazi Germany.

There have been many theories to attempt to explain Hitler's wildly irrational anti-Semitism, resulting in the Final Solution and the Holocaust, among other genocidal atrocities. One of them, depicted in this excellent film, is that of the young artist, recently discharged from Germany's army, who achieved some notoriety as a medal winner and the rank of corporal. He came out of the war, as many Germans, dazed, disillusioned and in a personal existential crisis.

He had a certain talent as an artist, a painter, which was underplayed in this film. Actually, his technique was quite good, but he was a realist and out of date in post-war Germany, with many great abstract expressionists such as Max Ernst and George Grosz, which express the dark emotions in gross caricatures of the 'popular' art of the time. Hitler's work, in comparison, lacked their uniqueness, creativity and power.

Max Rothman was another German soldier who was discharged at the end of the war, but unlike Hitler, returned to the loving hearth of a wealthy Jewish family and a moderately successful art dealership. He befriended the young Hitler as battle comrades, Max losing an arm in the war, aborting his career as an artist himself. Hitler delivered liquor to the art dealership and Rothman took a liking to him, sensing the seething passion and blocked creativity.

The Jewish dealer gave him advice, to paint from the heart as well as the head, to give vent to his feelings, but Hitler could only stare impotently at the blank canvas. Frustrated in art, Hitler was prone to the counsel of a fellow German officer, who saw him as a potential genius to generate propaganda and seek political power to counter the threat of communism. Either the left or the right was going to take over Germany, and it had to be the right.

Communism was associated with Jews (Marx, Engels, Trotsky) and anti-Semitism was seen as an ideal basis with which to ignite the flame of German resurgence and power. Certainly the cancer of anti-Semitism was always deeply imbedded in the German character and it was fertile soil, especially considering the financial circumstances of the average German, contrasted to those of the German Jewish bourgeosie.

Max, despite trying to help Hitler, could not find his work good enough to display. Meanwhile, the poor and lonely Hitler could not help but see his mentor as living in the lap of luxury, having a beautiful wife, a number of lovely and loving mistresses, an architecturally stunning home and a live of comfort and ease.

This contrast made Hitler and the Germans wonder--- how do the Jews do it? Whenever and wherever they were in business, they rose to the top. The could not bear the possibility of seeing the Jews as smarter and superior, so they must be in a diabolical conspiracy. The Jews were fair game and dead meat, and in the movie a dramatization of humans ground up in a meat grinder proved so horrible, that even an artistically sophisticated audience is repulsed. The meat grinder was a prophetic warning of the death camps to come, but only the present audience has the historical perspective to be aware of it.

The end of the movie is a stunning depiction of the contrast between the newly prosperous Germany, celebrating Christmas, while the adjacent modern Jewish architecture is shown as cold and bleak, already a symbolic cemetery, the corpse of Max not yet buried.

Forget Noah Taylor is sans facial hair...

[BlockChuckster · 8/10 · 7 July 2003]

Menno Meyjes has created a visual masterpiece of the "what if" genre. This goes to the depths of how a monster is created without trying to justify it's existence. This motion picture's ending is reminiscent of something Orson Well's would have done...the symbolism in it is just phenominal...from the use of swastikas to the overlapping of the Noah Taylor rantings...it just makes the whole film worth checking out.

Max, an art dealer, and his protege, Hitler, exchange about their vision of art...

[lazyliz101 · 9/10 · 2 February 2003]

The movie... I did not really know what to expect... Menno Meyjes (?) I knew Indiana Jones-the last crusade and The Empire of the Sun... Completely different movies... Max is an intellectual movie...

The two protagonists exchange about their vision of art... They both came back from WWI wounded... morally... Hitler is full of anger... Max's attitude is more like "if life gave you lemon, make lemonade"... Max looks toward the future, but at the same time, does not have much faith in that future... But, Max is a passionate man and he lives everyday as much as he can...

The ending is... how can I put it? Ironic? I heard a few times about that movie "What if? " To me, there is no possible "What if? " We cannot change history... Someone was mentioning a book "There are no accidents"... I think the ending of that movie is in that line... like there are direct connections between the choices we make or do not make and what happens in our lives...

The photography is absolutely fabulous... The music, especially during the end credits is beautiful...

Now, the actors: John Cusack looks older... the haircut of course... but it seems that he has the physical maturity of a man who has suffered a lot... sometimes, we also see a twinkle in his eyes... then again, the passion Max has for life... I think he does one of his best performances...

Very good performance also from Noah Taylor. His Hitler is not despicable, not really... he is just some sort of a loser... we don't pity him... we just think he is not worth much... It was a very good movie!

Max is a speculative story about Hitler and a Munich art dealer.

[holmest-2 · 5/10 · 20 November 2006]

Max has good acting, and some interesting ideas. But it is a mediocre film that is full of historical flaws. Namely, in 1918, Hitler was already working for the Abwehr in the role of political agitator, and anti-Marxist. As far as it is known, Hitler never pursued his interest in painting in a practical sense after the first world war, although Hitler always had a verbal opinion on the matter. (This is where I give the film kudos for at least giving us a hint at Hitler's artistic vision.) Another flaw, unless of course it was purposely contrived by the film's director, presents Hitler as a pathetic loner, shouting at disinterested war veterans and German civilians. The opposite is true. Hitler captivated his audiences from the start with his oratory. Also, Hitler was never intimidated by women, in fact women were among the basis of his popularity and entrance into the powerful circles of Munich society. Hitler was a man of willpower, I doubt that a Munich art dealer, or anyone else for that matter, could have successfully dissuaded Hitler from his self-appointed destiny.

Excellent performances, phenomenal anti-war film, but not perfect.

[cweeks262 · 7 March 2003]

These are stellar performances by John Cusack and Noah Taylor. The story draws you in such that when the movie abruptly ends, you want to see and hear more. What were Hitler's influences? Was he a product of his environment? Without a doubt, Hitler was an angry man when returning from WWI to nothing. Many were in the same boat. Anti-semitism was alive and well long before Adolf took it and carried it to the extent that he did. And Hitler, like many others, found solice in nationalism.

One criticism of this movie was its depiction that Hitler had developed his emotional oratory skills at a young age. The historical accounts (Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) seemed to indicate that he didn't really find his speaking voice until later. This was 1918 and Hitler is only 29 or 30 years old.

Also, the scene where Taylor riles up an auditorium full of Germans with an anti-semitic speach didn't fit with the rest of his portrayal of a timid, weak-minded, lost-soul, young Hitler. This scene seems to defy the rest of the image of Hitler we are given.

This is not to criticize Noah's portrayal. It is absolutely stunning. He had to have spent hours watching footage of Hitler in action.

This movie leaves you wanting more information. What else made him become the monster presented in the textbooks?

It is unfortunate that the Academy could not pay more attention to the performances in this movie, as both Taylor and Cusack both deliver. I believe that Hollywood has a fear of treading anywhere close to this subject matter except to deliver stereotypical portrayals of the historical people and events.

For those who ponder what if

[Spot-4 · 8/10 · 31 January 2003]

For those who ponder the what if's of life and history this will certainly be a cinema experience that will give you much to think about long after the movie is over.

Here we are presented with a hypothetical turning point in the life of Corporal Adolph Hitler just as World War I has ended. Two roads to be chosen between. One leads to art and the other to the politics of anger and revenge.

Enter Max Rothman who carries his own internal war injury though concealed behind supposed jokes that others often don't understand.

Max though Jewish and seeing the growing anti-semitism in Hitler, still finds himself drawn into wanting to redeem the artist he sees in the man. Max tries to induce him to channel his anger into his brush. Hitler in part sees through Max's little theater joke and dares to tell Max that he found it very sick ; and that others were not entertained by it. Instead they were frigtened by it.

There is the paradox that each of these two men shouldn't be drawn to each other; but each finds something in the other that is mutual enough that they want to bridge the vast gulf between them. Each wants to believe there is something worthwhile in the other; but fate, the times and other hidden forces are working against them.

The locations, sets and cinematography are very striking. They carry the feeling of what we can imagine the time and place to have been like.

True the topic may not be something everyone will want to deal with from the point of view that a man such as Hitler could have had enough humanity to have taken another path and been open to changing. Still this is a what if movie; and even if the real Hitler never could have been that human with a Max Rothman, we have to leave some little room for the "What if" possibility to appreciate the movie?

On the 1 to 10 scale, I found this movie to be an 8

A Movie in the Truest Sense

[Pocketplayer · 8/10 · 14 May 2005]

Like it or not, this was a motion picture!

It was a little slow for me but that's because I live in America. This was very European and I loved that. It had amazing sets and visually was beautiful. Thank you Europe!

Noah Taylor was AMAZING. How could anyone miss this because his accent was perfect? Again, too many car chase movies have killed the senses of many.

Cussac was understated and when listening to the director's commentary, you see what a good actor he is. He has never really "done it" for me, but I stand outside my personal interests and respect the man's ability.

Great movie to watch with a select few friends. Director commentary was superb.

The Artist Formerly Known As Hitler

[george.schmidt · 30 December 2002]

MAX (2002) *** John Cusack, Noah Taylor, Molly Parker, Leelee Sobieski, Ulrich Thomsen. Filmmaker Menno Meyjes' audacious yet non-offensive examination on the colossal What If of all time: What if Adolph Hitler continued his path into a career as an artist instead of a genocidal madman? Based on facts and an amalgamated character in the form of Max Rothman (a never finer Cusack in one of his best ‘adult' roles to date) a WWI vet who has returned to his Munich based art dealership minus a limb with an ever-gnawing question: What now? Enter problematic young artist wannabe and fellow German war vet Hitler (Taylor in a tricky yet full-force to be reckoned with turn) insisting his friendship with the tormented Rothman to the limits (and the beginnings of the end for history). The film is a tad bland in some areas however the prickly wonderings of what may have been make it all the worthwhile.

Fictitious story about the relationship between a Jewish art dealer and a young Adolf Hitler

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 28 May 2013]

An interesting film studying the depiction of a friendship between an avant-garde art dealer named Rothman and his pupil , Adolf Hitler , a corporal veteran war . The picture has an attractive premise and is partially based on historical deeds , though many of them are imaginary . At the close of the First World War, Germany enters into the new Weimar Republic following the collapse of the Kaiser's Imperial Reich. In 1918 , Hitler (Noah Taylor) is an ambitious but starving young ; the embittered war veteran lives in Munich and wandering across the streets . Adolf is befriended by Max Rothman (John Cusack , to help get this controversial movie financed, he took no salary for acting in the lead role) , a Jewish art dealer and fellow veteran war who has just opened his own modernism gallery . Max , who lost an arm during World War , is happily married (to Molly Parker) but also has a lover (Leelee Sobieski) . Hitler's paintings are kitsch but Max encourages him anyway and shrugs of his rantings , which draw more attention from fellow Army officer Mayr (Ulrich Thomsen) . Hitler starts studying the art of public speaking and Mayr believes Hitler would make a good political spokesman, the latter was proved right .

Rothman well played by John Cusack is a fictional role ; however , Mayr perfectly performed by Ulrich Thomsen is not . Of course Adolf Hitler character is well described , being rightly interpreted by Noah Taylor , though sometimes overacting ; in fact , Hitler was an actual failure painter , who unfortunately failed in this activity and dedicated to politics . The film is pretty good though flawed , overlong and a little boring , including excessive dialog and speeches . The motion picture was professionally written and directed by Menno Meyjes . Writer/director reports that before the script was written, Steven Spielberg's Amblin company was interested in the project ; but Spielberg told Meyjes he couldn't bring himself to help make a movie he thought would dishonor Holocaust survivors. Nevertheless, he considered the script an excellent one and encouraged the director to push for its realization, but without Amblin.

The picture based on some true facts , these are the followings : At the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was a resident of Munich and volunteered to serve in the Bavarian Army as an Austrian citizen. Posted to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 , he served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium, spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines.He was present at the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele, and was wounded at the Somme.During his service at the headquarters, Hitler pursued his artwork, drawing cartoons and instructions for an army newspaper. Hitler became embittered over the collapse of the war effort, and his ideological development began to firmly take shape. He described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery. The experience reinforced his passionate German patriotism and he was shocked by Germany's capitulation in 1918 . The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany must relinquish several of its territories and demilitarise the Rhineland. The treaty imposed economic sanctions and levied heavy reparations on the country. Many Germans perceived the treaty which declared Germany responsible for the war as a humiliation.The Versailles Treaty and the economic, social, and political condit ions in Germany after the war were later exploited by Hitler for political gains .

John Cusack scores a tour de force in his role as Max

[rdschaffer · 7/10 · 25 August 2005]

An interesting premise. A beautifully shot film. The modern decor of the Rothman home is quite special. I wasn't quite sure where the film was going, but when it ended, I was satisfied with the abruptness. The young man who played Hitler seemed particularly unattractive, but nonetheless fascinating. This is a thoughtful film and could lead to an interesting post-viewing discussion. The juxtaposition of post WWI poverty with the wealth of the better-situated is striking. The constant smoking of Cusack annoyed me (for I, like Hitler, detested a smoker). The director, who also scripted the film, makes wonderful use of long shots and dramatic pauses . . . silence. Hitler's furious frustration with himself is unnerving. There are many levels of abstraction in this film which make it something more than just a story. It's certainly a study of moral behavior functioning and malfunctioning.

Takes some liberties with history, but a very good idea, and a necessary film

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 13 June 2005]

Why this film is so seldom mentioned and so often put down is surprising, when you consider how well-made it actually is... but I suppose the explanation lies in the controversy of it, and peoples' inability to accept an idea so unheard of as true. The idea in this case is that Adolf Hitler was not born the Antichrist, but shaped by the world around him. As several other reviewers mention, this film and the ideas it presents as well as the character study of a young Hitler is long overdue. The film revolves around Hitler, who recently returned from war(WWI) and his relationship with Max Rothman, a Jewish art dealer. Rothman senses much talent and promise in Hitler, and encourages him to follow up on painting. Hitler, frustrated with an inability to create anything, and a talent for public speaking leans more towards a political career. I guess we all know how it ends... but the story itself is still interesting, even though we basically know the ending. I don't know how authentic this film is, but I do know that it takes some liberties with history. That doesn't bother me. The important thing is the core of it, and whether or not it has some interesting ideas to offer. And I think it does. Most definitely. All the well-known(and some lesser known) traits of Hitler's personality are there. One could argue that the Jews in the film are somewhat stereotypically presented, but it's about the environment as well as the characters. The reason Hitler had such ease with blaming the Jews for Germany's problems, the reason he could turn an entire nation against them was that was how people saw them. If we didn't understand that, if we didn't get a clear image of that, the film would be worthless. The acting was very good; Noah Taylor pretty much becomes Adolf Hitler. I don't care what you say, I felt his frustration and outrage; he made me feel for this man, recognize him as a fellow human being, despite how much time so many people have spent trying to make him appear as some inhumane monster. He was a terrible man, yes... but he was a man. A despicable human being... but still a human being. John Cusack brings a fire to his character that pretty much carries the film. The direction was quite impressive for a first time effort; the writer/director showed great promise, and I hope he will make more films like this. We definitely need them. I recommend this to anyone interested in the subject who isn't put off by a fairly loose approach to history. 7/10

A Truly Original Script

[btlarkin · 8/10 · 13 August 2006]

This is a nicely done and insightful little movie.

There aren't too many original scripts but this is one. Hitler as a young man struggling with the concept of his artistry as a painter or his 'day job' as a political rabble-rouser and spy.

The film exposes the phoniness of anti-Semitism and the failed nature of Hitler's art with a unique and compelling voice. 100s of films tell us that the Holocaust was wrong.

This film actually SHOWS you why it was wrong from the get-go. The movie also shows you just how disturbed a young man Hitler was. Noah Taylor's depiction is brilliant in this regard. (Hitler had already been diagnosed as psychotic by an Army doctor prior to the setting of this movie.)

The portrayal of the conditions of Hitler's rise are well-done as well. Gritty, poor, devastated, and violent are the world in which this film is set. That's the way it was.

Politics is the new art!

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 7/10 · 24 April 2014]

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.

Triumph of the ills

[tieman64 · 3 December 2013]

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. It denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, destroys culture and brings only chaos. If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord!" - Hitler ("Mein Kampf")

An interesting film by writer/director Menno Meyjes, "Max" stars John Cusack as Max Rothman, a Munich art dealer who befriends a young Adolf Hitler in the decades preceding World War 2.

"Max's" first act watches as Rothman and Hitler comically interact, their cheerful dialogue darkly foreshadowing Hitler's late-career atrocities. Meyjes then paints Hitler as an artist offended by burgeoning modernist and avant-garde art movements. Such movements, which Hitler associates with Jews, progressives, communists, radicals and with artists who seek to challenge more conservative traditions, prove wholly disgusting to the young Hitler. To Hitler, avant-garde art is disruptive, unsettling, challenging and confrontational. It "loosens" and "perverts", whilst Hitler wishes for "order" and "cohesion". In Meyjes' hands, Hitler's is portrayed, not only a fervent nationalist, but a man who seeks to conjure up a romantic, idealised image of a great German Empire. Hitler's vision isn't only a political vision, but a full fledged art manifesto; a desire to make real a very nostalgic, sentimental image of a unified Mother Germany. Other artists denounce Hitler. His vision is kitsch, they say. And they're right. But like many artistic hacks, Hitler nevertheless makes real his designs through sheer will and determination.

Many critics have labelled "Max" a playful bit of speculation, but Meyjes' Hitler is more psychologically true to the real Hitler than most other interpretations (his is perhaps the best on-screen Hitler since Chaplin's "The Great Dictator"). Some history: Germany's monarchs, most of whom were related to monarchs in Britain, Russia and across Europe, found themselves in the late 1800s losing power. In many countries, similar aristocracies were being contested by worker or other political movements. Those monarchs who held on to their power typically did so by amping up nationalist fervour and cooking up fake wars as a means of distracting their populaces. Jump ahead several decades, and Germany has been shattered during WW1 and finds its ruling class losing power. Into this cocktail steps Hitler, an ultra right-winger who is adored, not only by the rulers of Germany, Britain and the West, but the working class in Germany and America (though fascism is largely petite bourgeois). The German masses love him because he promises a stronger Germany. Western regular Joes, meanwhile, love him because he's standing up to the "bullies" of Britain and France. The elites in the West, meanwhile, adore Hitler because he's the capitalist's best friend, crushing progressive worker movements, which he'd liken to "Jewish parasites". In a very real sense, Hitler was capitalism's reactionary ideal, the market despot who promises to eradicate unions at home and the communist juggernaut to the north.

Meyjes doesn't go directly into politics, though, but instead focuses on Hitler's hatred of avant-garde art. To Hitler, modernist art is "Jew art", it is "disruptive" and seeks to "change the nature of Germany". Hitler becomes obsessed with "keeping Germany clean" and "pure", its bloodlines "untainted" and "free from Jewish contagions." Western history, for very specific reasons, tends to stop at this aspect of Hitler's racism. To many, Hitler was simply "irrationally racist". What is omitted – because it points to complex levels of complicity – is what exactly "Jew infestation" meant to Hitler. Yes, on one level, such racism was a fantasy bogeyman; an illusion or scapegoat. But on the other, German and Western rulers genuinely feared "the Jews", who were associated with communists, Marxists and (the original) Bolsheviks, despite these movements' majorities not being Jewish. In an ironic reversal of historical prejudices, in which "the Jew" was the "evil capitalist" par excellence, it was "the Jew" who was now seen to be coming to destroy the status quo. It was "the Jew" who would infect the markets, turn it inside out and bring the new plague. Hitler, and many others in Germany at the time, even blamed Jewish Marxists for Wilhelm 2's "dethronment" and loss in World War 1. Hitler's sentiments weren't just shared by Germans in power, but Pope Pius XI, who advised Europe and the West to work with Hitler and Mussolini in a coalition to stop "cultural Marxism" ("Kulturbolschewismus"), and most other Western world leaders; Winston Churchill, for example, praised Hitler, Mein Kampf and sucked up to Mussolini.

Historian L.M James makes it very clear why Hitler's racism must continue to be "diluted". Contemporary capitalism's rationales and arguments have always been the same arguments espoused by the world's Hitlers. Thus, capitalism must portray itself as "natural", and must, in its paranoia, portray all alternatives as a form of "chaos" which turns people into "dead weight", denies "individualism", contests "national boundaries", is "against God" and is practised by "corruptive deviants" (the "commie", the "Jew", the "Marxist", the "pinko") who want to "destroy traditions" and "pervert our culture" (with crazy things like "civil rights").

Unusual for such films, "Max" forces us to sympathise with Hitler. Meyjes' Hitler, brilliantly played by Noah Taylor, is a pitiful little thing; an angry rodent who internalises persecution and then redirects it outward, ten-fold. As the film progresses, Hitler's iconic moustache grows, his back straightens and he becomes fitted with stylish Hugo Boss; the germination of a monster.

8.5/10 – Worth two viewings.