Mein Kampf (2009) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
It could have been so good
Warge14 October 2010
I own and have read the real Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler during his short stay in prison, and also quite a lot of other literature about Hitler and his early years, which is important, since Hitler did not shy from lying in the book.

Now, the film about Hitler's early years in Vienna could have been so good if it didn't try to explain every little thing that would later happen - the idea to the swastika for example, or even the growth of his now characteristic moustache.

The film portrays Hitler as a young, from the beginning hateful man who is adopted by a jew (of course) and how he drops from being a failed painter to a leader of a small group of thugs, leading them against the jews.

This is ridiculous and has very little with the truth to do. The only thing the film gets right is: Hitler failed getting into the art academy. That's it. The rest is a some kind of desperate attempt to explain every little detail with the later NSDAP and antisemitic movement and of course Hitler himself, which is a pity really, since I looked forward to seeing a film about the early years without the bias towards Hitler - which of course is hard to shy away from if one is a normal, thinking person.

Technically it is brilliant, and the acting is good - what the film lacks is a more observing eye or script, which is the basics in ANY good film.

I would not recommend it, unless one has nothing else to watch and don't care about details as a history buff, because it is good enough to kill a couple of hours with. Despite the flaws.
32 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Insult to one's intelligence
hwyhobo11 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
At first I thought the author was just being fanciful with facts, but as the movie deteriorated and sank deeper and deeper into absurd, I am left puzzling - what was the point of this?

The movie has nothing to do with historical facts, it isn't really funny, it portrays Hitler as an insane petulant teenager cared for by a loving wise old Jew (however unkempt) who apparently also wrote Mein Kampf, but of course with a different message, and who is sexually pestered by a young blond maiden with long braids... should I continue?

The movie meanders from ridiculous to insulting. In the end you can't believe you just watched it.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Irritating movie
altec-gs28 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains spoilers, so don't read further if you have a problem with this. . . . . .

Well, i honestly didn't think that this movie would waist two hours of my life. I mean, i was expecting a comedy yes, but i was expecting that they follow historical facts doing this, in most part at least. This movie had so much potential, especially when looking at the cast, but what they have done, is literally made a fiction movie, about some guy that looks like Hitler, and named the movie after Adolf.. Except the part where he gets thrown out of the Academy in Vienna, the movie has nothing to do with the man it is named after.

I am someone who is very interested in history in general, and especially the two world wars, and have done a lot of reading and some research about the guy, so a know a thing or two about his life..

This movie is by it's nature a sensitive topic, and they made something as powerful and dangerous as Nazi ideology, an ideology that blinded an entire nation, and made it look like something i would rather not say in this review.

What i don't understand is how a good actor like Tom Schilling even considered taking part in this movie. If there ever was a movie that insults the intelligence of a German nation, and it's history, it is this one. And it is doing that perfectly.

The movie portraits Adolf Hitlers early years in Vienna in the beginning of 20th century. It shows the guy as a complete idiot, hater of everything, and off course, an extreme street yelling anti- semitic moron talentless aspiring artist that moves to a artists homeless shelter where he befriends some older guys that eventually turns out to be a Jew. From the start the Jewish guy is portrayed as a great helpful man that acts as Adolf's guardian throughout the movie all while Hitler is insulting him and Jews on daily basis. Then, the biggest cliché in the world happens, he sees a beautiful young German girl on the window naked, and instantly gets a crush in her.. Then off course, he finds that the girl(who is maybe 20 btw) is in a romantic relationship with his guardian(who is in his 60 btw).. So another cliché, he starts to hate the Jew even more, and joins an antisemitic gang, and eventually starts to attack Jews in Vienna.. And yeah, did i tell you that he steals the idea of Mein Kampf from the guy?

I mean the historical incorrectness of this movie is astonishing.

The movie itself is supposed to be a comedy, but in reality it looks like it is made purely to insult Germans intelligence and Adolf Hitler himself. It is not funny either.

The acting itself is good, technically also, however nothing can compensate the fact that the script is a huge piece of S**t.

I would never watch this movie again, and i really, really don't recommend anyone to watch it in the first place.

A real disappointment.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
True to reality?
avykay29 October 2010
Having watched this movie and being interested lately in the world wars, specially world war two, I don't believe this to be a true or accurate historical account. It is more like a dramatized summery or caricature of how Hitler shaped his way to power. We see him as a young (20 or so years)person who fails to make it to the academy of arts (which according to historical accounts is true). He is portrayed as having unshakable self confidence and talks of his future glory (as artist or architect) even after his failure. Persons like that do have influence on others. If you believe in yourself, people will believe in you. Do not watch this movie if you're looking for historical accuracy. On the other hand, I was quite impressed by the fine acting of the leading characters. Schilling gives a nice performance as young Hitler. This being the main reason for giving the movie rating a 6.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A good Fiction movie
kriss44017 January 2011
I strongly advise that this movie is far from an historical review of the actual facts about A.Hitler. Im really disappointed that there is no warning at the beginning of the movie to let the viewers know that it contains a large part of fiction.

here are some real facts that may let viewers appreciate this movie for what it is and not for what it is not: Hitler was in Vienne for the first time at 16 year old for only 15 days, he was rejected from the painting academy but accepted in architecture on conditions to complete his prior studies and then a second one in construction. He didn't liked school in general and this would have taken years to complete, thats why he abandoned this kind of career.

He wrote the REAL Mein Kampf in detention at Landsberg-am-Lech prison in 1924. This book is actually prohibited in Germany and most European country, the only non-Germanic accurate translation is the french one and maybe the newest Arab version. (Mein Kampf is a best seller in a few Arab country).

The movie is good for the acting and staging, quite entertaining but nothing more, i strongly suggest ready the book even if can only read the shorter English version to people who like to know real fact about this dark time of history.
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The rise of evil - told with flaws
OJT20 October 2013
After being very keen about watching a dramatization of young Adolf Hitler, and what lead him to join politics in stead of art, the writing of his "Mein Kampf" and the rise of his evil soul, I must admit I was quite disappointed with this film in more than one way.

First of all it doesn't tell the story in a vary accurate way, it's also in a way more focused on other persons than Hitler himself. This makes the story confusing and difficult to follow. You simply doesn't get what it's all about. It's in a way illogical to me. What's the worst sin here, though, is that the film tells what should be an exciting story, too boring.

The film is well played, though the acting is quite theatrical, suited for the theater scene more than the big screen. No wonder, since this is based upon a play by George Tabori. in many ways, this hasen't been tranfered to a feature like it should have been. I can imagine it was strong in a theater.

But Hitler is well depicted, by Tom Schilling, as the strange bird he obviously was, with the insane racial ideas he obviously was indoctrinated with, and at least we get to know why he got involved with politics, and how his trademark mustache origin end. We see the poor conditions in Austria (or in fact much of Europe) a good hundred years ago. We a So see the racial hate towards the Jews, something which Hitler was inbred with. This is the best part of the movie. It seems to be very historically accurate in depiction of the living conditions.

We get to know young Hitler as an almost insane, ungrateful, untalented young brat, with disgusting attitude, insulting language, and still with a terrible strong intensity, which we all have seen in film clips. Hitler wasn't a great speaker, but his intensity still was able to make him "Der Fuhrer" for a German/Austrian population.

This could have been so strong and interesting, but has one up as quite disappointing. At least I had much bigger expectations after seeing great Austrian films by Michael Haneke and Ulrich Seidl.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The only thing that is accurate is the name "Hitler".
man_with_a_van1 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
What is this movie about? The protagonist is a young man called Adolf Hitler. You'd almost think it is about the historic person with the same name. It is not! Nevertheless they mix the biography of the real Hitler with this bizarre character. But the essential facts are completely fictional. For example:

Hitler gets rejected by the art college. He is living at that time in the movie in an homeless shelter. When the real Hitler got rejected he was living together with a friend in a rented room. The homeless shelter came years later.

All the time he utters exact quotes from Adolf Hitlers book "Mein Kampf" but it was written years later than the period of time the movie extends over.

He is disgusted meat dishes that he even sometimes has to vomit just from the look at meat but the real Adolf Hitler liked meat at that time. He just became later vegetarian because he thought that meat would cause his severe stomach problems. Hitler even ate soup with marrow dumplings up to the last.

In the movie he joins a group of men who terrorize jews and hobos. That never happened. Hitler first got radicalized at WW1.

He talks all the time with a strong Austrian Viennese accent. Hitler however was born in Braunau am Inn directly on the Bavarian border and then moved with his family to several places in Bavaria where he was raised. Therefore in reality he was talking in a very thick Bavarian accent. He even often said how much he hated the Viennese accent.

In the movie he is constantly surrounded by a Jewish hobo called Schlomo Herzl who invented Hitlers typical look and even wrote the book "Mein Kampf" that is later stolen by Hitler. This guy never existed. I've got the feeling he is kind of the second protagonist just because he was played by Götz George, a mediocre actor that was for whatever reason very popular in Germany till he died.

In one scene Hitler talks about the "Völkischer Beobachter" a Nazi- newspaper that first was named like this in 1920 and just existed because Hitler came to power in the early nazi-party.

I could go on and on. I know this kind of movies. They just want to tell a moderate story and try to get attention by installing Hitler somewhere in the story. Then a lot of loose references are thrown in to save appearances. This is just a cheap trick. The poor quality of the movie speaks for itself. A total waste of time. I gave three stars just because the actors are not as bad.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Your approach is the key
Horst_In_Translation3 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Do not be mislead by this 105-minute film's title "Mein Kampf". This film is not based on Adolf Hitler's autobiography, but on a theater play by Budapest-born, BAFTA-winning writer George Tabori, who died briefly before this film was released. This is also why you should not watch this expecting a historically accurate depiction of Hitler's early years, but instead go for a political thriller. If David Wnendt can lead Hitler as a stand-up comedian into the 21st century, then "lack of authenticity" is not a valid point in evaluating this film here. This was written and directed by Swiss filmmaker Urs Odermatt. The film had its world premiere in Canada back in 2009, but it still took a while until most other people got to see it, especially Germans, namely 1.5 years later. It is basically a 2-man show. Tom Schilling and Götz George show why they are considered among the finest German actors of their respective age groups. Of course their roles are baity as hell too and it's almost impossible for them to go over the top here.

What I found most interesting was the character of Gretchen, not only because of the Faust reference, but also because she somewhat displays the German people during the years of the real Hitler's rise to power. And as I managed not to expect any great realism in here, I was also impressed by the script. There are many interesting details in the characters' interactions from start to finish, especially of course in how Hitler perceives Jewery (in terms of Herzl) and how influences, such as other, older, more experienced Germans shape his perception of Jews in general, almost exclusively to the negative. The references to Hitler's aspiring career as a painter/artist were nicely included as well and they did well in not constructing the entire film around it. There were certainly a couple scenes that could have been cut, so the film would not have crossed the 95-minute mark and still stayed essential, but it's also fine at over 100 minutes. I enjoyed the watch. Thumbs up.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Monotonous and boring
darkobabic31 March 2011
I find most movies generally at least okay to watch. I forced myself to finish this movie. I found it very boring and monotonous. Other than to depict the young Hitler as a nasty character, I didn't see the point of this movie. I'm quite fine with subtitles but perhaps that didn't help in the case of a boring movie. It was much longer than it needed to be for starters. I'm guessing this is all fiction but I don't know for sure. On a positive note I did like the acting and the set. They were very believable. My favourite scene was the one where Hitler starts singing during the opera. You could see how embarrassed his date was. I hadn't realized that it was adapted from a play. Oh, well at least it only cost me $5.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed