Set in postwar Germany in 1946, Rachael Morgan (Keira Knightley) arrives in the ruins of Hamburg in the bitter winter, to be reunited with her husband Lewis (Jason Clarke), a British colonel charged with rebuilding the shattered city. But as they set off for their new home, Rachael is stunned to discover that Lewis has made an unexpected decision: They will be sharing the grand house with its previous owners, a German widower (Alexander Skarsgård) and his troubled daughter. In this charged atmosphere, enmity and grief give way to passion and betrayal.Written by
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Keira Knightly uses a body double for the nude scenes in the film. After giving birth to her daughter in May 2015, Kiera Knightley, who had been naked onscreen several times since she was 16, announced that she will no longer perform nude. She said that in the past she didn't mind exposing her breasts because "they're so small people really aren't that interested," but not any longer. "I have been comfortable earlier with more nudity than I am now. I have had a kid, I am in my 30s, I am very happy with my body," the actress revealed. "But I don't feel I need to get it out that much any more." She's added that she's fine if movies use body doubles, but she won't be stripping naked herself for any reason. See more »
In a scene a recording of Sanson and Dalilah's Aria "Mon Coeur S'Ouvre a ta Voix" is credited to be sung by Maria Callas (and indeed sounds like her) but so far I cannot find so early a recording of this aria by La Callas (late 45/early 46). See more »
On HBO,after all the factory credits is a Spanish-voiceover credits screen showing the name of the movie as 'Viviendo con el Enemigo,' or 'Living with the Enemy.' See more »
For the film's Australian release, the distributor chose to make reductions to stronger sexual detail in two scenes in order to obtain an M classification. The uncut version of the film was later released with an MA15+ classification for a DVD/Video release. See more »
A disappointing movie adaptation for it's inexplicably shortcut plot.
Since the movie poster with the prominent appearance of my favorite actress Keira Knightley appears on the cover of the freshly re-released novel by the same name I consider it justified to compare the movie adaptation to the book and its notable deviations from the original plot. I read through a fair slice of the book and while I understand a movie adaptation must cut corners for the necessity of brevity it is quite remarkable to cut an entire character out of the plot. Since in the book there's an interesting dynamic developing between Freda (or Frieda), which is the German's daughter and the surviving son of the British couple and that whole plot has been cut from the movie because there's no remaining son! The parents are grieving for the loss of one of their children but would have all the more reason to persist in their faltering marriage if not for the bereft sibling. Another missing character is a woman that the British man hires for army work and with who he also was developing some sort of affair, even if that would not come to fruition it is an important part of understanding why the couple was growing apart: with the woman taking a liking to the German architect and her soldier husband to someone of is staff. Without these key ingredients what is left in the movie is only the one-sided affair of the woman with the German. It's quite incomprehensible that while the movie still has a duration of almost 2 hours there was no time to include these plot elements and it would have given the movie some more depth and have kept the story going on a heightened pace. What's left of the movie is not entirely bad and the main actors are making the most of what they are given to work with, but being familiar with the book left me with a feeling of disappointment.
19 of 25 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this