Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003) User Reviews

An inaccurate movie but good acting.

[theredcomet · 6/10 · 14 March 2005]

I was OK up with this film up until the point where Geli comes in and then it all went down from there. In order to demonify Hitler they made it seem like he was a controlling bastard and Geli was scared of him and thought him crazy. Anyone who has done any studying on this subject should know that Geli was completely in love with him and even staged a suicide attempt to get him to notice her more. When he met Eva she couldn't take it anymore, the fact that he wasn't with her all the time and really killed herself out of despair and depression. Not because he was treating her cruelly and being a monster. This really makes me laugh that someone would go and change history so blatantly so it can fit their own concept of an evil maniacal Hitler.

In no way am I supporting Hitler or what he did but a historian is supposed to portray history in an objective and impartial manner. Something that seems hard for filmmakers with their own agenda to do.

I thought Robert Carlyle was very good in his role as were the other actors/actresses.

Entertaining, just don't take it as history.

[halw1234 · 8/10 · 31 October 2007]

As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the "charming" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done.

Overtly demonized Hitler, once again

[jillord · 6/10 · 5 October 2006]

Hitler - Rise Of Evil has, despite its rather accurate historical scenery, one major problem which undermines this production. The problem is in the title already: "rise of evil". Okay, we all know the atrocities Hitler's reign committed, we all know racism, concentration camps, warmongering and alike. But despite this Adolf Hitler was just a man, he wasn't a demon or the embodiment of Ultimate Evil, the devil incarnate.

This movie's view of Hitler is exactly the same as before: Hitler is represented as a totally evil, larger-than-life archfiend. The traits of his personality are highly biased, and even historically inaccurate. Hitler wasn't a coward who begged for Iron Cross, he was in fact a maniacally fierce soldier.

And Hitler didn't scream maniacally or ogle his companions like a frog. His "political voice", the ranting, screaming and such, was just a show. Hitler's personal way of communicating was actually rather silent and contemplative. The only remaining recording of his civil voice was recorded (secretly) in Finland, when Hitler visited Finland's Marshal C.G.E. Mannerheim's 75-year birthday celebration, in an attempt to secure the support of Finland against Soviet Union. This recording was used as a basis, when Bruno Ganz prepared for his extraordinary role as Hitler in the German movie Der Üntergang (Downfall), which is by far the best representation of Hitler and Nazi commanders.

In Hitler - Rise Of Evil Hitler is a freaky inhuman monster. In mentioned Downfall (and in real life) he was twisted, but still a human being. This banality is what makes Hitler's action so horrible. It would be easier to think that he was one of a kind -monster, whose "Rise Of Evil" won't happen again. He was in real life much less dramatic and unique person than his representation by Carlyle.

That is what we should fear most even today: the rise of banal evil, and the oppression, racism and loathing of common life, of common people.

Easy-to-swallow warning for mass-behavior

[slash83_mus · 1 August 2004]

Being a fanatical semi-professional historian on WW2, and utterly fascinated by Hitler's third Reich and all it's military power, I could hardly wait for "Hitler; the rise of evil" to come out after having seen the theatrical trailer.

Heavens, I never felt so completely confused about a movie after pushing the 'stop' button on my DVD-player's remote. I simply couldn't decide whether I liked it or not.

First of all, the performances set by Carlyle and companions are quite good. A little over-acted every now and then, especially Carlyle who obviously tries his up-most to copy the "Führer" and his body-language. He acts as if he is in a theatre, and seems to forget the fact that camera's register way more details/facial expressions. Compare a real recording of a Hitler-speech with one of Carlyle's speech-scene's and you'll see what I mean.

Then comes the Historical accuracy. Not quite bad, but I kept noticing small things which obviously were incorrect. Uniforms, weapons, bread-prices, skinny-Röhm, fat Hess... not really impressive job I might say.

but one of the most compelling things about the whole film (or series, I 've seen it as a film) is the fact that it is very obvious the director desperately wants to show the world Hitler was a sick-minded, over-emotional and completely mentally unstable person. Well, I can assure you this: He absolutely had his periods of mental disturbances and ignoring the truth, especially toward the war's end. But this... I have read many, many eye-witness reports from people who lived in his presence, like Albert Speer. They all agreed on some things, namely the facts Adolf Hitler was very often a think full, correct, funny, honorable man. Hitler was the mastermind behind the Nazi's criminal and appalling Holocaust. Hitler was a criminal. A kind of person that can never be allowed to rise to power again. This is obviously the reason why the director choose to show him the way he did. However, Hitler was dangerous not because he was a monster, he was dangerous because he was so intelligent, so well-spoken. Because he was worshipped by so many, because he knew what to say to 'his' people. That was the real danger, and that's exactly what we must teach. Think of it this way: The most successful murderers and big criminals are usually the smart, well-spoken and socially established men. You wouldn't know he is a monster until you see what he has done.

I wish the director/writer added a bit more humanity to his character. But obviously they chose to show the audience Hitler changed from a normal person into a monster. Talking about stereotypes and negligence of the truth.

Overall I still found it an enjoyable movie which does achieve one of it's main goals: portraying us, the crowd, as willing sheep, especially in times of need. Ye be warned.

Rating: 6.5/10

** Note: One very imposing scene: Hitler speaks out loud his ideas in the court-yard, with Hess recording it. After awhile you get to see a different day every now and then, and every time more and more inmates cheer him from behind their bars overlooking the yard.

It's a good and overlong historical film

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 25 May 2004]

The movie deals about the rising of Hitler profiling his existence as a child and his youthful . Since the early years until he takes over in Reichtag .

It describes his relationship with his lovers , and his decisions and enemies inside Germany and inside the Nazi party and his rise through the ranks of the National German Workers' Party prior to World War II.

In the Putch of Munich in 1923 he rebelled against the government of the Weimar Republic but didn't achieve it.

After that he was condemned to prison where he writes "Mein Kampf" dooming the Jewish race.

Then he obtains the power being helped by Rudolf Hess, Goebbles, Goring , Ludendorff and Rohm.

The performance by Robert Carlyle is good but overacting, Peter Stormare as Rohm is better . Peter O'Toole as Hinderburg is very good.

Stockard Channing's intervention as Hitler's mother is secondary as well as Jena Malone as Geli, the Fuehrer's first love interest.

The motion picture was professionally directed by Christian Duguay.

It's a movie for whose are amused by history but a little bit boring. Rating : Good, well worth watching.

Soaring Performances Carry The Story of Hitler's Evil

[Dan1863Sickles · 9/10 · 28 January 2006]

I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.

Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.

Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.

Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.

These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.

Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.

All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances.

Somewhat Compelling, Somewhat Disappointing

[Izzit249 · 7/10 · 10 September 2005]

Hitlers War is a film which states the Nazi Dictators rise to power in Germany and how he begun to declare war upon the world.

Robert Carlye's performance however does not even compare to that of Bruno Ganz's in, Downfall. He has done very little research into Hitler's form of speech, conduct towards the German people. The script is extremely well written, but due to Carlye's lack of skills in this area, the film can be quite disappointing in some areas.

I can indefinitely recommend this film to any1, however I urge you to also watch The Downfall, seeing an actor who clearly studied and researched Hitler to deliver the full effect he could.

Another disappointing feature was the fact that it was filmed in English and not German. I cannot grasp the full effect of a Nazi when translated into English, it doesn't sound right.

Perhaps Carlye wasn't the best choice of actor for the part. However, the film's writing is superb. Hitlers evil intentions were clearly displayed, and also his struggle through the Jewish running of Germany. The film displays how his good intentions for Germany became out of control and turned purely evil.

I do recommend this film to watch if you are interested in how the Nazi's gained their power, but if you are easily offended by sub-standard acting, don't watch it.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[tipplerunkus · 9/10 · 21 May 2003]

"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was shrouded in controversy before it ever aired, and that controversy may obscure the accomplishment of the film.

Those who criticzed the film, which they hadn't seen, did so with good intentions, based on the misguided thought that it would be overly sympathetic to Hitler. However, they misunderstood the point: to humanize the evil Hitler is not sympathize with him. It is far more disturbing to realize that the unspeakable acts committed by one of history's greatest villains were committed by a human being. A sick, diseased maniac, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. It is necessary to know the story of how Hitler was able to come to power to prevent it from happening again.

"Rise of Evil" is highlighted by a brilliant, career best performance from Robert Carlyle, who makes Hitler a human being without ever redeeming him in any way. Carlyle flawlessly captures the look and mannerisms of the Nazi leader, while never letting the impersonation become cartoonish or distance us (something Anthony Hopkins was not quite able to accomplish when he portrayed Hitler in "The Bunker", another very good made-for-television film). While were are repulsed by Hitler's depravity and virulent ant-Semitism, Carlyle gives him a certain magnetism and power the real Adolf Hitler must have possesed. After all, while else would a nation have followed him?

Of the various subplots, by far the most compelling features Matthew Modine as reporter Fritz Gehrlich, who makes it his life's work to draw attention to the reality of of Hitler and Nazism. While Modine's performance is a little stilted in part 1, by part 2 he seems to have settled in, the character gives us a real-life hero in a film full of villains. Peter Stormare and Liev Schrieber also give strong support.

Part 1 of this two-part mini series suffered a little bit from being overly choppy, including a look at Hitler's childhood which lasts only the duration of the opening credits. And in part 2, sections detailing Hitler's relationship's with his niece, and his mistress Eva Braun, are less successful than the central plot, but do serve to give us further insight into his mental and emotional state.

Ultimately, no film about Hitler can make us understand him. The average person is, thankfully, incapable of ever understanding a man who would try to exterminate an entire race of people. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" tries less to make us understand Hitler, and more to make us understand how he came to be power. It is an important story that must be told, and it is impossible to believe anyone who has seen the film would accuse it of having anything but the best of intentions, and the capability of doing anything but good.

9 out of 10. *** 1/2

Uncle Addy what have you done to me ?

[mitrapourmand · 6/10 · 29 July 2017]

These series is not god awful but the portrayal of Hitler as the raving lunatic was very amusing in a bad way , which means it had me cracked up so often that i completely forgot to be afraid or repulsed by one of the most sinister people in the history of mankind . See Hitler was a world class psychopath , and one common trait shared among st psychopaths is that they are manipulative and charming until things start to go out of their control . This Hitler with his mouth foaming , cursing , weird hand gestures and crazy eyes would not ,could not have been the leader of a frat society ,let alone a country . No one would listen to a crazy ass hole screaming and chasing others while ranting about Jews this Jews that he would be ignored . Hitler rose to power cause he was charming , effective , kind to animals and was able to cure Germans economy he was beloved by millions cause he was able to bewitch them , was he a monster ? Yes he was , but he was an able one , not a crazy one that made him a real menace.

Fills a needed gap in movies about WW2

[phd_travel · 10/10 · 24 January 2015]

Most film depictions of Hitler are WW2 movies about 1939 onwards so this impressively well produced 2 part television movie about 3 hours long fills a needed gap in the history of WW2. Things move briskly from Hitler's childhood to surprisingly elaborate First World War battles where his life as a soldier is shown. His anti Jewish speeches in beer halls to his eventual position of leader of the Nazi party and Germany are portrayed. It's extremely involving and has the thoroughness and clearness of a documentary without the dullness and detachment.

There are a lot of characters some of whom are not that familiar that were instrumental in his rise to power and who tried to oppose him. Yet things aren't confusing. Liev Schreiber is convincing as an opportunistic German publisher who rides on Hitler's coattails along with his supportive wife played by Julianna Marguiles. Matthew Modine as usual plays the voice of good in as a journalist writing against the Nazis. Peter O'Toole makes a brief but convincing appearance as beleaguered Hindenburg.

As Hitler, Robert Carlyle doesn't have that much physical resemblance to his subject but his intensity, often with frothing a the mouth makes the portrayal mesmerizing. He is personifies the insane fanaticism.

It's quite an achievement that so much history could be shown relatively clearly without confusion in a 3 hour mini. Worth watching.

Historically inaccurate but worth the watch.

[drd-07217 · 6/10 · 4 November 2017]

Whilst Hitler Rise of Evil may be historically inaccurate it is a riveting docudrama. Peter Stormare does a good job as Hitler but his portrayal is somewhat cartoon like. I don't blame him as I suppose they had to be careful as to not show Hitler in any sort of good light. Julianna Margulies does a magnificent job as Hitler's unrequited love interest. Moral of the story on one level is: Be careful when you crush and reject an 'Artist's' dreams. Well worth the watch if you want to get a quick over view of how Hitler was made possible.

The early years of Hitler

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 13 January 2013]

Although some fine people like Alec Guinness, Anthony Hopkins, and Everett Sloane have played Adolph Hitler on the big screen, Robert Carlyle in playing the psychotic dictator of Nazi Germany struck out into new territory. For the only time I can recall we see the roots of Hitler first as a juvenile, a frustrated artist, a soldier in World War I and his gradual involvement with right wing politics in the post war yeas. The film ends with him finally attaining total power with the death of President Hindenburg and the combination of the offices of President and Chancellor. After that we get into grounds far more familiar to American audiences.

Watching newsreels of Hitler these days with his Charlie Chaplin like mustache, not to mention Chaplin's own devastating satire of Hitler in The Great Dictator he comes off as a comic little character. Millions of feet of film from World War II with Nazis portrayed as bumbling idiots and the German language reduced to guttural double talk by comedians like Danny Kaye and the Three Stooges have tended to level the impact of Hitler. What Carlyle does and it's his greatest accomplishment is to show the power of Hitler as orator, something that I fear if you are not fluent in German you cannot comprehend. Carlyle's speeches in English show exactly how powerful this man could be and how he could sway a nation to evil.

Another thing that Hitler: The Rise of Evil shows are the many women around him in the early years. In fact some of the other Nazi male figures are reduced to cardboard figures. Other than Carlyle, it's the women who have the best parts in this film from Stockard Channing as Hitler's doting mother, to Jena Malone his niece Geli Raubal and presumed first love who committed suicide as the official accounts have, to Julianna Margulies as Frieda Hanfstaengl married to Ernest 'Putzi' Hanfstaengl played by Liev Schreiber, an American who married Schreiber and became entranced by Hitler's charisma.

The opposition as it were is characterized by Matthew Modine and his wife Patricia Neker. Modine is an investigative reporter who sees and writes about the danger that Hitler personifies. Not enough read what he has to say, but one of them was Adolph Hitler and Modine becomes one of the first inmates of the newly formed concentration camps.

Peter O'Toole is the biggest name in the cast as President Hindenburg, a man who was just too old and tired to deal with the Bohemian corporal as Hitler was contemptuously characterized by a lot of the professional military. O'Toole is outstanding as usual. One thing not shown was that Hindenburg's own son had become a Nazi party member and that had to have had a crippling affect on whatever course of action Hindenburg wanted to pursue.

This is one story that should get retold every few years and Hitler: The Rise Of Evil is as good a telling as it can get.

Watch it for the flare not the facts

[vovin999 · 7/10 · 11 August 2021]

This movie has me torn. I love the set pieces and the acting is superb. It has this vibe of authenticity to it.

However that is just it. It is a perversion of facts. Hitler was not a psychopath openly like this movie would have you believe. He was very soft-spoken and loving to his family and friends. Why do you think he won people over so easily? He was an incredibly charismatic man. He was certainly not the psychopath portrayed in this movie.

One example I'd like to bring up is his relationship with his niece. Everything was really great about that until he had her running around in a circle and stop at his command. However the relationship they had before that is more or less how Hitler was to people he knew. Remember he LOVED people, he just didn't love what was then called lesser developed races, like the Jews. He wasn't alone in this assessment at that time. Eugenics was the top-tier science of that day, and the US and Scandinavia practiced it just as much.

Of course no one knew how far the SS would go. Before the war Hitler was loved globally, and considered a great leader; he had single-handedly brought Germany out of its debt, was the creator of the "People Wagon", ie the Volkswagen.

After the war, the greatest scientists of the Nazi party were imported to the US and created was to be NASA.

This movie is sad in how desperate they are to portray this man as an evil person. I'm not sure how much Hitler personally knew about the death-camps - it is certain that he blamed all of Germany's problems on the Jews. They had some hardcore occult / magick aspirations as well, as the symbology will tell you. BUT to portray him as just this evil psychopath like in this movie is just complete hogwash.

Very entertaining, but historically incorrect

[kremer-4 · 3/10 · 29 December 2003]

No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.

Adolescent TV pap about Adolf has him beating a dog before the first commercial.

[TheVid · 19 May 2003]

This is strictly for those who like their history delivered via TV movies. Addie's childhood is hashed out during the opening credits, and it's obvious from there that anything complicated about his personality is going to be overshadowed in favor of a sophomoric portrait that would be better titled: Hitler, Son of Satan. A tepid TV costume drama about everyone's favorite villain. Carlyle is mediocre in it.

Helps you understand how one man could gain so much support and power.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 30 April 2004]

"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" can be seen as a documentary with actors. It is interesting and educative to watch but too compressed and political correct at times. This TV movie could have used so more guts.

Robert Carlyle was impressive as Hitler, helped by some subtle make-up effects. It's too bad that the rest of the supporting cast doesn't know to impress. Most of them just stay empty character with faces but without names. Peter O'Toole's small roll however was nice. The character the movie focuses on aren't always logical, it fails to focus on the interesting key element persons and those that are present are mostly nothing more as small cameo's.

It is interesting that this movie also has some impressive WW I sequences in which Hitler fought as a soldier.

The movie helps you to understand (not sympathize) how a man such as Hitler gained so much support politically and from the German people which is mainly why this movie is educative and important for people to see to help them understand. It's too bad that the movie stops just when it gets interesting, it was almost like they ran out of money and had to came up with an ending quickly.

Interesting and educative.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

O'Toole even better than Carlyle

[wrvisser-leusden-nl · 9/10 · 8 October 2004]

Having grown up in the shadow of World War II, I wondered if this movie could teach me anything new. After all, I've heard the Hitler story over and over again ... as well as its implications on world history.

Well, 'Hitler, the rise of evil' did teach me something. Robert Carlyle's fine play deepened my insight in the workings of this dictator's mind. I was also struck by the originality of its plot, wrapping Hitler's life-story around an American couple in Germany, gambling on his policies to make their fortune.

However, the biggest surprise in this movie was actor Peter O'Toole, playing Von Hindenburg. His magnificent performance on the aged German president really sent the marvels down my spine.

And let's not forget the two documentary movies on the second DVD. One of them deals with the hilarious fake of the Hitler diaries, back in the 1980's. But that's another story.

Interesting at times

[TheOtherFool · 6/10 · 20 April 2004]

Robert Carlysle is Hitler, as we follow him in his early years until he becomes the sole leader of Nazi Germany. A fragmentaric movie but at times, interesting as we all know what happened next.

Too bad the movie doesn't focus on Hitler's childhood years, nor his career as a painter. These stages of his life take about 5 minutes to tell, apparently, and before we know it Hitler is in WW 1 where he became a korporal.

The film then slowly explains how Hitler gains more and more power, and how he's reacting to that. At times, this was a bit dull, as we're saying to ourselves: alright, get on with it.

Not sure why the Hanfstaengl family had such a big part in this one, as it's unclear what they really want or how they really feel. And the movie reads more like a documentary instead of a movie based upon facts. Sometimes this formula tends to get a bit boring. But it's a good history lesson I suppose.

Good acting all around, as I give my final score: 6/10.

the Nazi-mechanism revealed

[wvisser-leusden · 9/10 · 22 July 2009]

"Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.

I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.

When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.

As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.

My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists.

excellent supreme

[luciana_dibella · 10/10 · 23 January 2005]

ITS JUST EXCELLENT. Its very difficult to express my self, rightly, because i speak Spanish, but i will try.

Hitler, THE RISE OF EVIL. it's ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES, I EVER SEEN.

But why Evil? I disagree on that tittle.And I've read, some of the comments of other people, some said its a boring film, not dynamic. Are you nuts? And let me tell : its VERY dynamic,I couldn't get my sight from the screen. so please, don't tell nonsense. If some Jew were annoyed, because the film is very realistic, thats another thing. Nobody but Robert Carlyle, could better represent Hitler.His work was, terrific.Have someone, notice that in all Nazisms films people talks about the Fuhrer, but he never appears, why??? because nobody, can represent him as he did. Nobody, except Carlyle.Eg the conspiring, Shindler list,Light in the dark, ETC.Some say Hitler was a monster and blah, blah, blah. But, Why Jew didn't provide financial support to Germany after the WWI ?They should done it. its was a very selfish and wicked attitude.Thats not fair.Don't you think? That is high TREASON.

Germany was economically broken and they Coulnt care a straw about the situation. Iam not justifying the Holocaust but please. That puts anyone OFF. So WE must not allow them to present as poor victims. Face your mistakes at ones.Its also Jews responsibility.Luciana. Argentina

A glimpse into what lead to a major historical event...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 26 April 2017]

Everyone knows who Hitler was and what he set out to do and what he actually accomplished. But just how many know the backstory of the man who waged war on Europe? Well, worry not, "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" is an means of immersing yourself into a history lesson by means of the entertainment of a movie.

What is interesting about "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" is that it follows Adolf Hitler during the years prior to his conquest for world domination and the years that molded and shaped him into what he became. It is a movie that gives an insight into the more personal aspects of the man and the tyrant.

One of the more impressive aspects of "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was the cast. Because they had managed to get together some good acting talents for this project. And it was quite interesting to see Robert Carlyle in the role as Adolf Hitler, and he did pull off that unique look quite well, and he also portrayed his quite good. But other talents such as Peter O'Toole, Peter Stomare and Liev Schreiber were also complimenting the movie quite well.

It is a good and entertaining movie, especially if you have any interest in the history of the world. However, the movie does suffer a bit under the fact that it is an English speaking cast, as that just takes away some authenticity from the story.

"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" does offer a good portrayal of how Adolf Hitler came into a position of power, and just how much can be accomplished with a charismatic force behind the voice of a nation. And it does portray Adolf Hitler as a man with desires, needs, fears, aspirations and so on, and not just as a tyrannical fascist dictator.

If you enjoyed "Der Untergang", then you should also enjoy "Hitler: The Rise of Evil". I think that it is definitely worth spending the time to sit down and watch this movie. And it actually sustains more than just a single viewing.

excellent film

[baspitfire · 10/10 · 6 April 2005]

I thought the whole film was very well done, to the point of believable. Every- body was well casted,and fitted into there roll in a very natural way,the whole film was very professional, and the acting was superb.,no over acting here,it was one of those many films that can be played twenty years from now and never loose any thing its timeless.

The only gripe I have is why is the DVD not available in this Country,on the internet you can buy it every were,from $6.00-$20.00,from other Countries,thats a little odd!!!! as I believe the film was originally televised on CBS in 2003 in New York, The film Distributor should be aware of the gray market copies that are available.

The Full Hitler

[vidiot49 · 7/10 · 3 July 2020]

I've enjoyed Robert Carlyle's work very much. His acting was terrific in films like "The Full Monty" (1997) and "28 Weeks Later" (2007). I also liked his work in the TV series "Stargate Universe" (2009 - 2011). However, when I saw that Carlyle had been cast as Adolf Hitler in this production I was a bit skeptical. Well, I must admit that I was wrong. Robert Carlyle has created an Adolf Hitler that is quite manic/depressive and scary. I don't know about the historical accuracy, but the film was quite entertaining. It did have a definite TV movie look so I gave it a 7 out of 10.

I'd like to think that during the epic consumption of alcohol at the wrap party Robert Carlyle and the actors that portrayed his inner circle were induced to don their Nazi uniforms and film a re-enactment of the stripping scene from The Full Monty for an outtakes reel. If they didn't, they missed the chance of a lifetime.

Oh, no - it's drivel!

[cdimdb · 1/10 · 24 May 2009]

If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.

Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.

If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.

I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.