Eichmann (2007)

Okay so you have a cast of excellent actors and an seriously important story that needs, like 'Shchindler's List', to be told, so why make an unbelievable, disjointed, completely out of place titillating, mess of telling it.This Adolf Eichmann, in flash backs, had more in common with a stock character out of the British WW2 sitcom 'Alo Alo' than the blandly evil man he really was. There should be some sort of tacit agreement in Holywood under which all drama/documentaries, on the subject of the holocaust, are to follow strict guidelines of authenticity and due respect for the subject matter.

I do not typically submit such reviews, but this film cries out for comments. "Using" the inherently dramatic and compelling nature of the Nazi period to create a largely inaccurate film seems to be another kind of crime. Such a period of evil deserves the most sober treatment possible and should not be used to create a kind of historic horror film.All of that is leading up to my strong suggestion that you skip the film and read Hannah Arendt's amazing book about the actual Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Here you will find a non-dramatic, non-titillating version of the story that neither exaggerates nor diminishes Eichmann's evil, but rather reveals him in a matter-of-fact way as an opportunist, a careerist who merely wanted to advance, climb the ladder, attain the next "title," etc. He apparently did not have any particular hatred toward Jews. None of this in my estimation makes him less evil; the book actually reveals the "banality" of his evil by taking away the specter of a crazed monster. His evil lies in its being sane and in a sense "ordinary." Therefore, given its serious subject matter, I feel the film only partially reflects the facts Arendt reveals so clearly, obscuring them with with sex and useless side stories. The performances are good, the film is well made, etc. That's not my point. If you want to make a formulaic film, a horror film, a sexy film, or any other kind of film, have at it. But don't use Eichmann as your subject matter. The subject matter is too serious to be misused in any way. Read the book, please.

Renowned war criminal Adolf Eichmann has been found at large in Argentina by Israeli agents, where he is promptly kidnapped and brought to Israel for trial. Avner Less is appointed as his interrogator before the trial. The Israeli nation is baying for his blood outside, which makes Less's task of being impartial all the harder. The film revolves around their interviews, Eichmann's replies to certain questions about his past atrocities bringing us back through flashback to the war. Eichmann naturally denies the offences and puts most down to obeying orders. The cat and mouse of the interviewing process and its gradual progression is very interesting and well crafted. Thomas Kretschmann's performance in particular as Eichmann is excellent and the film belongs to him.

I've seen this film and I thought it was very good. It reminds me of some of the movies made in the 70's which though essentially B movies rose to the status of great art. Films like "Charley Varrick" and "The Driver".It has a great gutsy approach to storytelling in the mold of someone like Fuller, bold, teetering on cliché, but with an intimacy and great power.The central performances are both compelling. Kretschmann is brilliant. Troy Garity provides a performance best in his blossoming career.The films greatest power is in the detail. It unswervingly faces the sometimes overwhelming amount of information and puts it on the screen. Its the detail (in the script) and the refusal to avoid this in the dialogue that makes the film so hypnotic.