Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Max (I) (2002)
not bad, but misunderstood
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.
35 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing; Stacy Sutton is back!
22 November 1999
Pierce Brosnan has become the best Bond since Sean Connery. I saw "Tomorrow Never Dies" to get into the mood for this film. That, in my opinion, is one of the best Bond films. This, sadly, is not. There are some great action sequences, but that's all. After 2 films where the "Bond girl" had a relatively substantive role, especially in "Tomorrow Never Dies", we're firmly back to Stacy Sutton. The only purpose for Denise Richards' character is to have large breasts and wear tight T-shirts. (I guess we should be happy she has more dialog than "James! James!") Oh yeah, her T-shirt even gets wet in a scene. This film features an almost tragic Bond villian! That's fine for a serious film, but this is Bond. Goldfinger Renard is not. John Cleese was disappointing as R, but Q gets a respectable exit.

In the positive side, it's nice to see M with a more substantive role.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the best since early Connery
22 November 1999
Pierce Brosnan is the best film Bond overall since the glory days of the early Sean Connery films. He brings the best contributions of all three major screen versions--the physical toughness of Connery, the wit of Moore, and the coldness of Dalton--to the screen. Like Connery, he is believable as someone who could kick your butt. When someone close to him is killed, his Bond will take revenge as coldly and hatefully as Dalton's.

For this film, Brosnan has a firm grasp of his vision of Bond, and so do the writers. The writing is sharp, the best since "Goldfinger." The pacing is consistent, and the film never slows down. Brosnan's Bond probably fires more bullets in one minute of this film than Connery's did in 6 films combined. Despite that, the action sequences are exciting and well directed.

The best part of the film was the decision to have a "Bond girl" who functioned as a work partner for Bond, not just a bed partner. Michelle Kwan is one of the best Bond girls, because she is an equal to Bond and her character could star in a film series as easily as he can.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best!
22 November 1999
Fans seem to either love or hate Dalton as Bond. There's not much middle ground. Those who like the books tend to like Dalton because he brings that vision of the character to the screen. Those who grew up on the movies, especially those with Moore, tend to hate Dalton's films. I'm in the former. The James Bond that Ian Fleming created was a cold hearted SOB who frequently questioned his job and whether he wanted to continue doing it. He was capable of intense hatred (witness Fleming's description of Bond when he first sees Blofeld's face in "You Only Live Twice"). This was not a fun guy, cracking jokes and smirking, a la Moore's film version.

"Licence to Kill" is pure Timothy Dalton, and pure novel James Bond. "The Living Daylights" seems to have been written with Roger in mind, so Dalton had to work within that (just as Moore's first film was written with Connery in mind and Moore seemed a little out of place). In this one, the writers came up with a story perfectly suited to Dalton's cold Bond. I liked his coldness, and the way he takes down Sanchez's organization, partly by pitting Sanchez against his own people. Lupe was too much of a concession to the "formula", but Pam made a good "Bond girl", working with Bond instead of bedding and being saved by him. This pattern continued for the first two Brosnan films and is quite refreshing after the ludicrous Stacy Sutton of "View to a Kill".

A lot of fans complain about the ruthlessness of Bond in this film. But, the best parts of any Roger Moore film were those very rare moments where he got cold and vengeful (shooting the villian in "Spy Who Loved Me" and killing the henchman in "For Your Eyes Only"). Dalton's contribution to the character is echoed by Brosnan in all three of his films, especially the latter two. Dalton's portrayl would never have made for a successful series. One needs the humor and other trappings of a Roger Moore or a Sean Connery. Brosnan brings the best parts of Connery, Moore, and Dalton to the screen, which is why he has been so successful. But, for an individual film, Dalton was excellent and showed that a Bond film could still generate intensity and life, even after nearly 30 years.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed