Good (2008) User Reviews

Interesting film developed on Nazi time with fine performances and good setting

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 13 January 2010]

Germany 1933, at the raising Nazi Regime, John Haider (Viggo Mortensen) is a good man, a brilliant professor of literature who has to care his ill mother (Gemma Jones), wife and sons. The professor suffers interruption of some radicals students who burn books in his University's courtyard . He writes a book that defends the euthanasia as method to sure a dignity death to ills. His novel is a upright success in the III Reich hierarchy (Mark Strong, Steven Mckintosh), including Hitler who takes his novel as justifying oneself the dreadful crimes against Jews. The Nazi authorities press and threaten Haider to collaborate with Gestapo and write about legalize euthanasia. Haider is going into the spiral of Nazi savagery. Meanwhile he falls in love with a student (Jodie Whitaker)and his Jewish friend (Jason Isaacs)being besieged by the Nazi pursuers.

This is a splendid drama set on Nazi epoch with thoughtful plot and slick direction .From the sage play by C.P. Taylor, as the producers wish to thanks Royal Shakespeare Company and the original cast and crew of the play. It packs a colorful and appropriate cinematography by Andrew Dunn. Enjoyable musical score by Simon Lacey and including Mahler songs . The flick is well produced by Miriam Segal , as the film is made in memory of his father Ronald Segal whose life's work was dedicated to the betterment of the rights of the others. The motion picture is professionally directed by Austria-Brazilian director Vicente Amorim.

The movie talks about various historic events as happens ¨The night of the broken glass¨ well re-enacted in the film, as the night of November 9, 1938, when terror attacks were made on Jewish synagogues and stores. Two days earlier, Vom Rath, Third Secretary of the German Embassy in Paris , had been assassinated by Grynszpan, a Polish Jew. In retaliation, Himmler (though doesn't appear at the movie is continuously appointed) and Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the SD, ordered the destruction of all Jewish places of worship in Germany and Austria.The assault had been long prepared , the murder provided an opportunity to begin the attack. In fifteen hours 101 synagogues were destroyed by fire and 76 were demolished. Bands of Nazis (one of them is our starring Viggo Mortensen, though unaware) destroyed 7.500 Jewish-owned stores. The pillage and looting went on through the night. Streets were covered with broken glass , hence the name Kristallnacht. Three days later Hermann Goering along with Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbles ( played by Adrian Schiller) called a meeting of the top hierarchy at the Air Ministry to assess the damage done during the night and place responsibility for it. Goebbles proposed that Jews no longer be allowed to use the public parks. It was decided that the Jews would have to pay for the damage they had provoked.

A very subtle film

[karl_consiglio · 7/10 · 24 October 2009]

I thought it was a very good film. Quite a different portrayal on the topic of Nazi Germany from what we are used to. Shows how at the end of the day, the Germans were not people with horns, everything that was going on was very normal to them, everybody was doing their part in a country that was, after a long period in the dark,was finally thriving. They could not see the full picture. This film makes you wonder what you would have done had you been a German in that period. At first the main character in the film does not even support the Reich, him being a Literature professor, especially after having seen them burn all them books. But by the end of it, he winds up in full Nazi attire. But its way too late then.

Friendship interrupted

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 14 February 2010]

John Halder's life is touched by the advent of the changes in Germany, where he is living. Halder is a professor at a university. His good friend Maurice, a Jewish psychiatrist, fought with him during WWI and have remained a true friend. Their friendship will be put to a test during the course of the story. The advent of the Nazi movement finds John Halder unprepared for what the country will become, questioning his loyalty to his Jewish friend, and the way he treats his own mother.

Although John is married, he is flattered when a young female student, Anne, showers compliments on him. One day Anne shows unexpectedly at his home during a downpour. Concerned about what will happen to her, John decides to put her up for the night, something that is the beginning of his involvement with her and the ruin of his own marriage to the aloof Helen, a woman that doesn't show much affection for him.

One day John is called by a Nazi officer, Bouhler, because Hitler interest in his book in which euthanasia is advocated for terminal cases of dementia and other diseases. Halder is asked to write a propaganda essay in which his own thoughts of eliminating humans can be viewed as a humanitarian good deed. John who enjoys hearing Mahler's music, is suddenly asked not to teach Proust. He doesn't even bat an eyelash when hundreds of books are burned right outside his office window!

The idea that decent German citizens were drawn into the madness that overtook their country during that fatal period of history is the basis of the play by C. P. Snow that dealt brilliantly with the subject. The film, directed by Vicente Amorim, with a screen adaptation by John Wrathall, gives the audience an inside what life was like during the madness that overtook all reason.

Viggo Mortensen, an actor that has done better, is somewhat not at his best, as John Halder. Mr. Mortensen is at a disadvantage playing against such actors as Jason Isaacs, seen as Maurice, the Jewish friend who Halder tries to save without success. Mr. Isaacs is about the best excuse to watch the film. Mark Strong is making a career in portraying subtle villains, as he does with his take of Bouhler. Jodie Whitaker and Steven McIntosh appear as Anna and Freddie. Gemma Jones has some good moments as Halder's mother.

Lacks the conviction required to take it to a higher level

[Otoboke · 25 September 2009]

Long before the advent of the third Reich, Hitler and their persecution of the Jews in the 1940's, Edmund Burke once now infamously said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing; to know in their hearts and see the evils going on around them, but to sit back and let it unfold whether out of fear, apathy or both. Good, which sets about detailing the profile of a man who fits this description almost perfectly after he gets involved with the Nazi party unwillingly, deals with the central premise of Burke's evaluation, and does so whilst keeping in mind the humanity at play when struggles of good and evil take precedence. At times sombre and reflective, at others a tad monotonous and pedantic, director Vicente Amorim's film nevertheless takes a large page of history and gives it a small, introspective look at how easily evil can overcome one's life without even knowing. As a set piece, it lacks the conviction required to take it to a higher level, but certainly as a small, somewhat humbled character piece, Good serves its purpose well.

It is of no surprise to learn that the film's screenplay was adapted from a play written by C.P. Taylor; the same themes that carried said play, permeating the entirety of Good's makeup in a way that consistently reaffirms its central ideas and philosophies. While features such as these which deal with the holocaust, the Second World War and the Nazi party with a sense of distilled reality and less than realistic shades of grey when it comes to the portrayals of those behind the uniforms, screenwriter John Wrathall's adaptation stays true to the disquieted approach of Taylor's play and documents the fall of a good man into the hands of his enemy; the censoring, dictating, and anti-semantic nationalist socialist party—eager to segregate the Jews and "cleanse" the new Reich of their influence. Indeed, one of the most important and significant aspects to Amorim's feature here is that here we are invited to see the transformation not only of a country, but of a singular man who remains true to his heart throughout, but fails to notice his outward transformation until one chilling scene where he looks into the mirror to see a man he wouldn't be able to put a name to.

Aside from Viggo Mortensen's obtuse performance which takes him away from his most recently extremely self-aware roles, across from him lays Jason Isaacs who plays his best friend, a Jewish Psychotherapist. Of course, right from the get-go you know where all this is going; and therein lays the only real problem with a story such as this. While Hollywood cinema has been reluctant up until the most recent years to let the Evil from the East be given a face and a soul, even though Good comes at a time when this wave of drama is catching some momentum, you can't help but feel like you've heard all this before in some way or another. Taylor's play does well to stick at what it knows best—which is humanity, the heart and the choices that both have to make in order to preserve themselves—yet the moral play at hand here is largely innocuous and unenlightening enough to pass as something of a footnote to this kind of philosophising that has been going on, well, long before Burke even uttered those famous words.

With this being said however, Good, if taken lightly, offers up a nevertheless well crafted and mostly harmless take on the human condition in a manner which doesn't tax but at the same time doesn't cause one to drift to sleep either. With some fine performances from both Mortensen and Isaacs, as well as femme-fatale of sorts Jodie Whittaker and TB-inflicted mother Gemma Jones, the ensemble that dominates the screen here does well to reinforce the feeling of humanity throughout to the point where plotting and overt thematic material becomes secondary to the real conflicts at hand. As a drama, the movie works—if only barely. It's by no means something that is required viewing for just about anyone, but when it comes to movies dealing with the behind-the-scenes transformations of a country and its people during times of social reformation and war, Good has enough to satisfy and provoke thought—even if they are recycled and a tad overly familiar by now.

• A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

Better than expected...

[seanhmoss6 · 7/10 · 23 January 2021]

So many tired themes about these times. This one, particularly, stands apart. I just liked it. WATCH THIS MOVIE.

It's real

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 6/10 · 6 July 2011]

What have I done? What have I done? You can imagine that Professor John Halder (Viggo Mortensen) was asking that question over and over.

He seemed not to understand what was happening to him as he let himself be used by the Nazi's. First, he joins the party, then he loses his lifelong friend simply because he was Jewish. It was only when he was picked to inspect the death camps did he come to a full realization of the depths into which he had sunk.

How do you cook a lobster? If you throw it into a pot of boiling water it will scream and jump out. But, if you put it in water and slowly raise the temperature, it boils before it knows what/s happening. Professor Halder was put in tepid water and the temperature raised gradually until the shock hit him full force, and he could not escape.

Mortensen was very good, but his friend Morris (Jason Isaacs), a Jew, was excellent.

"Good" is only "Fair"

[mackjay2 · 6/10 · 2 June 2009]

Viggo Mortensen (as John Halder) manages a fairly believable character because he gets enough screen time. Unfortunately this is not true for the rest of the characters, who rarely seem more than two-dimensional. Despite the obvious talents of Jason Isaacs, Mark Strong, Steven Mackintosh, Gemma Jones and others, not much of substance comes out of this film. It's almost like a typically tepid made-for-TV drama, earnest in its themes but too mild in its execution, and too short. This is one film of recent vintage that feels not long enough for character and plot development. The story jumps ahead by several years at a time and we piece together the action through dialog. For those already informed, this isn't difficult, but for the rest it may seem too whirlwind and superficial. Comparing John Halder's dilemma to the very similar one of Michael Moriarty in HOLOCAUST (1978) it's easy to see the advantages of more screen time, greater plot detail and a forceful dramatic approach.

But GOOD is not a complete loss. The Budapest locations are pleasing and effective, and the film has one unique touch: the use of music by Gustav Mahler to suggest Halder's subtle connection to a great culture heritage created by Jews. This is effective as long as the viewer realizes we are hearing Mahler every time Halder has one of his strange epiphanies.We can guess that Halder values this music as he values his Jewish friend (Isaacs) and so the ultimate irony is set in motion. Not a bad film, but too mild-mannered and lacking in real dramatic weight.

The Human Comedy: A Study of Adaptation

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 6 September 2010]

A new movement for change, promising a life richer in education, physical prowess, diminished crime, and increased wealth is like a magnet, and the promises that National Socialist Republic created in all forms of the media in the 1930s were probably heady enough that the post World War I Germans could turn a blind eye to the vacuous reality of a rising maniac's promises. GOOD is a film that suggests how the good common people responded to the rise of the Third Reich - the Nazi party with its loathsome guardianship in the Gestapo. It suggests how personal needs could cloud the mind to see only the benefits of a new order that would eventually destroy millions of people and attempt to transform the world in a new social order. And it is painful to watch the disease progress into every aspect of life in Germany.

John Halder (Viggo Mortensen) is a professor of literature and a writer of novels: his latest novel is a fictional story about a man who, out of love for his suffering wife, assists her dying. This novel catches the eye of Hitler and the Reichminister Bouhler (Mark Strong) who encourages Halder to draft a paper describing how euthanasia is a good and righteous act - a paper that will eventually 'justify' the massacre of Jews and other 'undesirables'. Halder's life is in such upheaval (his mother (Gemma Jones) is dying of tuberculosis while living with Halder and his piano obsessed wife Helen (Anastasia Hille) whom he divorces, Halder finds happiness only with a student Anne (Jodie Whittaker) who is fascinated with the Nazi party, and Halder's only close friend is psychiatrist Maurice Israel Glückstein (Jason Issacs) who is Jewish and loathes the Nazi party. Because of Halder's needs in life and also because of the glory he feels being praised for his novel, he agrees to be an 'advisor' to the party. His confrères include Adolph Eichmann (Steven Elder) and Josef Goebbels (Adrian Schiller) and slowly the good man John Halder becomes immersed in the Nazi party.

Maurice, being Jewish and detesting John's alliance with the Nazis, must escape Germany as the Jewish purge begins. His only hope is aid from Halder's Nazi affiliation and he desperately seeks Halder's help. Halder is unable to come to Maurice's aid; Maurice is evacuated and Halder's inspection of the concentration camps makes him face his worse fear about his selling out his morals and honor and his losing his closest friend.

GOOD began as a play by C.P. Taylor and was transformed into a screenplay by John Wrathall. Vicente Amorim directs a cast of mixed experience, but from Mortensen and Isaacs and Jones he draws fine performances. Throughout the film Halder has aural delusions: at times of stress he hears music, a factor that in retrospect makes us question his own stability. The music he hears is a sad rewriting of the works of Gustav Mahler -' Die Zwei Blauen Augen von meinem Schatz', and 'O Mensch!' from the Mahler 3rd Symphony (both sung in English translations by people on the street!), bit and pieces of score quoting phrases from Mahler in a very pedestrian arrangement, and finally orchestral recordings of moments from Mahler's Symphonies No.1 and No.3. The pedestrian quality of the score weights the film down. The cinematography by Andrew Dunn is fine (the film was shot in Hungary). Overall, it feels like this is a strong idea of a statement of what happens to the minds common men in times of crises. For this viewer it simply doesn't accomplish its goal, despite the worthy attempt Viggo Mortensen makes.

Grady Harp

Infuriating how awful this film is!!!!

[s-barash72 · 1/10 · 19 April 2013]

Three reasons why this film is a waste of time and money:

First, it is about the most horrific 12 years in German history and none of the actors are German, but mainly English. They don't even make an effort to hide their English accents when they utter German words. However, that is not the main problem, the main problem is that they are so English. Their entire behaviour is SO English. Either you make a film about dictatorship that could happen anywhere, anytime or a film about Nazi Germany but then there HAS to be an accurate historical, cultural portrayal of the time and people!

Second, there is nothing, absolutely nothing 'good' in Halder, he is not even 'nice'. Halder is a Nazi who pretends NOT to be one. He does zero to protect his best friend while it is still time - and we are talking about his best friend, a man he shares his most intimate problems with! It is difficult to understand why he attempts to finally help him once it is too late!

Third, there is nothing moving, nothing touching about this film, even the last scene in the concentration camp feels like - and I am sorry to draw this comparison but this is what it felt like watching it - a trip to the house of horrors at a funfair!

What could have been an interesting, excruciating film about a man who through the choices he makes, gives in to evil and realizes too late that he was lured into a trap and has not only betrayed his best friend but is committing atrocious crimes against humanity, has gone horribly, horribly, horribly wrong! Awful, awful, awful!

Good: just another Third Reich movie

[kevin-rennie · 6/10 · 16 April 2009]

Germany's Third Reich didn't last its planned thousand years but there seems little doubt that they will be making movies like Good for that long. It's certainly a winning genre at the Oscars and the box office.

The key word for this Nazi/Holocaust film is derivative. You know immediately that you've been there before:

* the swastika-draped scenes of Hitler's Chancellery,

* the book burning,

* the betrayal by academia of their principles,

* the wrecked apartments of the wealthy urban Jews,

* the extravagant lifestyle of the senior Nazis,

* tension between Aryan and Jewish friends,

* the roundup,

* the concentration camp climax.

This is another film where it's very difficult to empathise with the protagonist. Kate Winslet's character in The Reader, Hanna Schmitz, copped some criticism for showing the human side of the holocaust perpetrators. Viggo Mortensen's John Halder may also be too human for some. He is a weak, compliant individual who clearly thinks of himself as a good man. He may be essentially good, but his increasing acceptance of the dark side of the Third Reich comes too easily. The world needed better.

Academic and novelist, Halder is a cold, wet fish. He barely enjoys his adulterous sex life. His criticisms of the Nazis are shallow: Hitler is a joke who won't last. He sees his role as honorary, an SS "consultant". "I prefer to be called Professor."

Like many of its genre, Good has a very attractive look. Its costumes are well designed. The production notes reveal their pseudo-authenticity. They've been modernised by use of 30s styles that most resemble our own. There are few hats except for the military. The sets reflect the grandeur of Speer's Berlin:

"GOOD uses Hitler's affection for neo-classical temples to underline the split personality of the entire society—a society in which all those clean, white marble and limestone surfaces are meant to hide a nation's debased, besmirched soul."

The official website also claims that Director Vicente Amorim "heightens the visual elements – sets, costumes, and lighting – to emphasize that what we are watching is symbolic, a sweeping parable about conscience and consequences." If it's about the struggle between individual and society, or within himself, then we see a very one-sided contest. Halder was just following...

Nevertheless this is a well-made film. Many other directors could take a leaf for its concise 96 minutes. It is hard to fault the performances of its very professional cast.

If you missed The Reader or The Counterfeiter or classics such as Sophie's Choice or Schindler's List, then Good will be a fresh and rewarding experience.

'Cinema Takes' http://cinematakes.blogspot.com/

A good man does nothing

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 3 March 2018]

John Halder (Viggo Mortensen) shields himself in academia from the life going on outside in Nazi Germany. His good friend Maurice (Jason Isaacs) is a Jewish psychiatrist. Both fought together in world war one.

John is married with children, his mother has dementia. Yet John has an affair with young student who flatters him, he leaves his wife for her. When the Nazi's express an interest in a novel he once wrote advocating euthanasia he finds himself elevated in subtle ways. Before long John is donning a Nazi uniform, he is promoted while at the same time he seeks help for Maurice to flee Germany.

Good is an adaptation of a stage play by C P Snow. It looks at the idea how ordinary people became drawn to Nazi ideology even just by standing on the sidelines and doing nothing. The film though is rather dreary and stodgy. It lacks heart.

Normal

[KubaU · 8/10 · 5 June 2009]

Watching this movie has been a fascinating experience, and at the same time I understand why so many people seem to hate it. It has little to no action, an ensemble of seemingly boring characters, and after all, what haven't we seen several times before? Yet I believe that the movie's story is the important factor here. Yes, all the different elements have been here before, but never assembled like this.

What it gives is, in essence, one possible answer to the haunting question - how could it happen? How could normal, civilized, educated people allow and even support what culminated into a world war and the Holocaust? Here you have it - an ordinary, intelligent person, who considers himself to be a good man (and indeed actually might be), with normal problems that plague us all in life. Yet all it takes is a bit of ignorance, or perhaps rather denial, because seemingly everything is just going so well... Suddenly he looks around and discovers that he has become the very symbol of pure evil (very obvious to us today with the black uniform and scull and bones symbols, but oh so mystical, alluring and elite then), who has essentially through inaction allowed his best friend to be sent to death and actually even aided something that stands against everything he believes in.

One cannot help to wonder what would happen next...

Good script, very well filmed and excellent acting, in my opinion.

a good man

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 15 June 2022]

In 1937 Berlin, the Nazi authority calls in literature professor John Halder (Viggo Mortensen). They want him to write a paper approving mercy killings since his book discusses his terribly sick mother. It's 1933. Halder is being pulled in direct directions as the Nazis take over German life. His Jewish friend Maurice (Jason Isaacs) is struggling but his mistress former student Anne (Jodie Whittaker) advises him to join the new Germany.

The premise is that a good man can be corrupted to evil purposes. It's a big idea and an important one. He starts out opposed to book banning but he slowly becomes a cog in the vast machine. It's done slowly and that's a problem for cinematic purposes. It feels slow. Still, the performances are solid and I like the idea. There are moments of high tension. It needs to show Maurice more. The stakes for John is not immediate but it is for Maurice. The slow pacing does wear thin after awhile until the build-up to Kristallnacht. Then it picks up again.

They got the title wrong

[MBunge · 5/10 · 21 March 2012]

Another entry into the "Nazis were bad" genre, what Good has going for it is an excellent examination of what it's like to be part of a society as it slides down into madness. Whether it is Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China or the guillotine's France, the truth is that people try to live normal lives in denial as long as they can. They make excuses or rationalizations or turn a blind eye until they find themselves in a world of moral chaos. Unfortunately, there's not much here beyond that example. The theme is nothing more than "Nazis were bad" and the personal story of the main character is fragmented and disconnected from the broader tale of his country. Both man and nation descend into evil, but there's no relationship between the two. T he movie starts to make an argument that the horrors of the Third Reich grew out of the hearts and minds of ordinary Germans as much as it did their insane leaders, but never follows through on it. Good is well acted and, after a too flashback-oriented beginning, flows quite nicely. However, it lacks either enough to say about its well-covered subject or enough human drama to captivate the audience. I don't regret seeing it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

John Halder (Viggo Mortensen) is a professor of literature at a German college in the late 1930s, as the Nazis are well into their rise to power. His home life is dominated by his tubercular, senile mother (Gemma Jones) and his fragile, distracted wife (Anastasia Hille). His private life mostly revolves around his Jewish psycho-analyst and best friend (Jason Isaccs) and Halder's school life has just been brightened by a beautiful young student (Jodie Whittaker). Then a novel he once wrote that advocated for merciful euthanasia has come to the attention of Hitler himself, as it nicely fits in with his delusions of how to perfect and purify human existence. That drags Halder into the SS and sees his personal importance skyrocket as his marriage dissolves and his friend is made into a pariah until Halder is forced to confront the atrocity he has become part of.

This is supposed to be a film about how evil triumphs when good men do nothing, with Halder playing the role of such a good man. He's not really good, though. John Halder is nice, which is not the same thing. Nice is passive. It's polite and courteous and obliging. Good is active. You're not good unless you're doing good. Halder isn't a good man who flinches in the face of evil. He's a nice man who never wanted to make a fuss. There's a difference between the two and I don't think these filmmakers understood that. Because of that, they fail to link Halder's decisions or hesitations with either his personal degeneration or the souring of his civilization. He's someone caught up in something bigger than himself, not someone whose actions led to his downfall and serves as a metaphor for what happened to Germany.

It's a shame. That sort of depth would have made this a great film because the surface is a finely woven knit. I don't think I've seen another motion picture that was better than Good and helping the viewer understand that German didn't become Nazi Germany overnight. It took years and a million little steps to reach war and Holocaust and for a long time, perfectly reasonable people could dismiss each little step as unimportant and absurd. And even when those steps became too menacing and deadly to deny, it was too late to raise a fuss without losing everything gained while the problem was ignored. Collective guilt has been shoveled upon the Germans, yet the dynamic that drove them wasn't much different from Americans who tolerated slavery and segregation. The founding and forging of America is bound up with the virtual genocide of the Indian nations. The actual genocide of the Jews was just more rapid, more intentional, more comprehensive and more recent.

If you'd like a smart, but not all that deep, trip back into the world of Aryan supremacy, Good is not a bad choice. If you're looking for something on the topic that is profound or deeply moving, you should probably choose something else.

mirror

[Vincentiu · 29 March 2012]

it is not good, it is not bad. it is a mirror. the subject is delicate and old. the action is not amazing. the innocence is a not interesting stuff. and yet, it is a beautiful story. a real beautiful story. as a lake in evening. as a rain in park. because, in fact, its subject is not Nazi regime, limits of friendship, need of refuges, relation with political circle but art of survive. way to be yourself. that is axis and purpose is not create a masterpiece but occasion to meditate. the central character is a crumb of family, job or events. innocent, frustrated, for who each door may be escape by himself. he is not a hero. and price of desire to not be hero is sufferance in many nuances, more heavy. in concentration camp he discover color of reality. not the reality. because reality is a mirror who presents his face.

First they came for the Gypsies, and I wasn't a Gypsy, so I said nothing...

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 12 October 2013]

An easily Seduced Academic is separated from His Wife and His Conscience by a Flirtatious Blonde Student and a Allure of an Easy Life from the Nazis. A Weak Intellectual Type is probably an Easy Mark for both. The "Good" Man who does nothing while Evil is all around Him is the Heart and Soul of the Film, Subtly and Methodically showing how it can readily happen.

The Movie is so easily paced that it lacks a few Hard and Disturbing Scenes to jar the Viewer into some sort of Urgency. Nothing here seems at all Desperate until it is too late and that's the Thesis. But in Cinematic Terms it all just sort of happens and the Impact of the Implications and the Fingerpointing gets smothered in a Lethargic Pace and the Exclamation Points become Periods.

Not a Bad Movie, it is quite Good. However, the Profound Warnings it attempts to Reflect with its Historical Mirror are never given enough Hutzpah to be anything more than a Muse. A Sincere and Important Muse to be sure, but it fails to use its Fiction and its Medium to bring Home its Message. Apathy is nothing but Self-Preservation at the Expense of Everything Else.

Great but lacking something

[jared-rulz19 · 7/10 · 23 September 2012]

****SPOILERS****Let me start this off by saying that the performances by Viggo Mortenson and Jason Issacs are fantastic. They really hold up and kept me engaged into what was going to happen next. Yet the movie is very slow so if you arn't prepared for anything with a deep meaning and a period piece you may be sadly disappointed.

Let's start with camera work, it's beautiful yet there are some odd editing issues in between but other than that it was pleasing. Now to the story. The biggest problem with it is that nothing is resolved except for John's mother dies or ESPECIALLY when John is looking for Maurice at the camp it just left wondering what the whole point of the last two hours was that I watched.

All in all this movie was great with fantastic performances and great camera work but with a story that's mildly confusing at times it'll just kind of leave you hanging.

The Good Nazi

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 28 September 2012]

One might have thought that the Third Reich is a subject which has been done to death in the cinema, yet occasionally a film turns up which is able to shed new light on the subject. "Good" came out in 2008, the same year as "The Reader", another film about Nazism, but one which was much more widely publicised. John Halder is a young lecturer in the literature department of a German university in the 1930s. (Although the film is set in Germany, the first names of most characters are anglicised- for example John and Maurice rather than Johann and Moritz). When the Nazi Party comes to power in 1933, Halder seems an unlikely convert to their doctrines, as he is relatively liberal in his politics and not at all anti-Semitic- indeed, his closest friend Maurice Glückstein is Jewish. He is angry when he is ordered to stop teaching the works of Jewish authors like Marcel Proust.

Yet Halder is seduced into going along with the Party. He first comes to the notice of the Nazi hierarchy when he publishes a novel in support of euthanasia, and is commissioned by them to carry out research into the same subject. He is persuaded that taking out Party membership will advance his career and is given a rank in the SS. This position is at first purely honorary, but later he is charged with more responsibilities. Halder's involvement in the party leads to the end of his friendship with Maurice; when his friend asks him for help in obtaining an exit visa so he can leave Germany, Halder fails to do so out of moral cowardice. The film ends in 1942 with Halder working in a concentration camp. The story is told against the background of Halder's personal life, including his difficult relationship with his elderly mother and the breakdown of his first marriage following an affair with a student, who becomes his second wife.

What is striking about Halder's gradual moral corruption is the methods used by the Nazis to get him to co-operate. They never need to resort to threats or bullying. Nobody ever barks "Ve haff vays und means…." or some similar phrase. Even notorious real-life Nazis like Philipp Bouhler and Adolf Eichmann come across as quite reasonable. Halder is won over by flattery, by appeals to his self-interest and by playing on his quite genuine idealism. Although the title "Good" is intended ironically, there must have been many in the early thirties who persuaded themselves that the National Socialist movement could be a force for good, that it could lead to a genuine sense of national rebirth and renewal in Germany and that the its regrettable anti-Semitism was merely a temporary mania which would burn itself out once the Party had consolidated itself in power and established a firmer control over its wild young stormtroopers. When Halder hesitates about joining the Nazi Party he is won over by the arguments of his second wife Anne that the party needs good men like himself as members in order to ensure a better future for the country.

I was not very impressed by Viggo Mortensen in the last film I saw him in, "A Perfect Murder", so I am happy to say that he is much better here as Halder, the man whose personal road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions. I also liked Jason Isaacs as Maurice. The theme of the film- a once liberal man seduced by Nazism, was also treated in a German- language film, Istvan Szabo's "Mephisto". I wouldn't rank "Good" quite as highly as Szabo's film, but I certainly preferred it to "The Reader" which I found empty, barren and lacking any new insights into its grim subject-matter. "Good", by contrast, does have something of interest to say about the Nazi era and, by extension, also about the temptation to collaborate with evil which arises whenever people are forced to live under totalitarian regimes. 7/10

Faustian bargain

[tomsview · 7/10 · 18 April 2014]

"Good" starts quietly, but ends powerfully. It goes to the heart of our sense of right and wrong.

The movie is set in Germany a few years before WW2. John Halder (Viggo Mortenson) is a WW1 veteran and university lecturer who lives in a small apartment with his wife, two children and a demanding, invalid mother.

He has written a novel about euthanasia, which the new Nazi government finds is in accord with their ideas, and John is offered a post within the SS. Although he is anything but a Nazi, John nonetheless enjoys the advantages the position offers him although it compromises his relationship with his friend, Maurice Glückstein (Jason Isaacs), a Jew.

John also leaves his wife and marries a sexy young student, Anne (Jodie Whittaker); he is a man who seems easily seduced in love and in life. Eventually, in the film's grim finale, John is forced to confront his lack of firmness and the realities of the Nazi regime.

The story shows in microcosm how the Nazis seduced the Germans, and how they accepted the loss of personal freedoms and worse for what seemed to be for the good of the nation, a better life, and maybe, just not to rock the boat. However, there was a price to pay and once ensnared there was no turning back.

The film probably has more relevance to people who know some history of the times, because it helps explain why John acts the way he does - although not stated overtly, his actions are driven by underlying fear. There are little touches that the filmmakers don't feel necessary to explain such as why the previous occupants of Anne and John's new apartment have left so suddenly - a knowledge of the times would suggest that they were Jews who had been evicted.

Some scenes are painful to watch, especially as John fails to help Maurice as the Nazis ramp up their persecution of the Jews. Here, the film seems to challenge the viewer, "What would you do in his place"? Would you have the courage to swim against the tide of events? John is basically a decent man, however he is too pliable, too apathetic, and does not act until it is too late.

"Good" may seem slow to some, "Iron Man 2" it is not. But I feel that the time it takes to build its characters pays off in the end - we become involved. One of the most asked questions in history is how did the Nazis manage to sway ordinary Germans to their cause? This film gives part of the answer in an intimate and accessible way. As British philosopher Edmund Burke famously said, " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Not so Good

[ferguson-6 · 5/10 · 15 April 2009]

Greetings again from the darkness. The film has the look and feel of a something very important and memorable. Instead, it leaves the viewer feeling quite unsatisfied and actually a bit annoyed.

While a big fan of Viggo Mortensen, this is the first time I felt him over-acting, trying so hard to carry weak material to another level. His character is confused through much of the film, but it appears the actor himself was even more confused over how to create something from this mess. He is not helped by director Vicente Amorin, who is solid with individual shots, but haphazard with continuity and visual story telling.

Jason Isaacs, Jodie Whittaker (Venus) and the always super-cool Mark Strong provide support for the film and prevent it from being a total waste, but none of the material is strong enough to get the film to the level it portends.

Who is "good" in GOOD, THE GOOD GERMAN, SCHINDLER'S LIST?

[erichkaroly · 7/10 · 25 April 2020]

I once met a survivor of Mengele at a grade school she'd come to talk to. She told us that the Allied Forces were so shocked and angered by what they found at the camps, that they arranged to force the townspeople in the neighboring town to line up on the streets and really look at the condition of the newly freed prisoners of the camp, whom they brought willingly into the town, presumably after some aid had been given them. (We were all too riveted to interrupt with practical questions like that.) At some point in this gruesome parade, a townswoman broke rank and approached her. With a dumbfounded look, she expressed her shock that "even the old and frail!" were subjected to this misery. Of course the villagers had to know a great deal about what was going on. The prisoners worked the camp, but still there were jobs that local townsmen had to be brought in to do. But - "even the old and frail!...I never could believe that!" And so the townswoman asked her, "How old are you? You must be at least 70!" "But I am only 14." And with that reveal, the fuller understanding of what "ordinary" Germans had allowed, abetted, promulgated began to come clear. Which was of course exactly the purpose of this exercise, as it was also the reason the US government sent in George Stevens, John Ford, and Samuel Fuller to document the liberation of the camps. From the beginning, it was understood that there would be deniers over time, whether out of malice or ignorance or dumbfounded disbelief. ... Good is an adaptation of a play that tracks the consequences of an "ordinary" person's choices to allow, then abet, and finally, effectively promulgate evil in Nazi Germany. It's not much of an adaptation, and I expect it works better as a play - I suspect it would be devastating as a play, with the right actors. The morality speeches, the sense of a series of scenes to indicate passage of time, the use of magic realism in the form of a recurring musical motif - all work better in the concentrated glare of lights onto a proscenium. In a film shot on location, their power is diffused. Neither a true screen adaptation, nor a film of the play, neither medium's advantages are used to bring something to the written word on the page. But good actors we have, and the great moral question of the 20th century - how could a civilized society allow this to happen? In the novel The Good German, the central question hovers over the titular character, a Werner von Braun type scientist who was, at the very least, aware of misery created in the wake of his research for the Nazis - was he "swept along" by the tide?...a tide, we forget, that began with ripples...was he a "good man" who made too many compromises before he realized the consequences?...did he deserve to be essentially rescued from the trials of post-war Germany, to be brought to work for the US government?...or, was he not so complicit as to embody evil to some degree in himself...? The title of the novel is clearly meant to be taken as a question. Soderbergh in his film dramatization left out the question mark, and thereby everything that made the novel interesting. He strangely made him into all but a saint, the glory of the story in his 'escape' through the Americans is the film's climax. Well, I like every other film Soderbergh makes - a lot - and even his failures I am glad to see. He always tries something interesting - this one was shot as a kind of film noir suspense tale. Did he read the book? Who wrote this? That's all fodder for other discussion. But... ...The Good German makes for an interesting foil for Good. In the former, the question of who is "good" is answered in black and white terms - literally film-wise, come to think of it. Here is a good German scientist, we are told, who never really meant to harm anyone, and thank goodness we get him out of that awful place. The suspense is in his rescue. In the latter film, Good, our main player is a literary professor who once espoused euthanasia in a novel - you can see why the Nazis latch on to this, the idea is to use him as a spokesperson to bring credibility to what becomes the early ripples of removing "undesirables". Our "ordinary man in an extraordinary situation" here is played rather clueless by the excellent Viggo Mortensen, as a character constantly buffeted about by life's events, with family, at work, and now by society/government itself. He resembles in this regard another fictional scientist in, yes of all people, David Schwimmer's Dr Ross Geller - who, luckily for Geller and appropriately for a 90s sitcom, never has to face consequences of his inaction affecting much beyond his small personal circle. Viggo's Dr Halder does not get off so easily. Neither with the turn of events, nor with questions of his complicity. The play, or teleplay (I haven't read the stage original yet), lays out its argument very effectively. Step by step, Halder makes choices that he tells himself and others are not real choices, to go along, get along, and finally to protect himself and his family. But the playwright does not let him completely off the hook. Time and again he gets warnings of where his actions are leading - and - particularly in the character of his close friend, a Jewish psychiatrist, he is told more than once in no uncertain terms just how awful his betrayal of principles is turning out. Not much of a spoiler to say where this is obviously all leading, but unlike Spielberg's true-life Schindler, Halder does not make the full moral leap back to "goodness" until it is too late. Schindler's List climaxes with the awful realization of the explicitly morally ambiguous protagonist that "good" is really all that matters, that he "could have done so much more". If you believe in a moral arch to the universe, a Force, a God (Good) Principle - then this is how said universe teaches us, through pain, to reach for our better selves. We learn the easy way or the hard way. "Sorrow has its rewards. It never leaves us where it found us." Halder gets his lesson in one of the hardest ways. He gets off scot free while those around him pay the price. And he is not "un-good" enough to take any satisfaction out of it, let alone the pleasure of the truly evil. We - audience - get these plays and movies and various arts and crafts, and we get to choose whether to learn from them or make similar mistakes in the future. Or in the present.

No sense of time or culture

[pawebster · 2/10 · 24 January 2017]

The over-long haircuts of the men, the unkempt hairstyles of some of the women, the non-period clothes, the lack of formal manners... Not for a second could I believe this was Germany in the 1930s.

To make matters worse there is the casual manner of speech and the lack of any attempt to pronounce German names in anything like the correct pronunciation.

Example: a young female student with her hair hanging down to her shoulders any old how, with the demeanour of a student of the 21st century, comes to Viggo Mortensen's office door, looks inside and introduces herself in a very nonchalant manner, "I'm Anne..." Even in the Germany of today this would inappropriate, let alone in pre-war days.

What was the writer thinking? What was the director thinking?

Subtle, if stilted, thought-provoking morality play

[pyrocitor · 8/10 · 13 September 2008]

It would be difficult to imagine a more tentative project to undertake than a Holocaust film for numerous reasons. The historical resonance still proving an understandably sensitive or harrowing issue for many audience members requires a certain delicacy in storytelling, faithfully and accurately depicting the horrific events in a fashion just visceral enough to drive the point home without being so gruesome as to alienate audiences. At the same time, the events of the second world war have been approached cinematically so frequently that it becomes equally perilous to avoid restating facts or perspectives than have been presented countless times before, making the latest effort to do so irrelevant. It is in this regard that Good, director Vicente Amorim's adaptation of C.P. Taylor's theatrical production excels - while the film may not be the most harrowing or affecting portrayal of the tragedies of the time, the craftily different approach to which such matters are breached makes for a compelling, if occasionally flawed telling.

There can be little doubt that Amorim's film is hardly an easy watch from its dour subject matter to heavy emotional questions, ranging from euthanasia debates to the values of loyalty versus self preservation and the true scope of one's choices (drawing explicit parallels to contemporary issues as well as past ones), but avoids self-righteous preaching in favour of quietly needling questions. Indeed, Good proves an odd myriad of both decidedly mainstream and unconventional elements, making the story feel somewhat uneven from scene to scene. The sturdy script nonetheless proves rather conventionally crafted for the intriguing premise, with few meaty lines and many supporting characters reduced to stagey, contrived appearances which detract periodically. Yet simultaneously, several unexpected but greatly welcome quirky touches emerge from what may otherwise have descended into formula, such as the odd moment of out of place but oddly fitting humour, or the addition of protagonist Halder experiencing musical hallucinations heralding momentous decisions in his life which impact others. It is ultimately these unorthodox touches which distinguish Good from the countless other films tackling similar subject matter, going about its business in such a laudably nuanced fashion that comparisons become almost unnecessary.

Where other filmmakers may have sought out soaring emotional crescendos building into an explosion of mainstream melodrama, Amorim keeps the intensity festering on a dull burn, his quiet, subtle telling of the story making it all the more sickeningly credible and resonant than a contrived downpour of contrived emotion. However, this does not go to say that the film shirks emotional intensity in the least, but rather builds it so subtly that by the gruesome climax, with shockingly vivid depictions of an SS attack on a Jewish ghetto and a desolate concentration camp sequence the viewer is all the more devastated by the emotional vice which has without warning ensnared them, making Good's finale one which will stick with most viewers for quite some time afterwards.

That being said, the film is hardly without its concerns, as the nonlinear storyline can prove disconcertingly jumpy, undermining some of the emotional tension, and the decision for all German characters to speak with upper class British accents may infuriate some audience members tired of such cultural appropriation. Similarly, Simon Lacey's musical score proves overly melodramatic and distracting where a quieter, more subtle score more in keeping with the tone of the film would have done wonders. However, the unassumingly innovative cinematography (including a Wellesian five minute tracking shot at the finale) is superb, making perfect use of the visually alluring Budapest locations and ably capturing the excellent period costumes and sets.

Designed as a talk piece, the slight imbalance of the script leaves it primarily up to the actors to keep the film afloat, and they mercifully do not disappoint. Viggo Mortensen is superb as Halder, the passionate professor drawn into a world he does not fully understand and continually finding the repercussions of his decisions spreading wider than he could ever have guessed. Mortensen is far from a showy actor, making him the ideal choice for such a character, as, scattered on the outside but festering on the inside, Mortensen conveys the heart of the character far more with his silence than with his words, emanating emotion with every fibre of his being. Jason Isaacs gives a similarly powerful performance as Maurice, Halder's Jewish therapist and close friend and the film's most poignant emotional hook. As Maurice is gradually stripped of his privileges, rights, freedom and dignity step by step, equally outraged by his friend's involvement in the affiliation condemning him, Isaacs transforms from casually confident to beaten down but fiercely outraged, coming alight with fiery intensity. Jodie Whittaker, fresh off a mesmerizing debut in 2006's Venus once again generates charming charisma as Halder's impressionable student and later wife, though her chirpy enthusiasm does prove slightly out of keeping with the more dour tone of later scenes. Mark Strong proves impressively intimidating as a surly Nazi official, but Gemma Jones manages to both delight and infuriate simultaneously as Halder's ill and mentally unstable mother (adding poignancy to his euthanasia stance) who wavers between powerful and affecting and irritatingly over the top, making it difficult to sympathize with one who should have been the sympathetic centerpiece of the film.

While hardly without its structural frustrations, the subtlety and unconventional take on very serious historical issues make Good a deeply compelling, affecting and thought-provoking morality play, mercifully avoiding preaching or Hollywood emotional wrenching in favour of quiet resonance. For any viewers looking for challenging and draining subject matter tackled from a fresh approach, Good should prove the ideal antidote to any watered down mainstream efforts.

-8/10

Mortensen disappointing

[Biexar · 6/10 · 2 January 2011]

I was quite disappointed by the role played by Viggo Mortensen; he could not make me believe that he was resisting anyhow the fate which was getting hold on him. Of course I have no experience with such problems as being intellectually and morally paralyzed by the political repression of societies like the Third Reich, but at least I expected an actor as Mortensen -who played an thrilling role in A History of Violence- to be able to show something more of a battle a conscience has to fight with the reality of his time like Brandauer demonstrated in Mephisto. But of course it's possible that his role was to be plain obedient and thus weak like many Germans must have been, because discipline was not only moral obligation to the state but also a political one to the nation. Only, even than he didn't convince me.

Disappointing déjà-vu with wooden acting

[almontin · 2/10 · 8 May 2009]

A German professor (Mortensen) rises through the Nazi nomenclatura ranks before the onset of WW2, all the while seeing life becoming ever harder for his Jewish best friend and their relationship fraying as a result.

I was thoroughly disappointed with this movie, from the start it is difficult to understand what exactly is trying to be conveyed here. The creeping horror of the Jewish segregation mainly feels like a veneer but never feels heartfelt. The fact that Viggo M awkwardly acts the character of a coward throughout the film does not help. It is all too slow and too shallow, all the way to the end. Lead female's acting is wooden, the Jewish friend is barely fleshed out at all and his tempers feel phoney at best. Conversations are often trite and interaction between actors worse.

2 stars then, mainly for the beauty and realism of the renditions and the urban Berlin of the 30s, which prevent this from being un atter flop.