Why don't many people like this film?

I quite liked the flick. It was very entertaning, had very good production values (something I'm always worried about when I watch made-for TV stuff), and Robert Carlyle was great in the role. This aint a documentary so I can't really bitch if it was historically incorrect.

Because this is clumsy propaganda, trying to pass as historical truth. Its so badly made, that I think that only children - or americans - can be fooled by this.

Every film is "just a film", but this wretched work actually tries to make us believe that things happened like they tell us. Its not just an alternate version of history, its self-righteous crap with an obvious agenda.

You may like it a lot, as a movie, and that may be fine for you. But do keep in mind that reality was much different, and this is just a fantasy. If you acknowledge that, and still like this movie, its your choice.

go watch Der Untergang.

You've already answered the question yourself. The reason why I don't like this movie is because it's historically inaccurate and portrays Hitler as a two-dimensional psycho. I've heard that this film is used as an educational film which is in my opinion travesty of history.

And no, I haven't met Hitler nor admire him but I've read a great deal of him. If one wants to know how Hitler was in real life, watch Der Untergang.

Fair enough, it is a film/tv movie/whatever. But people see this type of film (and by this type, I mean one that presents itself as history, not a dramatisation or flat-out entertainment fodder) as accurate. The movie gives the impression that it is an acted-out version of the events leading to Hitler's assumption of power..and some of the things are just plain wrong.. Those who know history can regard this movie for what it is, but they also know that not everyone knows history and are angered by the impression this film is going to give them...

If you're looking for a real account of Hitler, I suggest you look for a book entitled "Hitler at my Side" by Hans Baur (Hitler's personal pilot in the campaign years and throughout the war). He tells a side of the story you never see in the history books and a balanced manner. It is balanced because he tells it as it was. His account of the night of the long knives is particularly interesting..especially the revelation that so much was pure chance! But I won't ruin any of the goodies for you..it's just a great book written by a man who was there for it all...he saw it all first-hand...from Hitler presenting aircraft mechanics with gifts..to angered outburts...from a personal birthday gift of a Mercedes on Baur's 40th birthday...to when things finally unravel in the east..it's an incredible story...I cannot recommend it enough.

The first part of understanding the history of the Nazi era is to know that most of what you know was written by embittered victors looking to discredit them by emphasising this and ignoring that (and then subsequently, those that came after, having learned from them and formed their perceptions and performed research which conforms to those perceptions. Now that doesn't make it all wrong, but it should certainly have you on the defensive and ready to ask many questions. Reading books from both points of view allows you as a student or a historian or simply a person to paint a fuller picture for yourself and compare contradicting stories so that you can decide for yourself what makes more sense. I cannot trumpet that point enough because in my experience, history is like a trial with no defense..it's important that YOU go and search out what the other guy has to say because he was never allowed into the courtroom. It is generally difficult to study the Nazi era because so many historians have refused to leave their baggage at the door, which results in depictions of Hitler like in this tv movie. The trouble with a lot of historians is that they think that if they present Hitler as a generally decent person to be around..or any really positive aspect of him or the Nazis, then they somehow must approve of them or what they did. (Hell, there are even historians who disagree strongly with the mdoern perception of what they did.) For example, most people are unaware of the anti-smoking movement of Nazi Germany that has yet to be rivaled by the modern incarnation of the German government. Historians will downplay the fact that the first Autobahn systems constructed by the Nazis were not constructed to get you from point A to point B in the most efficent way possible, but the most scenic way so that Germans could feel connected to the landscape.

I apologize for using the board as an outlet - but the point has to be made that this movie from a historical perspective is, like so many others, BS. As far as entertainment purposes go, I thought Robert Carlyle was great and as always, I enjoyed Liev Schreiber - the story was well paced and at least they left some of Hitler's ideals intact in the first beer hall speeches.

I do think you should watch "Der Untergang" it's more accurate, and based on the book written by Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary.

I think people don't like this film because the main actor gives such a weak and unconvincing performance.

If they had called it 'Brian: The Rise of Evil' and made the story about the country of Gurkmenistan in which a crazy man called Littler rises to the head of the Nasty Party and tries to conquer the world, it might have been reasonably good entertainment. They didn't.

They set out to make a docu-drama, portraying real events, people and their actions - and all of these were hideously wrong. Some people are going to watch this film and believe that they're receiving a realistic portrayal of Hitler.

Worse - they may think 'Wow, what a horrible, raving lunatic. Such a person would never rise to power today'. And they'd be right. And they'd be making a terrible mistake.

Hitler got to his position by being charming, witty, wise, gentle, intelligent and a brilliant speaker. Chances are you would have liked him. He did fantastic work for a broken and beaten Germany, bankrupt after WW1 and with 20% unemployment. In a few short years he turned the country around and made it a superpower that conquered most of Europe and nearly succeeded and conquering the world.

That is why he was truly evil: people loved him. They willingly fought and died for him.

If you want to identify the next Hitler, you can ignore the foaming, raving crazies - no-one will follow such people. Look out for the brilliant politician who everyone adores, who does wonders for your country, and who tells you that you are the best in the world.