AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

dierregi I do not usually compare books to movies because they are two different means of expression. Books give lots more details and let the readers work with their imagination. Movies give us the director's vision, which is usually different from ours, but may add interest to a known story.In the case of Fatherland, however, having read the novel years ago and stumbled upon the movie only a few nights ago, I was disappointed. The novel is based on historical facts (up to 1942) and accurately researched, but still manages to get us involved with two interesting and believable main characters, Xavier March and Charlie Maguire.They live in a scary, dystopian past-future of the year 1964, with the Nazi as winners of WWII, a Cold War between Germany and the US and guerrilla between the Russians and the Germans. March is a police office and honorary SS, investigating a suspicious suicide, Maguire is an American who wants to report on the meeting of the 75 yo Hitler with US president Joseph Kennedy.The film has a great performance by Hauer as the weary March and a totally miscast British Richardson as the American journalist Maguire. Her character is described as a young, rebellious child of the 60s. Richardson looks like a bored middle-aged matron.Another major change in the plot is March's son. In the book he is described as a malevolent, brainwashed creature, while in the film… you can see for yourself. The idea of the Nazi regime as pure evil is a lot stronger in the book and the punch of the final revelation watered down in the movie, by the fact that the audience already knows what really happened. Also the ending feels really rushed and a bit silly.It is interesting but depressing to see what could have happened if the Nazi had won. Perhaps the main purpose of this movie is to make us happy that it did not happened. But if you want to dig deep, the book is very well written and gives the full picture.

Mark Nick Jordan Rutger Hauers Police station is built of glass and concrete, an architectural style Hitler hated. "Das Beatles' poster on the wall obviously to try to allude to a certain decade, the 1960's but again, this sort of music would have been deemed degenerate...and the four Liverpool mop tops would have probably been enlisted by then. Overall, what could have been a decent film that matched the books content etc ended up looking like it had been made by three different directors. Finally, the Grand idea of a new Berlin and Germania just does not come across in the lazy production values. So, what could have come across as a really interesting and scary alternative future for Europe and the USA falls flat on its face I fear.

froberts73 The chilling premise of a victorious Nazi party is well played out thanks to a good cast, a fast-moving and intelligent story, fine photography and, for a change, music that doesn't overpower the script.Much praise to Rutger Hauer and just about the entire cast, including the youngster portraying his son, and the actor whose brief appearances as a 75-year-old Hitler seemed on the mark.The story might have been more interesting if it had taken place in, say, NYC rather than Berlin, itself (Prague actually). A couple of interesting items are the idea that Joseph Kennedy Sr. was the prez who was ready to cooperate with his conqueror, and the opening sequence of newsreels which included mention of Lindbergh's approval and support of Adolph. If I remember correctly, he ran his mouth at a bund meeting or two.There were 'heil Hitler' greetings galore and, at times it seems that everyone was 'heiling' the b.d. (bastard dictator).The movie starts excitingly and seldom lets up. It is a worthwhile piece of anti-history reminding us that the Fatherland was filled with mother --- you can fill in the rest.

GusF Rutger Hauer and Miranda Richardson were very good in the lead roles but at the same time I don't think that they had great chemistry which is a letdown. Richardson's accent seemed to fluctuate a bit before settling down about half way through the film. Michael Kitchen was wasted in a small-ish role but he was as good as ever. Jean Marsh's performance, little more than a cameo, was chilling.One major flaw with the movie is that it didn't utilise the very talented actors that it assembled to maximum effect, two other notable examples being Peter Vaughan and John Shrapnel. Plus I had a hard time accepting Hauer as the good guy at first since I'd never seen him play one before. Anyway, it isn't a patch on the book but, all in all, I really enjoyed it.