That was an excellent one.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Other reviewers have questioned the historical accuracy of Margarethe von Trotta's portrayal of Hannah Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) and her opinion of the Jewish leaders as expressed in her NEW YORKER articles on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961.As a piece of film-making, however, HANNAH ARENDT grabs the attention and does not let go throughout its 113-minute running- time. As portrayed by Sukowa, Arendt comes across as a forthright person, not frightened of expressing her opinions and responding to any intellectual challenges from close friends such as Kurt Blumenfeld (Michael Degen). Yet beneath that tough surface lurks a profoundly disillusioned person, as she discovers to her cost that her great teacher and mentor Martin Heidegger (Klaus Pohl) does not practice what he preaches. Although insistent on reinforcing the distinction between "reason" and "passion," Heidegger takes the "passionate" decision to associate himself with the Nazi party, and thereby embraces their totalitarian values. Like Eichmnann himself, he chooses not to "think" but to commit himself to an ideology that actively discourages individual thought. The sense of shock and disillusion Arendt experiences inevitably colors her view of the Eichmann trial. Director von Trotta includes several close-ups of her sitting in the press-room listening to the testimony of Eichmann, his accusers and the witnesses, a quizzical expression on her face, as if she cannot quite make sense of what she hears. She cannot condemn Eichmann, because he has simply followed Heidegger's course of action.Once the articles have been published, Arendt experiences an almost unprecedented campaign of vilification. Although she is given a climactic scene where she defends herself in front of her students (and her accusers within the university faculty), we get the sense that she is only doing so on the basis of abstractions; her personal feelings are somehow disengaged. She is far more affected when her one-time close friend Hans Jonas (Ulrich Noethen) vows never to talk to her again on account of her views. Philosophers might be able to make sense of the world, but they often neglect human relations.Consequently our view of Arendt, as portrayed in this film, is profoundly ambivalent. While empathizing with her views about the banality of evil, which reduces people to automata as they claim they were only carrying out orders, even while being involved in atrocities, Arendt herself comes across as rather myopic, so preoccupied with her ideas that she has little or no clue about how they might affect those closest to her. It's a wonder, therefore, that Mary McCarthy (Janet McTeer) chooses to stick with her through the worst of circumstances.Ingeniously combining archive footage of the Eichmann trial with color re-enactments of what happened during that period, HANNAH ARENDT is a thought-provoking piece, even if we find it difficult to identify with the central character.

Every once in a while you'll see a really good performance that's prevented from being great by the film around it. That's the case with Barbara Sukowa as the title character in "Hannah Arendt," a dramatization of a controversial episode in the writer and philosopher's life when she was ostracized for writing a piece in "The New Yorker" about the trials of Eichmann that Jews felt sympathized too much with the Nazi cause.The tone of the film is overly righteous and leaves its audience no room to come to a conclusion on its own. In the world of the film, Hannah is a hero of free speech and free thinking, while those who are offended by her are portrayed as narrow-minded, rat-faced villains. The entire film has a feeling of artifice that it can't overcome -- the actors move around the set like actors in a play, reciting obviously scripted lines in strange, haughty tones, their noses literally in the air. Even Janet McTeer, an actress who I love, seems ill at ease with the material she's given.Only the performance of Sukowa makes this film worth watching, even if the primary feeling watching her is how much better her performance could have been if the movie itself was better. One moment and one moment only, a rousing monologue she delivers during the film's finale, in which she defends her point of view to a room full of students and faculty members, provides a glimpse of the powerful movie "Hannah Arendt" could have been.Grade: B-

I've tried reading Arendt's essay "Eichmann in Jerusalem" several times but I've always gave up for many different reasons (her extremely long paragraphs are awfully distractive, it's very easy to lose focus with her conflicted issues and almost no agreement). And with this film, I may try to read it again. Not because it was a spectacular movie, but mainly because it offered a more detailed perspective on someone who wrote one of the most important and historical literary works, and someone who at the end of the journey lost many friends to defend her ideals and concepts, formed with was presented to her during the judgment of a Nazi executor. The movie "Hannah Arendt" brings up the controversial highlight of her career with the publishing of a report of the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Haifa, in 1961 - the report came two years later. Here, it's explored her observations about one of the most criminal minds of WWII, a bureaucrat who sent millions of Jews to death camps, and an examination of the heated reactions coming from the public who strongly disagreed with Arendt's report on several levels. She concluded that he wasn't the monster he was painted to be, and wasn't even anti-semitic; instead the man was a civil officer who couldn't disobey orders because doing that would be perceived as negative, thus creating what she defined as the banality of evil, meaning that evil takes place when ordinary people are put into situations that encourage their conformity. Another shocking revelation (and bear in mind that she was Jewish herself) was the alarming fact that some Jewish community leaders were very cooperative with the Nazis, or considered helpful to the final solution.Margaret von Trotha's film captures the battle, a glimpse of the essence of such report and how the conception of the banality of evil was conceived. Arendt exposes the real Eichmann as a simple career employee, working for the state and just following orders; disobey them would cause severe punishment. So, it was easier of him to sign papers and send thousands to die in concentration camps than to say 'no' to deplorable and inhumane orders. With those views, she got plenty of negative feedback coming from allies, enemies, and people who felt betrayed by her report. The controversies goes to this date. Those questionings, dualities and doubtful issues are thought-provoking and what makes the movie really interesting, a fine observation of events highlighted with a phenomenal performance by Barbara Sukowa, who also gave a outstanding performance in another biopic directed by the same director, "Rosa Luxemburgo" (1986), and the always dedicate Janet McTeer in a good supporting role. That's the kind of story that should have been made years ago. It's not that it lost some importance but it has became too distant. However, it's far from going without criticism. It's deeply flawed and no, it has nothing to do with its historical accuracies - though it may have it's fair share of dramatic licenses. I felt the film very reserved, lacking of a more cinematic expression, at times some of the acting was very amateurish; the inclusion of flashbacks of love interlude with one of Hannah's teachers weren't defining to the plot; and it was hugely annoying having two languages spoken from time to time - this mixture of studio/producers hurt the project, I think. An American production would be fantastic (if only they were interested in it...). History as a fictionalized version always attracts viewers and the movie as a simplified story didn't disappoint. I liked it, just wish it could have been more. 7/10

This is a marvelous movie! Really made me consider the brilliant original thinking of this woman, and I was surprised by the hysterical opposition to what she in her own honesty reported.Very well acted and directed, a tension ran through the entire movie, making one feel that one was on the edges of an important discovery about the fundamental nature of humanity. And the movie did not disappoint.One week after seeing the film, the thought lingers: We live in a world of lies and deception, because by and large we are afraid of the truth. The unexamined life may not be worth living, but most of us prefer to live our lives in the dark shadows of our ideologies rather than step into the searing light: that good and evil resides in each of us, and that each of us is capable of the most unspeakable evils under the right conditions. All it takes is for us to stop thinking and just blindly "do our duty" and follow orders, as Adolph Eichmann did.Brilliant movie!