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.

Deniz72 I chose to eventually give this "movie" a 4/10 as, and although it did touch upon some very interesting themes and thought the acting was very good, I have to be honest and say that the film generally felt that it needed a little more money thrown into it! For instance, I am sure the Nazi uniform would have been changed twenty years after WW2, technology in "1964" Nazi Germany would surely have taken a more Modern turn as opposed to it being stuck in the 1942 era, and I am sure the former Nazi leaders would have been replaced or at least their NAZI Chants abolished. In my view, the film failed to ultimately grasp the everyday person/people feel of this new Germany, or adapt and show the viewer the social aspects of 1964 Post-War Germany. It's almost as if the film maker thought that Germany would not have dramatically changed twenty years after the war, where in fact I am certain that Germany would have done its utmost to not have any memories or indicators of its ultra-nationalistic past. Perhaps I am seeing this from another angle, but the Germans here are seen as a little backward. I am sure in reality it would have been the (complete) opposite in terms of a booming industry, technological advancement and even a new EU platform/cooperation. The film, therefore, appeared to miss a great deal of scope. It's central theme of pushing along this dark image and assuming that all its people were deeply brain-washed with utlra nationalism, failed to identify the true intelligence of what the Germans would have gained in this golden opportunity (after winning such a war!).In conclusion, by 1964, I am sure Germany would have moved things along much differently to what this film shows, more intelligently than what we may have thought! Perhaps, even, similarly to our current EU with Germany at the Top and the rest depending on its Economic and Political advancements! Looks like Germany was always destined to be the leader of the EU regardless of whether they had won or lost the war, changed or adapted a new name or even changed their geo-political and social wishes!

kellyhighfield-215-363324 I read the novel and loved it, couldn't put it down. I stumbled on the film by accident while flicking channels. I didn't know it had been made and as somebody says the Hollywood suits should be ashamed of themselves for turning down the opportunity to do it justice.Normally I hate films that introduce characters that are not in the original books but the Jean Marsh role as the embittered actress who failed to make it in Hollywood is superb. Jean Marsh is chilling and I've never seen her do better. She justifies her own existence. Just before seeing it I had seen a dramatisation of the Wannsee conference by BBC2 and the facts were fairly fresh for me. The names you hear were real people.The crowd scenes ARE too small but Rutger Hauer is believable as the decent German looking for the truth and though Miranda Richardson comes across as a bit neurotic (as usual) she is plausible.Lets start a campaign for a big budget version.

Mark Hale Robert Harris's other novels have made a good transition onto the screen. "Enigma" worked well because of its top-notch cast and careful recreation of WWII England. "Archangel" was an above-average TV movie because of its compelling subject matter. "Fatherland" fell flat because it was poorly cast and made on a microscopic budget. Despite their pedigree and talent, many of the cast are clearly uncomfortable in their roles. Rutger Hauer and Michael Kitchen should have swapped scripts and Miranda Richardson should have called for a taxi. She's a very good actor but completely fails to convince as an American journalist who dresses like a 60-year-old whore.The plot is edited down to its bare bones and loses a lot of its impact in the process of being filleted. The screenplay spends far too long looking behind the shiny Nazi facade, creating an expectation of bad things about to happen far too early in its running time. Bled of all its suspense, "Fatherland" limps toward a predictable climax, robbing the story of any historical relevance or impact.There are strong similarities between "Fatherland" and "Archangel", with their stories of past events influencing the present and old ghosts that refuse to lie still, but "Fatherland" has "EPIC" stamped all over it. A story about an enduring Nazi Europe in the 1960s can't be told against a backdrop of dodgy mattes with approximately 30 extras for the crowd scenes. If ever a movie deserved to be recast and remade for substantially more than 50 quid, "Fatherland" is that movie. The Hollywood Suits should hang their heads in shame for not recognising a fantastic story and giving it to someone like Steven Spielberg.