Good Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
John Halder is a 'good' and decent individual with family problems: a neurotic wife, two demanding children and a mother suffering from senile dementia. A literary professor, Halder explores his personal circumstances in a novel advocating compassionate euthanasia. When the book is unexpectedly enlisted by powerful political figures in support of government propaganda, Halder finds his career rising in an optimistic current of nationalism and prosperity. Seemingly inconsequential decisions lead to choices, which lead to more choices... with eventually devastating effect.
| Viggo Mortensen | John Halder |
| Jason Isaacs | Maurice |
| Jodie Whittaker | Anne |
| Steven Mackintosh | Freddie |
| Mark Strong | Bouhler |
| Gemma Jones | Mother |
| Anastasia Hille | Helen |
| Ruth Gemmell | Elizabeth |
| Ralph Riach | Brunau |
| Steven Elder | Eichmann |
| Kevin Doyle | Commandant |
| David de Keyser | Mandelstam |
| Guy Henry | Doctor |
| Adrian Schiller | Goebbels |
| Rick Warden | Brownshirt |
| Vicente Amorim |
6.80 out of 10 (559 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Disappointing déjà-vu with wooden acting
posted on 23 Jul 2009A 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.
Recommended
posted on 23 Jun 2009It has occurred to me in the past few years that many film-goers and critics have become weary of the ever-depicted Holocaust film. This topic-- though important never to forget-- has been abused again and again in the film industry, especially in the past ten to fifteen years. However, I found this film to be refreshing; a great change of pace from the typical Hollywood treatment.The film, which is based off a play by C.P. Taylor, stars Viggo Mortenson as Halder, a literature professor and obsessive novel-writer who gets caught up in the changes of Germany pre-WWII, eventually becoming an honorary member of the SS. Mortenson plays Halder very subtly, but in a way in which the viewers can go through the film's events and emotions with him. The support cast is also wonderful-- Jason Isaacs plays Halder's Jewish therapist and friend, Maurice, and Jodie Whittaker and Steven Mackintosh also add to the film very well. This is a thoughtful piece, one that does not over-expose the events of the Holocaust or the concentration camps or mid-war events, but focuses more on the people on the outside and from the start of the war. I may as well also mention that the crew did a great job of capturing late-1930s Berlin, as well, which was also another refreshing factor of the film.Now trust me, I've seen my fair share of WWII/holocaust films, and this one doesn't deserve the harsh treatment it seems to be getting. If more people had access to this one, I think the rating on here would be a bit higher. So now I close this by saying: if you haven't seen this film, seek it out and stop reading reviews on IMDb.
I fell for Maurice
posted on 16 May 2009I never give much attention to the titles of films. Usually titles represent an idea of a film, or a line, or a character. The context of "Good" implies that it was wanted to say "Virtuous people" by the title.Were SS good people? Decent? Average? Normal? OK? Bearable? "Good" presents a point of view of a person who thought himself to be virtuous, but then faced a society which was completely different, but thought so too.Viggo Mortensem gives us an interesting character with it's ups and downs, and these ups and downs are in the behavior of a character, not the acting.Furthermore, it was not the acting or an idea that dragged the film down and bored me or others at certain moments. It was the fact that WWII has been discussed for many times, so there are only minor differences between one film and the other.Those who haven't watched a lot of WWII films or who would like to see one more example of censure will like "Good".
Normal
posted on 06 May 2009Watching 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.
For me, thoroughly enjoyable
posted on 30 Apr 2009I watched this film expecting little. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find the film educational and interesting throughout. It paints a picture of the 'Jewish Question' and events leading up to it, focusing on a few characters to give it a personal feel.Granted, some of the acting was a little ropey, but I would urge people not to let that put them off. I have a particular interest in the second World War, and perhaps that makes me biased, but suspect that even those with no interest in that period of time would still be able to let the film absorb them into the plot.Recommended, 9/10.
Good: just another Third Reich movie
posted on 08 Apr 2009Germany'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/
Good men do nothing!
posted on 09 Mar 2009"Good" is a film made in 2008 by the Brazilian director Vicente Amorim, with Viggo Mortensen and Jason Isaacs in the main roles. The film tells us the story of John Halder (Mortensen), a literature professor, honest and devoted to his duties, who leads, however, in Nazi Germany, a lousy life, in the company of a sick mother, a neurotic wife, demanding children and the pressures on him by a obsessed father-in-law who wants to see her daughter's husband as a member of the Nazy Party.A romance with a young and beautiful pupil in the university, who seems to love him above all, apparently rescues him from this miserable life, but the worst is still to come: having written a novel centered on the polemic theme of euthanasia, professor Halder is demanded by the authorities of the Nazi Party to write reports on the subject, in order to support the barbarian eugenics experiments perpetrated by the Nazi ideologists against non-Arian people, mission that professor Halder accepts, more because of his fear to displease the man in power than by personal conviction.The situation evolves in such a proportion that Halder can't control it any longer, making him a famous and influent intellectual, not for the reasons he would believe to be appropriate, but, for his grief, because he is now recognized as an important academic support for the filthy medical manipulations the regime executes, with which he now collaborates.Halder suffers terribly with that, of course, but he also keeps totally incapable of doing anything about. And when he finally decides to make a courageous act about this situation, and tries to save his best friend from death, Maurice, a Jew, Halder discovers that even the woman he loves doesn't have the noble heart he expected from her, but is nothing more than a cold follower of the Nazi ideology that he, although passively accepting it, in fact, despises.At the end, the movie arrives to an emblematic scene, in which the story seems to show that John Halder, incapable of slipping away, simply gives in to the barbarism in which that place, in that time, is profoundly sunk: we, then, see a Halder overwhelmed by a psychotic outbreak, revealed by his total lethargy in front of the tragedy he personally and socially lives.My wife and I found this film certainly well made, but also profoundly sad; and, for that reason, not very easy to see, for one who was looking for an agreeable amusement in a cold Sunday afternoon, during which the best thing to do is to stay home, see a TV show under a blanket and drink wine. Since its beginning, this film totally discarded this possibility, imposing to us the need to think seriously about it.However, thinking about what? For me, "Good" describes terrible times we are living nowadays, when, surrounded by violence, ignorance, corruption, insensitivity and cupidity, we don't have even the chance of thinking, let alone practicing the opposite of those social flaws: gentleness, wisdom, honesty, sensitivity, and generosity. As a Nazi-dominated society prevented poor Halder of showing those qualities he had deeply inside, our own society currently pushes us to a rather cynical identity, against which any human being reasonably conscious of himself will have to fight continuously and restlessly to avoid his humanity falling into pieces. How difficult it is to be good, the director of this film seems to show us! By the way, it was a surprise for me to see a movie like this directed by a Brazilian director, whose personal identification with the Holocaust or the Nazi Germany I totally ignore, except by the fact that he was born in Austria (circumstance that may be easily explained by the fact that he is the son of a diplomat – his father is the present Foreign Minister of Brazil).I started asking myself, then, why would he have chosen, specially for the first movie he fully directs, so far, a theme from the current Brazilian real life: in the connection, would the interpretation I gave above to this movie be a proper one, in comparison with the director's intention? None of the other comments I read in IMDb's site speaks of this issue, but prefer to concentrate on the main actor, Viggo Mortensen, or on the recurrent treatment of Nazism as a theme, by cinema, in the most recent years.I thought my uneasiness with this could perhaps be solved by trying to know something about the original story. It was written by a British play writer, Cecil P. Taylor (1929-1981), on whom the journalist Alan Plater, from "The Guardian", wrote in 2004 an intelligent article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2004/nov/06/theatre.stage). Plater comments Taylor's production of more than 70 plays and, in this article, we become aware that "Good" was one of the best plays Taylor ever made, and was produced in 1981, the year of the play writer's decease, by the Royal Shakespeare Company. Plater says also that this play resumes a very known Bertolt Brecht's dictum, according to which, "for evil to prosper, good men must do nothing". This important reflection (which I was able to read only after having emitted my opinion on the film, some paragraphs above), by itself gives me the impression that what I thought about the message passed along by Amorim's film is anything but illogical or absurd.
"Good" is only "Fair"
posted on 07 Mar 2009Viggo 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.
Subtle, if stilted, thought-provoking morality play
posted on 14 Jan 2009It 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
I'm finally ready to talk about "Good"
posted on 12 Jan 2009First I feel it is necessary to tell you that I saw this movie from the second row of an auditorium-like theater...20 minutes after a double scotch...and meeting Viggo Mortensen (an absolutely divine,although, disconcerting experience that never gets old).Another reason, I think, it's taken me so long to comment on this movie is because it touched me so deeply...in a place that made me uncomfortable in a way that was completely foreign to me. So foreign that it took me a long bit to even realize it was "uncomfortableness" that was causing my writer's block.Viggo explains well, in this video from Rio (sorry, I can't remember off-hand if it is in part one or part two) , how this progressively distressing feeling occurs to the viewer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_9WqELNa8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yav0qzJlilI&feature=related In the roll of Hadler, Viggo Mortensen begins, and remains, the most beautiful of angels, almost emitting a golden aura.However, one becomes increasingly distressed (as our "angel" becomes distressed) as the movie progresses. And, just when we are waiting for that jump off the cliff into grandma's soft feather bed - it ends.As you leave the theater, you think you've escaped the hideousness relatively unscathed, but it's like a gasoline or kerosene burn...it bubbles it's way from your insides out.
Not so Good
posted on 06 Jan 2009Greetings 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.
Not the Best for Viggo
posted on 27 Dec 2008I have to say after watching this attempt at another Holocaust movie that it just left me a little flat.I admire Viggo Mortensen, he has done some really solid acting on previous projects but like so many of the comments he was struggling to make this "pigs ear" into a "silk purse".I think movie makers have really just beaten this subject matter to death. Sure its important to remember it, but when you try to make it "artsee" it just looses its impact on the viewer.There were some good scenes, but it just left me feeling flat and unfulfilled. I think this is one of the movies that should be seen, but not in a theater, direct to DVD would be OK.
This movie doesn't show just the Third Reich "moral machine" - it shows the human nature
posted on 30 Oct 2008Well, i've read a lot of things about this movie - and some of them just don't seem right. First of all, it's obviously a Third Reich movie, but it has an unique feature - by showing the acts of a man during the national-socialism period, it reveals the true (almost all the time) human nature. Second, Viggo Mortensen was pretty good (sorry my pun) as the teacher that's slowly engulfed by the Nazist government. He was able to translate into the screen a peculiar sensation, a mixture of apathy and will (quite contradictory by the way). The rest of the cast was also amazing (Jason Isaacs, Mark Strong and Jodie Whittaker) - all of them bring veracity to the movie. The end is like a "light in the dark that came too late" - quite a "bizarre but true" end. And that's life... and so are we.
Not Too Good
posted on 04 Aug 2009The main problem with Good is the lack of authenticity. The actors are seen to act rather than be. When compared with the excellent Sophie Scholl, which on a modest budget created something believable and shocking, Good feels staged and forced. Also the pacing is off with large leaps in time yet with little character development. The choice of using English as the main language could have worked, as was proved with The Reader but some performances in Good are far too modern, as is the case with the student that later becomes the wife. The Mother is also far too theatrical and unconvincing.What is left is a soulless movies that tells us nothing new about the times in which it is set. There are much better and more dramatic films out there that have the power to enlighten, unfortunately Good is not one of them.