Watch Good For Free

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Overrated

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

"Good" starts quietly, but ends powerfully. It goes to the heart of our sense of right and wrong.The movie is set in Germany a few years before WW2. John Halder (Viggo Mortenson) is a WW1 veteran and university lecturer who lives in a small apartment with his wife, two children and a demanding, invalid mother.He has written a novel about euthanasia, which the new Nazi government finds is in accord with their ideas, and John is offered a post within the SS. Although he is anything but a Nazi, John nonetheless enjoys the advantages the position offers him although it compromises his relationship with his friend, Maurice Glückstein (Jason Isaacs), a Jew.John also leaves his wife and marries a sexy young student, Anne (Jodie Whittaker); he is a man who seems easily seduced in love and in life. Eventually, in the film's grim finale, John is forced to confront his lack of firmness and the realities of the Nazi regime.The story shows in microcosm how the Nazis seduced the Germans, and how they accepted the loss of personal freedoms and worse for what seemed to be for the good of the nation, a better life, and maybe, just not to rock the boat. However, there was a price to pay and once ensnared there was no turning back.The film probably has more relevance to people who know some history of the times, because it helps explain why John acts the way he does - although not stated overtly, his actions are driven by underlying fear. There are little touches that the filmmakers don't feel necessary to explain such as why the previous occupants of Anne and John's new apartment have left so suddenly - a knowledge of the times would suggest that they were Jews who had been evicted.Some scenes are painful to watch, especially as John fails to help Maurice as the Nazis ramp up their persecution of the Jews. Here, the film seems to challenge the viewer, "What would you do in his place"? Would you have the courage to swim against the tide of events? John is basically a decent man, however he is too pliable, too apathetic, and does not act until it is too late."Good" may seem slow to some, "Iron Man 2" it is not. But I feel that the time it takes to build its characters pays off in the end - we become involved. One of the most asked questions in history is how did the Nazis manage to sway ordinary Germans to their cause? This film gives part of the answer in an intimate and accessible way. As British philosopher Edmund Burke famously said, " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Three reasons why this film is a waste of time and money:First, it is about the most horrific 12 years in German history and none of the actors are German, but mainly English. They don't even make an effort to hide their English accents when they utter German words. However, that is not the main problem, the main problem is that they are so English. Their entire behaviour is SO English. Either you make a film about dictatorship that could happen anywhere, anytime or a film about Nazi Germany but then there HAS to be an accurate historical, cultural portrayal of the time and people!Second, there is nothing, absolutely nothing 'good' in Halder, he is not even 'nice'. Halder is a Nazi who pretends NOT to be one. He does zero to protect his best friend while it is still time - and we are talking about his best friend, a man he shares his most intimate problems with! It is difficult to understand why he attempts to finally help him once it is too late!Third, there is nothing moving, nothing touching about this film, even the last scene in the concentration camp feels like - and I am sorry to draw this comparison but this is what it felt like watching it - a trip to the house of horrors at a funfair!What could have been an interesting, excruciating film about a man who through the choices he makes, gives in to evil and realizes too late that he was lured into a trap and has not only betrayed his best friend but is committing atrocious crimes against humanity, has gone horribly, horribly, horribly wrong! Awful, awful, awful!

I'm really surprised this film had been so badly discredited.There are a few flaws, namely with character development, especially when analysing Anna, and Handler's (Mortensen) ex wife. Their characters appear integral to the story, yet influence over Handler and his actions are often overlooked. The story jumps through time periods, which artistically I can understand, however leaves the viewer to neglect the effect of time on Handler which is an integral element to the story - and the fundamental message this film is trying to portray.However, the message is strong and delivered well. It contends with traditional notions of the mindless brutality of Nazis and Germans, and probably more accurately reflects the role of an 'ordinary German' living in this society. Too often are films based on assumptions of stereotype and the black and white portrayal of good and evil. The only flaw in message is that Handler seem's to be the exception, the only 'good' in a sea of evil, but the film is thought provoking nonetheless. It echoes similar themes surrounding the role of the perpetrator and perpetrator guilt that have become iconically associated with the Reader. It places the image of a Nazi perpetrator in a context, which is vital in understanding the circumstances in which these actions were carried out. So many films in this genre are centred around the victim experiences and developments in Germany from 1933-39, and it is interesting to see the take from the perspective of a German. The image of a Nazi is deconstructed, it emphasises the Intentionalist theory in a top-down execution of the Final Solution. It shows an average German, caught up in a corrupt society - highlighting the weakness and vulnerability, as well as potential ignorance of the average German citizen - emphasised in the last scene.Mortensen is fantastic in this, his acting is convincing and emotive. Unfortunately I feel other cast members may discredit his role, and the whole tone of the movie. However, this film is one of the most sincere and interesting modern depictions of the Holocaust I've seen, and is refreshing change to sea of trauma currently loved by Hollywood.

This is a poor film adaptation of C.P. Taylor's stage play. I can see how this drama may have been much more effective on stage; unfortunately, under Vicente Amorim's amateurish direction this story loses all its impact as a motion picture.Although others on this board have complained about Mortensen's performance, as well as the use of British accents, I happen not to agree: Mortensen's against-type performance was excellent, and the use of British accents served to constantly remind us that the characters were foreign, and, at the same time, allowed us to understand them. (Mortensen and others speaking in their native American accents would have been much more incongruous and jarring).My main complaint about this movie is that it adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the Holocaust. It's an entirely superfluous film.