Fictional account of what might have happened if Hitler had won the war. It is now the 1960s and Germany's war crimes have so far been kept a secret. Hitler wants to talk peace with the US president. An American journalist and a German homicide cop stumble into a plot to destroy all evidence of the genocide.

Fictional historical account of what might have happened if Adolf Hitler had won the Second World War. Germany has corralled all European countries into a single state called Germania, and continues fighting against the Soviet Union. It is now 1964 and Germany's war crimes against the Jews have so far been kept a secret. Germany believes that an alliance with the United States would finally beat the Soviet war machine. As his 75th birthday approaches, Hitler wants to talk peace with President Joseph Kennedy. An SS homicide detective and an American journalist stumble into a plot to destroy all evidence of the genocide; evidence that could destroy the peace process with America and evidence that Nazi and SS leaders will stop at nothing to keep hidden. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Fatherland torrent reviews

Dwayne R (gb) wrote: The direction had a Hitchcock feel, which I enjoyed.

Michael M (fr) wrote: I can't agree with the reviewers. It may be me, may be I have a juvenile sense of humour.I loved this film and made it a part of my permanent collection. It's hilarious.

Velvey W (fr) wrote: I really liked Jen first movie being part latin I loved the music and the story and the musical guest

Chris B (br) wrote: All I have to say is Daniel Day Lewis! This man once again just absolutely transforms into his character. He is not acting Lewis turns into Daniel Plainview. Paul Thomas Anderson does a great job at directing this slow burn epic. Paul Dano would be the second stand out of this film. Great performances from everybody in this beautiful film.

Henrik S (fr) wrote: Rather superifical and elitest account I dare say. Of course, school and education works different for kids when there is a 8 to 1 teacher ration, a beautiful countryside outside, all time in the world etc. BUt life is not so simple as this movie is suggesting and I reckon all the desperate, depressed, overclouded, ultraurbanized and stressed out citizens and their children did not choose to become what they are, because it is not about choice but fate. Anyway, the movie instulted me and as I said, offers nothing but an elitest and very singular vision. H.

Kyle S (nl) wrote: It does have some fallbacks in that it turns more into the atypical genre film it's trying to rip on. As a trilogy ender, it's a lot stronger than most entries in other series.

Chris W (es) wrote: This breezy mockumentary is Woody Allen's loving tribute to period (1930s) Jazz music.The fictitious Emmet Ray is considered to be the world's best jazz guitarist, if not guitarist in general, second only to his idol Django Reinhardt. The film follows Ray's career throughout the 30s (with occasional talking head contributions) as he goes from gig to gig lighting the places up. Offstage however, his life is a mess. Before he becomes famous, he makes his living as a small time pimp, and his favorite hobbies are shooting rats and watching trains. He's not savvy with his money, and he's rather temperamental, but, when you can get him settled down, he's quite something. He's not big on love, feeling that it will ruin his career, but he finds himself drawn to a mute laundress named Hattie, especially when he finds that she loves his music. However, his penchant for infidelity sees him running off and eventually impulsively marrying a high society woman named Blanche. For reasons that I don't want to get into, and seem nutty anyway, things fall apart with Blanche, but there is a bit of redemption and hope here for Ray.One of the amazing things here is that Ray is basically a shiftless, unlikable asshole, but yet you can't help but kinda feel for him and want to see him get through life okay. The film cooks along quite nicely, but then kinda falls apart at the end with a bit of rushed anti-climax. That aside, this film is pretty solid. I liked the mockumentary approach with the talking heads, and this also seems like something Allen had wanted to do for a while in general, being a big jazz enthusiast. The period details are terrific, the music is top notch, and the performances are golden.Sean Penn is terrific as Ray, and he may have done his own playing. Knowing him, he probably did. Uma Thurman is fun as Blanche, but the real treat is Samantha Morton as Hattie. Her performance is amazing. Yeah, it kinda feels like Oscar Bait, but don't tell me that having to play a mute is easy. She excels at having to express herself using just facial expressions and body language, and I loved seeing her channel the silent film era of performance. In various smaller roles we also get some fun turns from Anthony LaPaglia, John Waters, and Brad Garrett. I really enjoyed this. Had it not petered out towards the end, I'd enjoy it even more. It's a strong film, and achieves a decent balance between comedy and drama. If you love jazz, you should definitely give this a look. Same for those of you who dig on Allen. And anyone who wants a good film about music and musicians might be pleased here as well.

David S (gb) wrote: The scenes with Paul Tefler running around all sexy with his muscled hairy chest, ripped abs and nicely chiseled arms and legs is enough for some people to put up with the fact that this film basically sucks.

Joshua S (au) wrote: Great big gobs of greasy, grimy gopher guts. An absolutely timeless slapstick gut-buster that leaves you feeling happier for having watched it.

Craig E (br) wrote: This very creepy film dealing with reincarnation has many excellent things going for it not the least of which is proving that there is not a genre that Robert Wise could not direct for. Anthony Hopkins also shows why there is no better actor for sending shivers down your spine with such a peaceful looking face.How you approach this film with regards to your own spiritual beliefs is the big test of whether you will like the film or not. I found that the ending was a little heavy-handed but I think people with stronger beliefs in the afterlife or life after death might have a greater connection with it. That doesn't diminish the effectiveness of the film as a whole though as the gothic-horror nature of the film really grabs you and takes hold.I felt throughout this film that it is almost a companion piece to the Exorcist. Like that film, it deals with a girl slowly losing control over herself and being taken over by something other than her own consciousness. But, whereas the Exorcist dealt with possession by an outside entity, Audrey Rose deals with notion of control by a spirit that was always a part of this girl. The horror in both films works on the same level, though Audrey Rose is nowhere near as shocking, focusing more on an undercurrent of fear rather than in-your-face horror.If you are looking for a creepy 70's era horror/suspense film, Audrey Rose is certainly worth checking out. It is not a scare-a-minute shock fest, but the uneasiness that is laid as a foundation really keeps this film moving strongly from the beginning right through to the end.

Andreas O (ag) wrote: Although House of Frankenstein provided neat closure for all three of the big monsters, Universal decided to release a second monster mash. House of Dracula is obviously rushed, rehashing a lot of the story from earlier Universal films. This time the Frankenstein Monster is the all-but-negligable character, thrown in just to fill the quota. It's a cheesy, confusing and all-around unnecessary sequel, but I can't lie - I still enjoy it a lot.

Abigail S (it) wrote: Pans wildly. Sparkles a lot. Mumbles. Glows.

Thomas B (mx) wrote: Grade - B-'Take Shelter' is a terifically ambitious second feature from the wonderfully talented Jeff Nichols and it has some wonderful elements to it; namely the performances and the thought-provoking ending. However, the movie is a very slow burn and the film does unfortunately drag sometimes.

Sam E (ca) wrote: amazing, found it really really scary as a kid, I honestly couldn't recommend it to anyone younger than seven, but yet would they enjoy it? difficult to figure the target audience.

Nicolas B (nl) wrote: Dumb but sometimes fun.