User reviews

I read Robert Harris's novel, about the 1938 Munich Agreement, and I loved it. Harris is a very good writer and I love historical fiction. Of course, I was well aware that Harris was trying to alter and improve Chamberlain's image and place in history, with which I vehemently disagreed. Chamberlain's egotism and stubbornness blinded him to the fact that you cannot appease or negotiate with a madman, as Churchill intuitively and correctly realized.

I read the book a second time and thought it would make an excellent film. Of course, I thought, the film makers should not make Chamberlin the hero of the piece in any way, shape or form. I even cast Jeremy Irons, as Chamberlain, in my head.

Irons is, of course, excellent, as are the two young leads played by George MacKay and Jannis Niewöhner. Niewöhner is especially one to watch. The film has enhanced the roll of Helen Winter (Sandra Hüller) I suppose for woke purposes of having a women in a central supporting role. I thought Hitler was miscast. Again, when I cast the film in my minds eye, after reading the book, I thought Steve Buscemi would make a great Hitler.

I said to myself, when I read the book, that the scene they must cut, if the make a film, is the midnight drive to see the old girlfriend. My instincts were 100% correct as it kills all the tension that has been building. They could have trimmed the running time and improved the film.

The film, as does the book, completely downplays the very inconvenient declaration, by Chamberlain at the airport, of "peace in our time." The film also posits, as does the book, that Chamberlain bought time to properly prepare for war when it did come and this contributed to the German defeat. This is an absolute lie. When Churchill took over, as PM, the army was woefully underprepared and under equipped. In fact, had the Allied Forces acted forcefully in 1938, Hitler might have been stopped by an internal coup from the German Army.

"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." -Winston Churchill.

I am all for revising understanding of history for the better as we learn more. But this film, like the novel it is based on, is not that at all, but rather an apologia and whitewash of Chamberlin's very real, naïve and ghastly mistake at Munich.

Robert's Harris' novel, Munich, on which this film is based isn't simply somewhat wrong, it is totally wrong. In fact Chamberlin was not thoughtful, and was NOT a skilled diplomat. He was a vain, pompous and petty dupe. The idea that he somehow outsmarted Hitler is ludicrous, Hitler got everything he wanted.

We even see in the crawl text at the of the film the claim that "The extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Great Britain and her allies to prepare for the war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat." Errr.. no. That is completely wrong. All the data on industrial capacity trends, submarine production, armored vehicle and aircraft production tends, as well as oil and other fuel reserves, shows that the UK and France were in a stronger position in 1938 than in 1939. The Munich agreement also had a massively deleterious effect on both strategic and popular views in the US and the USSR. It convinced Stalin to ally with Hitler. Which was the only way Hitler could invade Poland. The delay of the inevitable war resulted in the annihilation of Poland, the actualization of Japan's closer and more effective alliance with the Nazi's, and by all analysis made the holocaust 3x more effective by allowing the Germans to ally with the Soviets giving the Nazi more control of more of E. Europe where they mass murdered the Jewish populations. American isolationists got a massive boost from the blunder at Munich as well.

We know from Hitler's "second book" (go to youtube and search "Gerhard Weinberg Hitler's second book. For an excellent panel talk on it) we know that Hitler for considered the United States as the ultimate enemy of Nazis. He thought Great Britain would fold (and it initially did due to Chamberlin), that France would be easy to defeat if the war with them started in 1939 instead of 1938 (and it was), that he could fool the Soviets (and he he did for several key years). He thought the non-racial based nationalism of the US, which is to say the US's people's love of democracy, was the ultimate threat to the Nazis.

So in "Edge of War" we are left with a film that has some nice period elements, certainly fine acting, but is also severe disinformation on what went on at Munich. We know for a fact that Goering wrote the agreement, that no British changes were accepted, and that Chamberlin signed off without an argument which stunned even the Nazis.

The final lines of the movie, saying that the time won by Chamberlain enabled the allies to prepare for the war and defeat Germany, spoiled a bit an impression of the film. The fascism was stopped at the cost of millions and millions of Russians killed (incommensurable losses: they were practically cannon fodder) in the first place. Nowadays it's convenient to forget it.

Overall, the movie is produced very well. The leading actors were great.

I realise that historical events can only be reflected to a limited extent in feature films, especially when real people are brought to life by actors 80 years later. The question then is, do I play this person as he was or do I create my own character? In the case of "Munich", however, I didn't care, because I was enthusiastic about the ensemble performance as a whole, more than about the script, but that's why I give it this rather high rating. Jannis Niewöhner and George MacKay as friends on different sides grabbed me right at the beginning because they are very different actors and I have to admit that I have been a fan of Niewöhner for a long time. Ulrich Matthes Hitler scared even me. I know Matthes from the stage and like him a lot, his portrayal here gives you an idea why so many Germans were fascinated by him. Jeremy Irons may have played Chamberlain too positively, but that doesn't detract from his performance. And yes - while watching I was also preoccupied with the current Ukraine war and the parallels to Hitler's war preparations, which are very clear. Let's hope that it will turn out better this time...

Well hopefully not - I did not think of the Russia/Ukraine conflict when I watched this (a few days ago), but thinking about it now ... and it is quite eerie to be honest. Let's hope there is not really a connection there or a repeat to be more to the point.

Having said that and while I reckon we can argue about how one feels about Putin (and a comparison to Hitler that I sort of did above), the second world war and certain things that led up to it ... seem almost inevitable. Or are they? If you know history, you know what transpired overall and where or rather how the movie ends. So there should not be a big surprise there. Still the movie is tension filled and even when you know that certain things could not have happened ... you kind of still expect (hope?) for something different to happen ... don't hold your breath though.

The acting is more than solid and you see historical figures doing their thing ... trying their best to be either as diplomatic as they can or hammering a point across (warning or whatever one wants to call it). There are other comparisons one can draw here - but I'll leave them up to you. I'll just tell you that this movie is very well made ... although I guess you kind of expected that anyway.

George MacKay earns praise as does Jannis Niewohner. Jeremy Irons is flawless in a supporting role as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin (deserving of BAFTA and Oscar nods).

Highly recommended under-the-radar historical fiction film that should gain momentum in viewing after awards nominations announced. It would be disappointing to see this film and its actors snubbed.

👍👍

Munich: The Edge of War is an entertaining movie to watch. Just don't get mislead by the title though. It's not really a war movie, more of a drama. You won't see any shooting or killing, just political conversations about going to war or not. Sounds boring but it isn't. It's an interesting story based on a novel, certainly not accurate to what really happened, something we will never really know. The cast was excellent, good acting from all of them. Nice cinematography as well, it's all quality. Just don't expect action because there isn't any.

Seems there are many "studio inspired" positive reviews here. This is certainly no 10! First, the film should have carried a "historical fiction" disclaimer as most of the events depicted never happened. Second, the Munich agreement didn't "buy time," in fact after Poland was invaded and Britain declared war on Germany, there was no war. The peaceful interlude, called the "phony war," bought time to prepare for war, not Munich. I suppose this propaganda was made to rehabilitate Chamberlain's image. Meh.

For a truly historical account of these events watch Darkest Hour (2017).

The subject is a fascinating one and part of me was intrigued in seeing what 'Munich: The Edge of War' would do with the much maligned Neville Chamberlain, here given a more sympathetic treatment than what is often said and written about him. Robert Harris' book is a hugely compelling read, George McKay impressed me hugely in '1917' (one of 2019's best films) and Jeremy Irons is one of my all time favourite actors and has been ever since his iconic voice work in 'The Lion King'.

Watching 'Munich: The Edge of War' earlier last year (am behind with reviewing so it's taken a while to get round to talking about films seen last year), it turned out to be very interesting and well done. It did have potential to be better than it was, as not all the storytelling is there and there is a major casting blunder. But it does well with maintaining the book's intrigue and tension and there is one performance in particular that one could spend all night raving about. 'Munich: The Edge of War' was good if not great, but is one of those films that should be taken on its own terms for anybody expecting historical truth will be disappointed.

'Munich: The Edge of War' has many good things. The best aspect being the phenomenal performance of Irons in one of his best ever performances as Chamberlain (who he bears an uncanny resemblance to here), he brings wit, nuance and gravitas to an interestingly sympathetically written interpretation of a maligned figure in history. In the film though, it and the book do make a good case for him not being as bad as reputed in my view (something that won't be shared by others). One of my favourite performances of the year actually and that it didn't get any awards attention is a crime. McKay carries the film very commandingly, loved his increasingly tense chemistry with Jannis Niewohner.

Also thought that the costumes and sets/scenery were handsome and atmospheric, with a good sense of period. The music is haunting and doesn't over emphasise the mood. The film is very intelligently scripted (apart from some anachronistic language), especially Chamberlain's dialogue and had no problem with the German or the subtitles. Everything with the agreement has intrigue and tension and all of Chamberlain's scenes are a delight, both when more eventful and in smaller moments.

It's not a perfect film though. The camera work is rather dizzying and had a very feeling sick on a ship feel to it in some of the second half. All the female roles are severely underwritten, as is the too brief and not that necessary family/romance subplot that could have been excised.

Do have to agree with everybody panning Ulrich Matthes, whose casting as Hitler is one big catastrophic miscast. Too old, too thin/gaunt and nowhere near sinister enough, perfect for Goebbels but completely wrong for Hitler.

Overall, interesting and well done, with Irons being reason alone to see it, but it could have been more. 7/10.

This was not a bad drama, but it seems to be a rehab of Chamberlain's reputation. Glossed over was the fact that the Sudetenland was given away...literally given over to Hitler to prevent war. (And, it didn't work)

Watched this movie and truly enjoyed the brilliant acting and thrills. It did an amazing job in maintaining intensity even though the historical outcome was already known. Also, amazing soundtracks that goes with the scenes.

This movie did not disappoint.

The story kept me at the edge of my seat, the unraveling of the events was gripping and full of suspense. I saw it a week ago but it's still on my mind.

Jeremy Irons, was great and he shined a bright light on the prime minister that was later overshadowed by his successor (fairly, but still it was the first time I got to appreciate Chamberlain's passion).

I had never seen a movie with any of the two main actors starring before, but from now on i will definitely keep my eye on any other work they may do.

The subtle tension between the two lead men that shifts to different notions as the story evolves is very intriguing and i love the fact that words are mostly left unsaid about that relationship between them, but the emotions flow effortlessly from their eyes.

This is a movie i would gladly rewatch.

Neville Chamberlain is one of history's losers. Had Hitler kept his word - given in the 1938 Munich Agreement - the UK's then-Prime Minister would have delivered peace to his country. But Hitler's duplicity resulted in Chamberlain being seen - even to this day - as a naïve fool. This film adaptation of Robert Harris' novel may cause some re-evaluation of that opinion, as it gives Chamberlain a voice with which to express the reasons for his great desire for peace, as well as to admit war is inevitable - appeasing Hitler will at least give the country a chance to build up its forces in preparation for the delayed conflict.

The 2021 London Film Festival described the film as a 'thriller', but I think 'political drama' would have been more accurate. There are thriller elements - principally the efforts of young German diplomat Paul (Jannis Niewöhner) to smuggle a document to his fellow former Oxford University student Hugh (George MacKay), now Private Secretary to Chamberlain - but the majority of the film is political to-ing and fro-ing, as well as a couple of flashbacks to Paul and Hugh's not-so-distant youth with fellow student Lenya (Liv Lisa Fries - looking so similar to Jessica Brown Findlay in the role of Hugh's discontented wife that for a while I confused the two).

It is a sumptuous production: as well as the plot, the viewer can enjoy the late-1930s' clothes and set dressing! (At least, such things can be admired if you can ignore the annoying hand-held camera - entirely unnecessary for a production such as this.) As for the acting, it is uniformly good: many of the actors - British as well as German - are required to deliver lines in languages not their mother tongue and do so convincingly. The actor playing Hitler (I regret I do not know his name) especially deserves credit for adding a little more depth to a role so easy to play as a cartoon villain; and I am sure, come awards season, that Jeremy Irons, as Chamberlain, will be nominated for many statuettes.

Movie has many ups Acting, Location, Direction, Writing all up to the mark and George and Jannis's acting stole the show. Although i didn't like casting of Fuhrer it felt like they wanted to make a mockery of Hitler and i would say they succeeded in it. Apart from that movie is very good.

The directors conclusion: The extra time bought by the Munich agreement enabled Britain and her allies to prepare for war and ultimately led to Germany's defeat."

Haven't you read any historical books at all? I mean the one you just put on screen would have sufficed...

Munich is the setting for this thriller from novelist Robert Harris who has written a series of excellent wartime thrillers. However they haven't really transferred too well onto the screen. From all his novels, the best adaption of his work was actually his non wartime novel the Ghost Writer with Ewan McGregor whilst the recent series The Fear Index was dreadfully put together!

As for this one? Well... It's fine overall.

We have a story that seems to me follows the same backbone of a couple of his previous novels. Regardless this stands well enough on its own two feet, as we watch two old university friends now on the political front line trying to stop the second world war ensuing. One is part of PM Chamberlain's British delegation at an international conference whilst the other is roped in under the German equivalent under the Third Reich. The date is around the time of the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic & Slovakia.

Acting is great and setting wonderful, and thankfully they don't just ask the German actors to do all their lines in English with corny accents but just speak in their native tongue. Jeremy Irons is excellent as Chamberlain and gives this whole film some gravitas as the doomed Prime Minister. Some could argue the film whitewashed the real person's legacy but that's a debate for another forum.

The problem is that there is actually little tension as it's 'faction' so we know how it will all pan out. The storyline is well paced but predictable and has little room for manoeuvre. It's still intriguing but it hits a line it just can't cross.

An enjoyable series but ultimately limited. Worth a single viewing.