TurboarrowIII This is quite entertaining. It shows the lives of two brothers in Nazi Germany up to the defeat at the end of WW2. It does jump around a bit and seems a bit rushed in places but this is understandable considering the events that had to be fitted into the fairly short running time.Bill Nighy and John Shea play the brothers and both are quite convincing although neither seems to age much throughout. David Warner is excellent as the scheming, ruthless and utterly evil Heydrich. Nighy finally begins to realise just how evil the Nazis are. He even risks taking some books to his old teacher who is Jewish and is living in a rundown flat after his home is confiscated by the Nazis and he is no longer allowed to teach. Nighy's character had believed that having people like him inside the regime might tone down some of the atrocities but of course he was wrong. At the end he tries to get away but is shot dead when he is recognised in civilian clothes by a soldier who tears his shirt to reveal an SS tattoo. I don't think they had an SS tattoo but the blood group instead so not entirely accurate.A particularly moving scene is when Nighy tries to get their kid brother to desert from the Hitler Youth but the boy is so indoctrinated with Nazi ideologies that he refuses. He ends up getting killed by the Russians while fighting in Berlin and it is quite sad when Shea goes to collect his body near the end. This shows just how sick the Nazis were and that their complete disregard for life meant that they virtually brainwashed young boys into dying for a criminal and evil regime.Overall I thought this was a good film which has its faults but does a fairly good job of conveying the sense of fear and oppression that living under a brutal and evil regime must have felt like.

Robert J. Maxwell Judging from the theme, the sensational title ("Hitler's SS: Portrait in Evil"), and the time of its appearance (seven years after the award-winning "Holocaust"), I didn't expect much. And it IS a made-for-television movie after all. Instead, I found it was surprisingly well written, directed, and in some cases nicely acted.The story of a German family before and during World War II takes us from the rise of Hitler in the early 30s to the end of the war. Some of the material is familiar. We see the persecution of Jewish friends, the heaps of naked, pale corpses, the gloom of Stalingrad, the growing disillusion with Hitler, and some interpolated combat footage. But there are extraordinary glimpses of incidents we seldom see on screen. The assassination of Heydrich, for instance, and the rich detail surrounding Hitler's justification for an invasion of Poland.I said it was "informative" and that's the sort of thing that makes it so: Hitler's elimination of Roehm's rival Brown Shirts, the set up for Poland, the suppression of unions, the incredibly young age of some of the Volkssturm. And, oh, how we need that information.In more than one anonymous on-line chat, I read a post claiming that the current administration in Washington was the same as Hitler's because they were both "socialists." I made a polite query in each case, along the lines of, "Are you insane?" The replies were filled with an incandescent anger, accusing me of being stupid, because I didn't know that Hitler led "the National SOCIALIST party," capitals included. Most Americans have a general idea of what Hitler thought and did, but some of us are appallingly ignorant of what used to be a shared data base.Even if this two-and-a-half hour film weren't as nicely executed as it is, it would still be worth watching for some of us. And, probably for MOST of us, we'd still learn something we didn't know. Most documentaries, for example, show Hitler invading Poland in the course of a few seconds of rolling tanks and of troops pushing aside a road barrier. That's fine, as far as it goes.But Hitler went to astonishing lengths to justify that invasion. It had to be convincing, and it was. The official story was that Poland had been persecuting its German-speaking population and had raided a German radio station near the border, leaving some German corpses behind. The fresh cadavers were supplied by the Germans simply killing some prisoners in one of their camps and strewing the bodies about, near the radio station. No one ever starts a war. It must always be the other guy's fault if you want the war to have popular support. That's taken for granted. It's why the US Secretary of War became the Secretary of Defense in 1949.I don't want to get too far off track, so let me mention that, in addition to the professional direction of Lukas Heller, there is a fine performance by David Warner as Heydrich. Tony Randall, barely recognizable under his Joel Grey make up, is a convincing and pitiful figure as the harmless homosexual nightclub comedian beaten to death by the SS. John Normington as Himmler doesn't have much screen time but makes the most of it in a subdued and nuanced performance. The most difficult role is that of Helmut Hoffman, the "mean" son, as opposed to Michael Shea's "idealistic" son. Hoffman does "neurosis" really well, and he looks the part, resembling both in appearance and demeanor Peter O'Toole's Lawrence of Arabia.It ought to be shown in every high school or college class in political science or history.

Chuck Straub This film follows two German brothers through the history of Nazi Germany from 1931 to 1945. The film seemed pretty much to be historically accurate although there are a few points, which are arguable. What is different about this war movie is that you watch the rise to power of the Third Reich, the war, and the interaction of ordinary people from the perspective of two German brothers who take different paths in life. It's a very interesting and thought provoking movie that keeps your attention throughout. My only problem with this movie is that it touches on so many issues I wish the movie could have been longer so they could have gone into them more in depth. This movie is more about the lives and relationships of people and does not show as many fighting and battle scenes as most war movies would. If you like a lot of military action, this may not be for you although the movie does have some of this. Hitler's S.S.: Portrait in Evil is an excellent movie, under rated and for those interested in the history of World War II, is a must see movie.

grahamsj3 I believe this was a made for TV film. It's is the story of two German brothers, one of whom joins the SS in 1933 and the other joins the SA. The two organizations vie to become the predominant force in Nazi Germany. Eventually, the SS won out and many of the people who joined the SA were executed or imprisoned by the SS. It now seems that only the SS brother can save the SA brother. The film follows both of them through World War 2, a period spanning 12 or 13 years, although neither brother (or the love interest) ever ages a day. It depicts the evil of the SS relatively well without the use of many execution/extermination scenes. Little mention is made of the mass slaughter of Jews, although it is more or less implied. The acting in the film is better than I expected, especially since there are few recognizable names in the cast. However, the acting is merely adequate. However, it was very cheaply made and it shows. There are some plot holes that detract from the overall enjoyment of the film.