Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "Speer und er" is a German mini-series from 2005, so this one is already over a decade old. It was written and directed by Heinrich Breloer and as he was not exactly too prolific in the last years, it is still one of his most recent career effort. He will return with a new mini series focusing on Bertolt Brecht soon. But back to this one here, it consists of three episodes of roughly 90 minutes each, so the entire thing runs for 4.5 hours. The title characters are played by Sebastian Koch and Tobias Moretti. But Koch's Speer is certainly much more in the center of it all, especially in chapters 2 and 3. This is actually from one year before Koch starred in the Oscar-winning "Das Leben der Anderen". The structure here is pretty clean. The first 90 minutes are about Speer's rise next to Hitler, the second 90 minutes are about the trial against him and the final installment is about his life as a prisoner. I believe quality-wise all chapters are pretty much on the same high level. Subjective taste and personal preference will decide which of the three is your favorite. I think my favorite is the first because Moretti's Hitler was great too and I just like Nazi films in general. But the third chapter was also really good when his involvement is discussed in detail or the second with all the other Nazis in Nuremberg and the genuinely very tense moment when the sentence is announced and this one is probably even more effective if you don't know about him not being given the death penalty. Another crucial component in these 4.5 hours is the documentary aspect. There are many many video recordings, photos and interviews included in here, with Speer's children especially and these may be the most interesting non-acted parts. Also during these interviews the subject of guilt is not just present, but dominant from start to finish. I think this three-part film made a good statement when it comes to Speer enjoying his rise to power, but also not losing his artistic approach out of sight. Is he evil? No. Is he innocent? No. The exact position between these two extremes is up for interpretation in Speer's case. Once again, your subjective opinion is crucial. This film provides all the information you need to make a judgment. It was certainly a good watch and I recommend checking it out. Thums up.

TheEmulator23 Of all of the Nazi's, Albert Speer is the most interesting and complicated of those surviving and tried at Nuremberg. I've read all of the books including my favorites "The Good Nazi" by Dan Van Der Vat which was the 1st and most accurate portrayal & w/out any of Albert Speers twisting of truths, & the best of the books by Gitta Sereny called "Albert Speer: His battle w/truth." Sebastian Koch gives a great performance & my only real complaint is I didn't care too much for the man playing Hitler, although he did a pretty good job but his eyes were WAY too blue & he was too skinny. He did have a lot of his mannerisms down pretty well but as much as they focused on Speer they could have focused on him even more. Overall I thought they did a pretty fantastic job I just wish they spent a little more time w/the other convicted Nazi War Criminals as he did spend 20 years there. This is a pretty comprehensive mini-series & It really doesn't need to be done again I just wish they could have done a few things differently. If you are interested in Speer another few books are also good to read. Of course you have to read Speers own 3 books as long as you don't take them for fact because of course he wants to make himself look good. They are "Inside the Third Reich, The Spandau Diaries, & Infiltration." Spandau is excellent w/some of the daily routines & some of the rivalries between these men especially Erich Raedar head of the Navy till 1943 & Karl Doenitz head of the U-boat's who then took over that job & disagreed w/each other hugely about the importance of the U-boats, but by '43 it was too late. Everyone disliked Rudolph Hess (Hitlers Deputy) and they all still pretty much thought he was a traitor for his strange flight to England in 1941. If he were to be Psychologically evaluated today, I'm sure he would treated for something, or maybe he knew the futility of the war by 1941. Anyway the film is very good & I particularly liked the interviews that are blended well intermittently that his now older kids & their honest answers. Especially liked seeing that Albert Speer Jr. ended up being an architect despite that's what his father did. The big question is would Speer have been charged w/so much at Nuremberg if he had never become the Minister of Armaments. It was even worse because he was so proficient at it he extended a lost war a minimum of 6 months up to a year. If you are a WWII scholar, or just want to know more about the mystery that was Albert Speer, this is a must watch.

JonathanWalford This docudrama rehashes already well-known facts but uses these facts as devices to delve further into Speer's character. The conclusions are not always satisfying but by the end of the film the viewers will know more acutely what kind of man Speer was.You are never drawn to Speer empathetically, or reviled by his actions. The film reflects Speer's memoirs by sidestepping some issues -- was he or wasn't he an anti-Semite? Was he acutely aware of what happened in concentration camps? What did he know and what did prefer not to know? What is clear is that Speer was self-serving, ambitious, organized, tough, responsible, independent, intelligent, an opportunist, and detached. He refused a high rank in the SS because he didn't want to accept responsibility where he had no authority. He liked Hitler as a friend and had long talks with him about the new Germania and architecture but he was portrayed on film as remaining silent in any ideologies he didn't necessarily agree with.Not as sycophantic as other head Nazis he also had more class than the top thugs and was concerned more about the German people and their post war survival. He was not deluded like Hess or Goering and accepted his role more willingly than Donetz or Ribbontrop.The most interesting part of this docudrama is the final episode, which follows him throughout his twenty-year imprisonment. After having taken what he felt was his share of the blame at Nuremberg he had time to think how he was manipulated and charmed into his powerful position as minister of armaments where he was so good at his job he actually increased production and delayed the end of the war by perhaps as much as a year. He was a man with his own agenda, few friends in the Nazi upper rank other than Hitler, and had a convenient conscience that allowed himself to at best not see what existed, and at worst not concern himself with what he had no power to change.Speer's Achilles heel was flattery and attention. He was just barely 40 years old when the war ended and was simply not mature enough to be his own man. His self-serving career was nearly apolitical and his hunger to get to the top was blind-sided. Asked in later life if he would do it all over again or settle for a nice architectural position in Heidelberg he apparently said he would do it all over again. If he would do it all over again exactly the same way is left to the viewer to decide.I may point out negatives in this film that give the impression I didn't like it but these are not faults of the film, but rather flaws of the man himself. Speer was a complex conundrum and this film tackles the material very well to give insight into the man himself.

manuel-pestalozzi This TV series tries too cook up something new with material that is already known ad nauseam. It is a mixture between documentary and reality TV. The subject: Albert Speer, early Nazi member, architect, "the closest friend of Hitler if Hitler could have had any friend", German minister for armament up to the very annihilation of that country, defendant in Nuremberg, prisoner in Spandau for 20 years, writer of memoirs and as openly repentant ex Nazi frequent guest in the international media after his release.The main point the series sets out to make is to prove that Speer was far more involved in war crimes than he ever admitted. He was directly responsible for the eviction of Berlin Jews from their flats as a way he proposed to resettle tenants from other Berlin flats that would have to be torn down for his and Hitlers absolutely megalomanic plans for a new town center. He more or less controlled the construction of extermination camps and willingly used slave labour in subterranean armament plants without caring about the indescribable conditions those slaves had to live in. The conclusion: He knew everything and went along with it.In my opinion too much time is used to highlight the crimes. And the idea to use three of his children as (amazingly willing) character witnesses in interviews was somewhat revolting: What could they say about a man they hardly ever met? It would have been more interesting to explore the personality of Speer and his relations with the people who really were around him. Descendant of a long line of architects and certainly of a sharp and schooled intellect, he represents the civilized part of the Nazi dictatorship. And yet he went along with its barbaric acts from beginning to end without any moral doubts (they came later, so he claimed). He was a tough guy, an opportunist. You find them in every kind of regime and they are equally important everywhere to make them work. So I would have been glad if the movie could have gone closer to explore the type of man Speer represents rather than enumerate again what the man did in the specific historical context.Speer could have served wonderfully for this exploration of type. His biography sets one thinking. The man was ambitious, a youth yearning for glory, he was certainly flattered by the attention Hitler (a wannabe architect) gave to him, he was power hungry and worked hard to attain his goal. He was able to analyze situations and to react and adapt to them, even under extreme pressure. Here's your ideal man for getting a job done! But somehow the man was amoral. He was able to walk over dead bodies – but isn't that what many want from their men, even in a democracy? Here would have been a golden opportunity to explore where society and individuals should draw a line. In this TV series they let it pass.