The Rose Garden (1989) User Reviews

Great performances, unrealistic court scenes

[noutchka · 7/10 · 21 September 2020]

Wonderful performances by pretty much every actor in the film, particularly Maximilian Schell, Liv Ullman and the actress who plays her young daughter. The story is chilling and thinking that it actually happened is devastating.

However, the plot is sometimes hard to follow and the pacing is uneven. More problematic is the fact that the court scenes and procedure of the case are very unrealistic. Maybe it is because I am a lawyer, but for that reason, the movie was a hit and miss for me.

good acting

[burcinyazici · 7/10 · 22 August 2006]

I've seen this movie yesterday. I'm not personally interested in world war II films about concentration camps.

But in this movie the characters acted very dramatic and I feel something different.

Mr. Reichenbacher has a mystery from beginning to the end. During the film you are trying to solve his feelings. The court scenes are very realistic like in a real world.

In these kind of films, the torture scenes are used for making the film more dramatically more than enough. in The Rose Garden yo can see only one scene about the camps and torture scenes...

The movie is not very assertive but finally a good work. I recommend it to drama-lovers.

Worth watcing for acting, though uneven at times.

[leesandy3633rb · 8/10 · 11 January 2024]

I think its a film that's worth watching even for its flaws, especially for acting.

In this film Actor Maxmillan Schell gave an really solid profomance, he successfully portrait an character that with relative few words, full of emotion inside, with his eyes and movements.

Sometime the camera works and lighting add to it too, like at when meeting with lawyer only upper part of his face was lit, the scene when the little girl asked about the camps the uneasness on Schell's face and camera angle are great too!

Amazing how he have this range and versatility as an actor, totally different from his lot of energetic and flamboyant characters, even feel a lot different from his already quieter character from the reluctant saint!

Story-wise I think a bit uneven too, especially it seems to want to hint lots of things happening but at the same time little of them resolved.

Though I think what the film emotionaly left audience feel a bit sad and unsettled (especially with a recordings of reason why perpetrators still can't be convicted in the end) is a nice effort! I think it is a called back to what the film want to bring to its audience, that is to look back and think about what actually happened.

So even for the flaws I think it's still worth watching, to see the beautiful actings and be reminded to know and think more!

Brooding, suspenseful, sometimes hard to understand

[fumbling towards ecstasy · 27 March 2000]

On the whole, I enjoyed this movie. Set in Germany, Liv Ullman is the defense lawyer for Maximillian Schell. Schell is accused of attacking an elderly man without provocation, although we later find out that the man is in fact a Nazi war criminal. The only hope for Schell may be Ullman's tireless search for justice.

Sometimes the movie is edited in such a way that necessary sequences seemed to have been edited out, for instance the first court scene seemed to jump from one point to the next, seeming to miss something in between the two. You'd see Liv Ullman saying something, and then the scene cuts to something which doesn't relate to what she had just been saying, creating confusion.

At times, the movie is highly frustrating - the court scene again, where the plaintiff's lawyer is basically badgering and shouting at defendant Maximillian Schell, and it kept making me want to tell the lawyer to shut up and leave poor Maximillian Schell alone. I know that this kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in American court, but the movie is set in Germany (I think, because to be truthful, no locations are ever mentioned except for the times that Ullman sets off for Hamburg).

There are problems with this movie, but they're not overwhelming. Overall I would recommend it, and Liv Ullman gives an outstanding performance.

The truth in German courts on result of war criminal cases

[jnieurzyla · 10/10 · 27 September 2003]

This is based on a true story, it is a pity that it is still not available today on DVD, I would love to see this film again.

But I do remember watching it with a damp handkerchief, and thinking their is not much justice in this world, but hopefully the guilty will get their just deserts in the afterlife, at least thats whats keeps me sane when watching this film.

It looks a little dated now, but the acting is very good as you would expect from these outstanding actors, what can I say, 10 out of 10.

To Bear the Unbearable

[PretoriaDZ · 10/10 · 29 July 2013]

The whole story is about how today's legal system handles crimes committed (at the time this film was released) almost 50 years ago. A case becomes even more difficult to handle when there was an effort at the time of the crimes to hide the deeds.

The film begs the question, how can such a criminal escape justice for so long for a horrendous crime? The movie does not answer that question directly but it was glaringly obvious to me.

The answer is "MONEY". If you have enough money or connections to people with money, it has always been, throughout history, possible to get away with murder. That is the main tension in this film. Will the villain in the piece finally be convicted or will he once again walk free?

I give this movie a 10 not because it was enjoyable to watch but because the movie is relevant to how our justice system works today, twenty years after this film. Even if a murderer is poor him/herself, if there is some way for someone to make money (such as inciting racial tensions and being a "spokesman" by writing books and giving paid interviews), a murderer may walk free. It doesn't matter to the "spokesman" whether the individual is guilty or not. What matters is "MONEY".

A tragic story converted to a soap opera

[newjersian · 3/10 · 3 April 2023]

When the film makers take a real story and overload it with details that don't make any good to the main topic it's a sign of failure.

Even the brilliant actor Maximilian Schell could not play that drivel. I met hundreds of Holocaust survivors. I had them among my family and friends. My in-law survived Auschwitz after he saw how his mother and little sisters were taken to the gas chambers. However, none of those people who went through unthinkable suffering behaved in such a crazy manner that Maximilian Schell shows to us.

The court proceedings in this movie are highly impossible. And the side story about two successful lawyers who are unable to find a babysitter for their daughter is just laughable.

It's a pity that an excellent team of movie makers lost a great opportunity and produced a cheap soap opera that is instantly forgettable.

DVD / Video

[jez-bel · 10/10 · 13 February 2007]

Anyone know if i can get this film on DVD or VHS as its my Boyfriends favourite film and i so want to be able to get it for him!

It's his 40th and I wanna get him something he will remember and cherish! Call me an old romantic!!

He found the film intriguing yet compulsive to watch and he prefers the 1989 version! The story line is compelling and deals with the issue of war crimes in a sensitive manner and makes u appreciate the suffering in an understanding way!

The twists and turns in the trial keeps u gripped - its a shame it is so hard to find a copy!

Cheers xx

The Rose Garden

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 6 August 2022]

Based on Günther Schwarberg's Der SS-Arzt und die Kinder vom Bullenhuser Damm, this is the last film from director Fons Rademakers (The Assault, Because of the Cats, Lifespan) and tells the story of holocaust survivor Aaron Reichenbach (Maximilian Schell), who finally comes back to Germany and attacks an ex-Nazi officer Arnold Krenn (Kurt Hübner) in a Frankfurt airport.

His public defender Gabriele Schlüter-Freund (Liv Ullmann) soon learns that Aaron is but one of many Jewish men and women who were experimented on by Krenn. It turns out that he's lost track of his family and this case will not only give him some closure, but also bring to light exactly what happened on the operating tables of the camps.

Written by Paul Hengge (Seven Blood-Stained Orchids) and Artur Brauner (Death Occurred Last Night, The Vengeance of Doctor Mabuse), this also has Peter Fonda showing up as Gabriele's ex-husband. As this was late in the life of Cannon, it was produced by Brauner, who was a prominent member of the Jewish community of Berlin and a recipient of the Bundesverdienstkreuz, the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Acting personified...without words.

[leeulmer-14737 · 9/10 · 28 November 2023]

Schell deserves credit for his ability to express horror through his eyes. This movie is an antiphony of emotion between the horror seen in the eyes of Reichenbach (Schell) and the ever increasing awareness of that horror of Freund (Ullman). Schell draws the audience in and we want to know what he is seeing... what is so horrific that turns him into a zombie. Yes, the story line might seem somewhat contrived in the beginning of the movie, but Schell's acting makes up for the contrived opening scene. The ending is where the movie shines, not mushy with sentimentalist, but reality. The reality speaks for itself.

Does it matter whether the story is even true?

[devere-10279 · 10/10 · 22 December 2020]

"The Rose Garden" is based on a crime allegedly committed near the end of World War II. If you look up "Bullenhuser Damm" you'll likely find several places on the internet where the story is told with varying details and characters. This story is also mentioned by the American prosecutor played by Richard Widmark in the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg".

The basic story is that in the last days of the war a group of Jewish children who had allegedly been used in medical experiments were murdered along with a number of adult prisoners in the basement of a school in Hamburg. These secret killings were carried out we are told because the Nazis wanted to hide the evidence of experimentation on prisoners and therefore could not allow these prisoners to be discovered by the Allies.

So according to the story the children and the adults to be disposed of were brought by truck from a camp about ten miles away to the Bullenhuser Damm school to be killed.

I've known about this story for about 20 years and in that time come across several versions on the internet. I haven't yet found a version that tells what happened after the killings - that is, what was done with the bodies.

Before posting this I checked the "Children of Bullenhuser Damm association" website and while it tells us what happened after the war regarding prosecution of the accused perpetrators nothing is mentioned or explained about the disposal of the bodies of the victims. I've also tried to find a transcript of the court proceedings of the original trial in 1946. One might exist as it is mentioned on the association's website that in 1986 "extracts from the transcript of proceedings of the "Curio-Haus trials" were read out...". But that's all we're told and without the transcript of the trial this story simply is not believable.

According to the story the victims were killed (and presumably disposed of), the perpetrators left the scene of the crime and the war ended. So there were no witnesses left behind and no evidence that a crime had even occurred.

The first question should be: How was this crime discovered?

One of the versions of this story tells us the killing of the children happened this way: "The children were told that they had to be vaccinated against typhoid fever before their return journey. Then they were injected with morphine. They were hanged from hooks on the wall, but the SS men found it difficult to kill the mutilated children. The first child to be strung up was so light - due to disease and malnutrition - that the rope wouldn't strangle him. SS untersturmführer Frahm had to use all of his own weight to tighten the noose. Then he hanged the others, two at a time, from different hooks. 'Just like pictures on the wall', he would recall later. He added that none of the children had cried. At five o' clock in the morning on April 21st, 1945, the Nazis had finished with their work and drank hard-earned coffee ..."

This sounds monstrous, doesn't it. It would also be at least somewhat more believable if a full and credible transcript of the trial could be found which explained the problematic details of the story . And the very first question were satisfactorily answered.

The second question would be: Why did the Germans bother to go to all this trouble?

Rather than transporting all these victims miles away from what we are told was a "death" camp, why didn't they just gas or shoot them right there in the camp and dispose of them - the evidence, that is- in the camp's crematory ovens?

The camp at which the prisoners had been held - Neuengamme - has been described this way: "Thousands of inmates were hanged, shot, gassed, killed by lethal injection or transferred to (other) death camps". In view of this description why did the Germans need to transport these victims to a special location instead of just dumping them onto the alleged conveyor belt of death that we are told Germany had been remorselessly operating for 12 years?

If these questions - after 75 years - still have not been answered then why was this movie made? And why is this story still being told to school children in Germany today? Doesn't it matter whether the story is even true?

I would add that anyone with questions about this story or others like it see the documentary One Third of the Holocaust (2008)