The attempt to reimagine the fate of "Anne Frank" in a movie quickly degenerates to a demo reel of actress Mala Emde, full of artificial emotion and watchable only for the sake of the historic character.
What is the point of this movie presented in the fashion of a cheap History-Channel production? The actors give solid bad performances, expectable, but not at all comparable to the praise the movie got before its release all over the media. Character development does not take place in any scene - without knowing the historical characters it is impossible for the audience to care what's happening. It is not enough just to mention the horrible things that happen to Anne in real life, a movie has to build up an emotional relation between characters and the viewer. The narrative structure is non-linear, nice idea, but also nothing innovative. The camera nicely follows the characters around, relying on a semi-total perspective the whole time - one begs for falling asleep. An example: Every time the movie wants to show Anne is thinking about a boy she is falling in love with the director uses a cheesy-romanticized recourse to the visual aesthetics of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. And the most important rule of an awful movie is of course to use sad music when it wants to make the viewer emotionally invested. That's possible but used way to often here.
You always feel like you've already seen this movie. All sinks into monotony, the name and the fate of Anne are merely a vehicle for self-expression of the production team, from the director, the main cast up to the sound editor. Before the premiere of the movie the media praised the movie because it would show the father of Anne as a greater plot point than he ever was in any other movie. After watching it that really makes me ask the question, if anyone of the critics ever saw another screen adaptation. Even the rather conventional version "The Diary of Anne Frank" from 1959 and its remake from 1980, show the character of the father in detail. And lead actress Emde as Anne Frank is not even comparable to the performances of Millie Perkins or Melissa Gilbert, no matter how touched and moved she shows herself during numerous marketing interviews. No, being 18 is not a qualification for an actress, a try is not enough, not on this important topic, poor dramatic performance and type casting are all that stays in this case. And the sleazy plot, who ultimately betrayed the hiding place is as uninteresting as the fact what Hitler has said to his dog on the afternoon of 04/13/1937. Anyone who focuses on such details does not understand the topic at all - why people betray people in need. But that's too much abstraction for a bad movie like this.
Who was the target audience of this film? Those who have not heard the name Anne Frank? There are too few facts and it loses itself completely in his narrative dilettantism. People who already have some knowledge? The story makes the viewer actually lower his head in sadness, but the dramatic presentation of the scenes destroys any emotional attachment - the very important eye witnesses are carelessly inserted between the scenes, the cut nearly implies they are a disturbing element. Since the director quickly wants to show the young and attractive main actress in the bathtub.
Topic 10/10 Movie 1/10
Anyone who wants to see a cinematic acceptable implementation of the topic, watch to the mentioned version of "The Diary of Anne Frank" (1959, directed by George Stevens).
What is the point of this movie presented in the fashion of a cheap History-Channel production? The actors give solid bad performances, expectable, but not at all comparable to the praise the movie got before its release all over the media. Character development does not take place in any scene - without knowing the historical characters it is impossible for the audience to care what's happening. It is not enough just to mention the horrible things that happen to Anne in real life, a movie has to build up an emotional relation between characters and the viewer. The narrative structure is non-linear, nice idea, but also nothing innovative. The camera nicely follows the characters around, relying on a semi-total perspective the whole time - one begs for falling asleep. An example: Every time the movie wants to show Anne is thinking about a boy she is falling in love with the director uses a cheesy-romanticized recourse to the visual aesthetics of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. And the most important rule of an awful movie is of course to use sad music when it wants to make the viewer emotionally invested. That's possible but used way to often here.
You always feel like you've already seen this movie. All sinks into monotony, the name and the fate of Anne are merely a vehicle for self-expression of the production team, from the director, the main cast up to the sound editor. Before the premiere of the movie the media praised the movie because it would show the father of Anne as a greater plot point than he ever was in any other movie. After watching it that really makes me ask the question, if anyone of the critics ever saw another screen adaptation. Even the rather conventional version "The Diary of Anne Frank" from 1959 and its remake from 1980, show the character of the father in detail. And lead actress Emde as Anne Frank is not even comparable to the performances of Millie Perkins or Melissa Gilbert, no matter how touched and moved she shows herself during numerous marketing interviews. No, being 18 is not a qualification for an actress, a try is not enough, not on this important topic, poor dramatic performance and type casting are all that stays in this case. And the sleazy plot, who ultimately betrayed the hiding place is as uninteresting as the fact what Hitler has said to his dog on the afternoon of 04/13/1937. Anyone who focuses on such details does not understand the topic at all - why people betray people in need. But that's too much abstraction for a bad movie like this.
Who was the target audience of this film? Those who have not heard the name Anne Frank? There are too few facts and it loses itself completely in his narrative dilettantism. People who already have some knowledge? The story makes the viewer actually lower his head in sadness, but the dramatic presentation of the scenes destroys any emotional attachment - the very important eye witnesses are carelessly inserted between the scenes, the cut nearly implies they are a disturbing element. Since the director quickly wants to show the young and attractive main actress in the bathtub.
Topic 10/10 Movie 1/10
Anyone who wants to see a cinematic acceptable implementation of the topic, watch to the mentioned version of "The Diary of Anne Frank" (1959, directed by George Stevens).