Heart in the right place, but many defects

Rating: 6/10 (23 April 2007)

This movie's heart is in the right place. The best thing is that it portrays a young woman, Rachel, who is strong, talented, courageous, resourceful, and honorable. The acting is excellent, the atmosphere, clothes, etc., are very realistic.
The problems with the film involve the writing, with many holes in the story and in some of the characterizations. Most of the major problems relate to the main German character, Muentze. For example:
1. It was not very believable that the main German officer, Muentze  head of the local Nazi intelligence service in the city  would be so humane. Such a personality would not rise to that position, he would have been passed-over for promotion while at a much lower-level post. I did a little research and its true that by the time of the events in the film, the German foreign intelligence service  Abwehr  which had been run by an anti-Nazi, Admiral Canaris, had been absorbed into this service, and if Muentze was a former Abwehr man, it gets a little more plausible. But for me it would have helped if one of the tougher Nazis had made a crack about Muentze being out-of-place, a transferee from a different service whose personality made him good at achieving cooperation from the Dutch, but suspect as a real Nazi.
2. The plot did not require Rachel's Nazi-lover to have the high level job Muentze is given, since Rachel does not actually get any secrets from him, nor is she the one who negotiates the agreement for leniency from him. Muentze would have been more plausible as a lower- level officer, and the plot could have proceeded just fine without him holding the higher post. The only plot reason to have him hold such a high-level post is so that in the train sequence, his rank intimidates the investigators from searching Rachel's bags. And, of course, a hot chick like Rachel gains status if her lover is a top boss, even in the Nazis.
3. There is no way the Canadians, after taking-over the city, would have permitted the Nazis to enforce a military death-order on an officer with the high rank of Muentze, who would be an important source of information and intelligence  and especially when the order stemmed from Muentze's efforts to strike a deal to save Dutch lives. Having him executed was totally unbelievable. Dramatically, he had to die, probably as a lynching by Dutch partisans  although the problem with that is that it would taint his movie image as a good guy worthy of Rachel's love.
4. In the beginning of the film, on the day Rachel's hide-out is destroyed, the supposedly- helpful Dutch police officer arrives at dinner-time at her new hideout to warn her to flee because the German authorities have figured out that a Jew is probably hiding there. But then when she asks for his help, he says he will be back for her in the morning. In the morning? Hours later? What about the Germans  wasn't Rachel just told the Germans should be expected any moment? And when he tells her to bring lots of money, it isn't because she has to pay for her escape to Belgium, it's to live on in Belgium after escaping. Rachel should wonder why he gives her advice on her need for money in Belgium, since she could figure out as well as he how much money she would need there.
5. The other Dutch woman who works for the Nazis talks about how, on liberation, she will be seized and punished for her collaboration  but then in the victory parade, she is perched on a jeep, in full view of everyone, happy, not persecuted, even as she sees other women being shamed and having their hair shaved for being collaborators. Now, it is true that by distracting the Germans at the end she makes it possible for Muentze and Rachel to escape, but the Dutch see Muentze and Rachel as bad. Her escape from shaming is not explained.
6. When the main betrayer frees Rachel from the Dutch prison, she gets her belongings, and he sees that these include the "black book"  a notebook he has never seen her with before. Yet he must know that she was seized in the offices of the lawyer, Smaal, who he, or his confederate, assassinated in order to silence him. So the main betrayer would be highly attuned to any evidence that Rachel might have taken from the lawyer, yet he shows no interest in even looking at the book. His carelessness about the book is implausible. This should have been handled differently. Something or someone  perhaps an enthusiastic hero-worshipper  should distract him at the moment the jailer produces the book, so that the main betrayer never becomes aware that Rachel has any book.
7. The coffin the main betrayer ends up being trapped in has a breathing slot  we know that from when Rachel was in the coffin early in the film, and we are reminded of that again at the end when the bad guy shoves money and jewels out of the slot in an attempt to bribe Rachel. Neither Rachel nor the main resistance leader is shown blocking up the air-hole, nor do they mention blocking it up. So when the main betrayer falls silent at the end it cannot be from death due to lack of oxygen. Maybe they filmed Rachel blocking the air-hole and discovered that test audiences didn't like the way it tainted their image of Rachel, so it was cut, but if we are meant to think the main betrayer died of lack of oxygen this air-hole is a major plot-hole.