FeistyUpper
If you don't like this, we can't be friends.
Invaderbank
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
andrew_james10
A very well written and acted movie telling a very harrowing story about what happened to Jews during World War II and the aftermath. I am of an age now where I seek knowledge of what actually happened during recent history and this story combines the facts with personal anguish. I strongly recommend those who want to watch and learn see this movie
Edgar Allan Pooh
. . . it probably would look a lot like SARAH'S KEY. Mix in a few centuries of Bad Karma corrupting Anglo-Saxon culture in 1066, betraying Saint Joan in 1431, waging the Napoleonic Wars on the heels of the Reign of Terror, being Germany's patsy two World Wars in a row, and deporting 76,000 Jews to the Auschwitz Death Camp as documented in SARAH'S KEY, and it's not hard to see why the self-styled "Avenging Angels" were allowed by Fate to massacre a bastion of French "culture" this week. What with their over-rated cooking and undeserved reputation for Romance, it may be possible to imagine how some naive young Americans such as "Julia" (Kristin Scott Thomas) can be sucked right in, for awhile. But nearly any critical thinker will reach a day of reckoning, when the Truth about the French knocks them off the bandwagon, as they realize that they've been hoodwinked. Whether it's selling warships to Mad Dog Putin, throwing Israel under the bus, or hauling Jews to Hitler, the French can be counted on to do the craven thing. There may be a few "good" people in France, just as there were a couple right-thinking Nazis, such as Oscar Schindler. But, as Julia learns, SARAH'S KEY is to get out of France.
canadianguy62
The movie fairly true to the book in that the telling of the story was done with flash-backs and flash-forwards and things pretty well followed the same plot. However, where the book was a compelling read, the movie was far less so.I hate to be picky, but I have to say that the single most frustrating thing about the movie was the very poor quality of the subtitles. Since this movie starred an Anglo actress (Kristin Scott Thomas) and some of the dialogue was in English, the subtitles should have been decent ... unfortunately no.Here are a few examples."That's what I said yesterday al Normally he should be." (Huh? al? and why is normally capitalized? and exactly what the hell are you trying to say?)."You never reacts, Julia. I have three ties left a message" I think what is meant here is, "You never answer, Julia. I have left three messages."And another, "Bertrand I have spoken. He said you write an article about ..." How about, "Bertrand and I have spoken. He said you are writing (or you wrote) and article about ..."It was very distracting having to read these dreadful translations and it took a lot away from the movie. Surely, they could have asked Kristin Scott Thomas - or anyone else with basic English skills - to give them a once over and make them readable. It's mind-blowing how awful they were (and the examples I gave were all from about one five- minute stretch in the movie ... there are dozens more just like them).
stephanlinsenhoff
The movie Sarahs key goes back and forth 1942/2009: in the center is Sarahs key. When fetched by the French police 16/17 July 1942 (13152 victims according Préfecture de Police), Sarah hides her brother Michel in a secret closet, taking with her the key, sure to return soon. All are gathered first in the 'Vélodrome' (Vel' d'Hiv Roundup), then transferred to Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp and (transported to Auschwitz). The French-Anmerican journalist Julia Ormond has the task to write an article for the 60th anniversary. In the book and in the film returns again and again the denial: to remember and unable speak of the trauma, banned to the unconscious. Not a few accepted what happened, seeing and looking: unto today, as example Julias divorce from her French husband. Sarah runs, saving her life but marked by the unforgettable memory of Vel'd'Hive. Married in America and a mother to a son, William, never mentioned to him or others her experience, having the Dufaures name: Sarah ends her life by what is called 'accident'. Not unusual for the survived from 'Auschwitz'. Primo Levi was told by th guards: "You will never leave this camp and if, you will never forget." And so it was: many of the survivors could not live with their memories, ending by free will their unbearable life. In the book and film was of course the French guard Jaques, letting the two girls escape and the Dufaures: but also the French doctor, coming to the ill child and fetched by the Germans. Not the Germans in focus but the French, Julia: "Mike, this was not the Germans. This was the French." Yes, but the Germans ordered what happened in France by German decree. Sarah never forgot her brother, waiting for her to come. Among her belongings was her diary and the key: the symbol that she returned too late to fetch him. Sarahs fictitious key that made the novel and the movie possible: fiction and reality. 1995 apologizes Jaques Chirac, monuments are raised and memory gatherings are held. But what helps afterwards to apologize: it should never have happened. Courage was and still was/is needed in such moments and less cowardice.
