GeorgeSickler Wow! I don't recall reading such a wide spread of ratings/comments on any other movie.I've seen "The Statement" only on TV, beginning very recently. Michael Caine once again has done an outstanding job in his role as a French military or police collaborator in Nazi-occupied Vichi France during WWII. In modern times, as a sick, old man, he has suddenly become a target for capture or execution by a wide range of factions.I thought it was an interesting storyline and well acted by all concerned. It does step on a number of toes, particularly a segment of the Catholic Church in France and high-ranking members of the modern French government who have risen to power in spite of their previous roles in the Vichi government. That shouldn't be a reason to trash the movie if it's based on fact, and no one seems to suggest otherwise.So, this is somewhat of a friendly rebuttal to what others have written.So what if Michael Caine doesn't have a French accent? The movie got blasted for that, but I'm suggesting "who cares?" It's still a nice movie. I don't think Sean Connery's Scottish accent interfered with his being the Russian captain in "The Hunt for Red October." However, Harrison Ford's trying to fake a Russian accent in "K-19--The Widowmaker" did tend to interfere with the story line.Some have said this is just another rewrite of history to make it seem as if WWII was all about the Jews. And Caine's character "only" murdered 12 Jews, as if "what's the fuss all about?" Obviously, the movie is not just about the war being about Jews. I don't think the Japanese had Jews on their mind when they attacked Pearl Harbor to bring the U.S. into the war. Nor was Hitler focusing on Jews when he invaded Poland, France, the Soviet Union, other nations and firebombed the U.K.Nevertheless, Hitler did make an all-out effort to murder seven million Jews as his "Final Solution" to exterminate all of them, especially after they had been almost starved to death as slave labor to support his war effort. This is a fact that shouldn't be overlooked.If I understand this storyline correctly, Caine's character, Pierre, was a Frenchman who became a Nazi collaborator in Vichi France. He and other collaborators began to round-up Jews and murder them even before the Nazis told them to. The "handful" that he directly murdered was among almost 80,000 others who met the same fate in his district of France. That was recognized at the end of the movie, as well as the memorial at the wall of the town in France where Pierre murdered those Jews.After the war, he was captured for trial but escaped. While he was in hiding, he was given a full pardon by the president of France, supposedly through the influence of the Catholic church and friendly high members of the French government who also had a hidden Vichi past.But, now as an old and sick man, Pierre's problems began anew when the World Court enacted the "Crimes Against Humanity" laws. That made him a high-profile fugitive again for a number of reasons at many levels made clear in the film.That's the focus of the movie. The time is the present. Pierre was trying to avoid getting caught and turned to old friends in the church and the government for help. People get killed who get in the way. You won't find James Bond style constant action here, that others seem to think is lacking. But I think it provides an interesting perspective and is well worth watching.

whpratt1 Enjoyed this great drama and thriller dealing with the killing of seven French Jewish people during World War II. Pierre Brossard, (Michael Caine) was present during the execution of these Jewish people and after many many years pass, Pierre is still being hunted down and goes into hiding within the walls of the Catholic Church in France and he is even given financial help in order to stay protected from being killed. One day, Pierre is driving his car and is followed by a man who was out to kill him and Pierre whipped out a gun and killed this man without any problems. This picture also shows how religious Pierre is because he is always praying and asking priests to absolve him from the killing he has recently performed. Tilda Swinton, (Annemarie Livi) and Jeremy Northam, (Colonel Roux) are both assigned to investigate this case which has been reopened and they both gave great supporting roles, it looked for awhile there might be some romance between these two, but they seemed to like flirting than getting into a serious romance. Michael Caine might be getting older, but he sure carried this film on his back, right to the very end.

pywalkye2 I just saw this movie and I don't agree with mostly of the comments I have seen here. Is a very good thriller, with good performance of the cast and fine direction and photography. The sound is really superb and that's why the movie got the prizes. Further comments are out of order. I'll see it again to watch the goof and enjoy the acting. I was wondering if the story is real, many of the collaborators not only in France, but in the occupied countries for sure lived in some way the same experiences more or less. Ten points for the sound, and the photography. For the movie as a good thriller, I will say 7 points.And that's all.

mfsor the best acting was between Charlotte Rampling and Michael Caine, but Tilda Swinton does quiet well also.Perfectly paced, tense throughout, full of no-sympathy for Michael Caine nor all the priests who are helping him. Tilda's role is too stereotyped, but she acts so well it doesn't matter. Northam is something of a throw-in just to have another good character, same as Alan Bates. Caine is superb as the man with the twisted Catholic conscience who thinks he can do immense evil and then confess away hell. There was somewhat too much of the everybody-finds-everybody stuff, and the guys who were killed by Caine were too stupid for words, and that was the only false part of the movie.