Michael Kohlhaas (2013) Reviews

• A Great film, no pfaffing.

  jllewell2015-03-24

  I loved this film. No padding of any description, and only the salient points throughout. I have to say, I love films that just get on with it, without hours of Hollywood filler; people talking endlessly about things of no importance, that have nothing to do with the story, just to fill the time. There is none of the usual people giving each other long languishing looks, or making love forever, just because the story is so thin. This film is the complete opposite of that. It's a little 'slow' if you like constant action, as I do, however it's all to purpose and that makes it very satisfying. Mads is brilliant as always, and so is the rest of the cast. I'm going to track down the book now, it really deserves a read. The author took big liberties with a real story, but all's fair in love and literature. Especially philosophical literature! This director has brought it to the screen beautifully, although I will say it's not a film for those who are incapable of reading between the lines.

  More

• Excellent

  iulianr2013-09-02

  I do agree with one of the reviewers that this movie is not meant for a general audience. It avoids all the blockbuster clichés in order to focus on the essential - the story. It seems in fact to follow the style of Kleist's original novel - dry, understated. I find this approach very modern, it makes you think and feel instead of giving you pre-chewed material. And feel you do. I think the use of contrast between the action that is shown and how this action is performed is exceptional. When Kohlhaas's household goes on its first revenge campaign to the baron's house the killings take place in an absolutely silent, matter-of-fact manner, as if they did this every day (similar to the hangman at the end, except he DID do this every day, so to speak). And so it is with most of the movie. I think this also reflects the atmosphere of the middle ages - life was rougher, death, especially violent death, was more present. Children watched animals being slaughtered (well, there is only a mare giving birth in the movie). Life (and death) was more direct, more present. And although there is a lot of violence, it is off-screen. It is hinted at. The worst you will see is blood on hands and on a sword, that's all. I think this was a very judicious choice, if you think that violence has become commonplace in movies, almost banal. Mads Mikkelsen does speak with an accent, but it is an exaggeration to say that one doesn't understand a word. French is by far not my first language, but I did understand the dialogues. And then the director covered himself for this - Kohlhaas speaks with Jeremie in German, which shows that he is not French (so does his name). When the Princess comes to his house, she didn't come to apologize to the little girl. Rather, she came to see with her own eyes who this daring man was (she did come accompanied by a small army, so it wasn't a courtesy visit), and perhaps also to warn him that he might not be over it yet. This is quite clear if you listen carefully to her monologue, where she explains that a person of power (i.e. her) cannot afford to be either too forgiving or too cruel, so as not to come across to her subjects as either mellow or tyrannical. And then she materializes this philosophy of hers at the end: she renders justice to Kohlhaas in all respects - gives him money for the wrongs suffered, imprisons the baron for the wrongs done, shows the horses in question healed, and punishes the rebel, i.e. Kohlhaas. He does cry at the end. I think this is a quite realistic performance, even from such an emotionless character as Kohlhaas, because, I think, no matter how tough you are, I don't see how one can remain calm knowing that one will be decapitated in the following minutes. And although the film does not show emotions in characters, it builds emotion in the viewer - just think of the long preparation before the beheading. This scene made my blood freeze. So, this is not an action movie, but it works your adrenaline up by letting you interpret the understatements. It is not a bildungsroman either, so don't expect much character development. It simply describes a situation. You would say it is almost a story from the New Yorker. A quick hint for the end - if you liked Kubrick's Barry Lindon, you will adore Micheal Kohlhaas. I think the two films display the same sort of sensibility.

  More

• German atmosphere in the French language

  BeneCumb2014-02-10

  French films dealing with medieval events tend to be romantic, adventurous and beautiful, with colourful costumes, picturesque landscapes and magnificent dwellings. The story around Michael Kohlhaas is originally German, so is the book, that is why it is difficult to comprehend why the French became interested in this. The result is a joint French-German drama (well, I even recognised some German actors in small roles) where the French language is aggravating rather than supplementing - at least for me. The run is slow, the environment is ugly, there are a few twists, thus I started to focus on acting very soon. Of course, Mads Mikkelsen (a Dane!) is great as usual, and as far I understood, his French was very good (true, he is often employed in foreign films, I have seen him speaking Swedish, English, German as well throughout the film). Other performances seemed a bit arid to me - apparently due to the characters - and, all in all, the film in question caused ambivalent feelings; there was a lot of inner profundity, but the course of events seemed perfunctory. But fans of Mikkelsen will not be disappointed as there are a few scenes without his presence only.

  More

• Pretty to look at but emotionally unavailable

  lornloxor2014-03-10

  I'm a huge fan of Mads Mikkelsen (The Hunt, A Royal Affair and Hannibal especially) which is why I wanted to see this movie. Mikkelsen has a good performance in this though I think his character was written to be a bit too understated and calm for him to truly shine here. I didn't quite feel his character here. I haven't read the novel but when you adapt books into movies, you're allowed to make changes in order to make it work as a movie. The baron didn't really have a presence also which isn't a good thing when he's supposed to be the movie's antagonist. This movie is sort of a mixed bag. The scenery and the sets were quite breathtaking. Cinematography was stunning at times but it also often went too artsy which made it hard to see what was going on and in the end made the scenes ineffective. The music was decently atmospheric but nothing memorable or mind-blowing. A lot of important stuff seemed to just happen off screen. How did Kohlhaas gather his army? Was he a charismatic and popular speaker who convinced people to join his cause? Had his troops themselves suffered injustices? Who was that woman in the abbey and why was she protecting the baron? Why did Kohlhaas' troops go there, shoot some flaming arrows and leave immediately after? What were they trying to accomplish there? Why was the Governor protecting that slimebag baron when he was shown to be a friend of Kohlhaas' in the beginning? The motivation of many of the characters remained in the dark. It's hard to get emotionally involved in scenes where you're completely baffled at what's going on because the movie just jumps from place to place without any explanation. All in all, I found the editing to be quite perplexing which makes the pacing of the movie feel rather slow. There's no real force or energy running through the movie and eventually it just sort of fizzles out. In the end, there's just too many things that didn't work for me and the movie simply wasn't exciting or engaging to watch. Mads Mikkelsen makes watching this movie bearable but even he can't save this one.

  More

• German writer Heinrich Von Kleist's character Michael Kohlhaas questioned why should anybody be treated badly ?

  FilmCriticLalitRao2014-01-06

  It is on more than one occasion that German writer Heinrich Von Kleist (1777-1811) has turned out to be useful for French cinema. Firstly, it was Eric Rohmer who chose to make a film based on his work "Marquise d'O". After Rohmer, it is French director Arnaud De Pallières who chose to make a film based on one of Kleist most famous novellas "Michael Kohlhaas" with striking differences as instead of choosing a German style, he opted for a French setting in order to furnish Gallic touches to his film. The resulting film can be viewed from two angles which highlight the notions of equal rights and justice for all. From one angle, it is an ethical story which closely examines the concepts of good, bad, just, unjust, fair and unfair. It can also be viewed by many as a tale of revenge. The real Michael Kohlhass rose against noblemen of his times when his horses were taken and his wife murdered. There are not many critics who have commented upon this film's erotic elements as it has some passionate love making scenes. The role which religion played in all matters related to people and nobles is explained through the intervention of Martin Luther. His decision to support Michael Kohlhass suggests the say which religion had in legal matters. It is not only due to an ensemble star cast made up of French actors that Arnaud De Pallières' film "Michael Kohlhaas" gets a French look and feel but also due to its setting for which Cévennes region was chosen to film most scenes. For this reason, Arnaud De Pallières would be remembered for a long time to come as he has faithfully recreated old Prussia in Cévennes,France. Lastly, it needs to be stated that as a film "Michael Kohlhass" is 122 minutes of delightful, high quality cinematographic experience for which director Arnaud De Pallières had three great directors as inspiration : Werner Herzog (Aguirre), Akira Kurosawa (The Seven Samurai) and Andrei Tarkovsky (Andrei Rublev)

  More