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.
