I am a bit at a loss what to think of this movie. They apparently intended to make some sort of mixture between a coming-of-age story and a psychological thriller, but somehow it didn't quite come about in either sense. Biggest problem was the way the story was told: the chronology was so mixed up that I was constantly confused, and even when at the end some loose ends in the story were cleared up, I was still left with a multitude of questions.
There were so many innuendo's that were left unsolved. Was the teacher in the wheelchair infatuated by Paul? Was Paul himself gay? Was he infatuated by David? Was Paul the stone-thrower? What did the little brother do that made the police pick him up and what was Paul's role in that? What was the role of his stern stepmother? Or his vague father? What was the function of the house of the old, bedridden lady that Paul stepped into at the start of the movie? I could go on and on like this.
What didn't help either was the unsympathetic character of Paul: he behaved like a sly opportunist, secretly searching his friends' bags, stealing personal belongings, snitching on fellow scholars, up to ultimately even killing someone. It was very hard to relate to him, and the acting of Jonas Holdenrieder didn't make it easier, seeing him walk around like an autistic robot with a constantly frozen face, mumbling his monosyllabic lines.
Maybe it's due to my too simple brain and I probably missed out on tons of metaphors, but all in all I was at best intrigued, and basically just confused. If that was the purpose of the makers, then they succeeded.
There were so many innuendo's that were left unsolved. Was the teacher in the wheelchair infatuated by Paul? Was Paul himself gay? Was he infatuated by David? Was Paul the stone-thrower? What did the little brother do that made the police pick him up and what was Paul's role in that? What was the role of his stern stepmother? Or his vague father? What was the function of the house of the old, bedridden lady that Paul stepped into at the start of the movie? I could go on and on like this.
What didn't help either was the unsympathetic character of Paul: he behaved like a sly opportunist, secretly searching his friends' bags, stealing personal belongings, snitching on fellow scholars, up to ultimately even killing someone. It was very hard to relate to him, and the acting of Jonas Holdenrieder didn't make it easier, seeing him walk around like an autistic robot with a constantly frozen face, mumbling his monosyllabic lines.
Maybe it's due to my too simple brain and I probably missed out on tons of metaphors, but all in all I was at best intrigued, and basically just confused. If that was the purpose of the makers, then they succeeded.
