User Reviews

I must admit that I hadn't heard about the legend of Michael Kohlhaas before I saw this film, but then it's not my closest history either. However, that's one thing that's great about films. It can take us to other worlds and times, and tell us stories and make legends become even greater. So this film made me check out the story.

It's in many ways an understated film. A very realistic depiction, without the Hollywood nonsense. I enjoyed the story very much, and appreciate the realism that's put into it. It's a French/German film telling a German story, with Danish top actor Mads Mikkelsen in the lead. A job he as always does great.

We're back in the 1600's in Cevennes, where the horse dealer Michael Kohlhaas experiences how the rich aristocrats are doing what they want, even when it comes to stealing and killing humans. But when the young ruthless baron kills Michael's wife when so goes to negotiate after a horse theft, the gathers a gang and starts retaliating. The baron gets away, but with Kohlhaas and his gang in his heels. This is the start of a Robin Hood- like tale, with a growing number of followers as well as a growing reputation of fairness.

The film takes us back to the 1600's with no fuzz. Very much what we would think it all could have happened back then. I like the way it's shown and told. obviously not with a big budget, but solid. Chemically free of the extravaganza Hollywood would have put into it.

What annoys is a bothering background sound, an echoing noise which should have been removed. It's not enough to ruin the film experience, though.

This film is certainly not destined to large audiences. I don't think it will remain long on the big screens. It reminds me some french features such as LE FRERE DU GUERRIER, starring Vincent Lindon, or some other french films made since ten years. Films that are slow, rough, sometimes tepid, but very interesting and unusual, if you compare them to Hollywood blockbusters. This movie is dark and depressing at the most, but not as violent as you might expect. It's not IRONCLAD, FLESH AND BLOOD or BLACK DEATH. It's not a fairy tale either. So, don't misunderstand me, if you are not used to this kind of films.

I love the ending. I find it exquisite. But that's my own taste.

The gruesome actor Madds Mikaelsen who speaks in french in this film actually DID NOT UNDERSTAND ONE WORD of what he said. This is an information I got from a french website.

After "Kohlhaas oder die Verhältnismäßigkeit der Mittel" this is already the second Michael Kohlhaas film I've seen this year at the big screen. It does not happen very frequently that I've read the book before seeing a new movie, but we read Michael Kohlhaas in school in German class many many years ago and I've always been quite fond of it since then. So I was eagerly awaiting this film, even more so after Mikkelsen's strong turn in "Jagten" recently. And just like in that film, he plays a tormented soul facing a great deal of injustice again and trying to get things straight in this one as well. His recent work has convinced me that he is among the best actors currently working. And just like Robert Gwisdek in the other Kohlhaas film, it's the Dane's strong performance that makes this movie. It would have been way worse without him probably and yet, also like the other film, it was an adaptation that did not totally satisfied me.

The book makes for a great read and I'm not really sure why it's so difficult to turn it into an equally good movie. There's as much attention to detail in character development as there's many showy scenes that could work wonders transitioned to motion pictures, so it should normally be a good basis. It's difficult to exactly put the finger on what was missing here that avoided it from being a really great film. Ganz is good as always and he has the final scene with Mikkelsen which is one of the highlights of the film. Even David Kross, who I'm not always a fan of, plays his part convincingly here. I usually feel hat the villain or main antagonist is a crucial figure for a film's success or lack thereof and I was not too big on Arlaud's performance as the baron here or the way he was written. He just didn't exude the kind of quiet threat I hoped he would. Nonetheless, thanks to Mikkelsen mainly, I never felt the movie dragged and transferring the whole story to French soil turned out to be a good idea. It's one of the best bleak movies I've seen all year and I'd recommend it.

Formerly a documentary maker, with one feature ADIEU under his belt, Arnaud des Pallières has obviously taken to heart the description of Von Kleist's 1810 novella as surprisingly modern in theme (a fanatical quest for justice) and style (existentialist detachment posing as a chronicle). Having nailed himself to the mast on these two principles as director and writer Pallières consequently has nowhere to go. The plot, transposed to France rather than Brandenburg, is still set in the 16th Century, and it follows Kleist's novella closely. The fanatical quest for justice is absolutely there but Kleist wrote MICHAEL KOHLHAAS as a novella. Pallières inflates it into a 122 minute film (feels longer) - not kind to Kleist or his actors, especially Mads Mikkelsen, who does all the heavy lifting. The emphasis on Kohlhaas as one of these new-fangled Protestants reading the Bible in the vernacular contributes to our understanding that this man is an outsider and a rebel in his heart. His isolated living conditions contribute to the sense of an outsider. His misreading of the power structure when he first tries to get justice through the courts and again when he orders his followers home again show him to be the outsider – all these things are in the book and in the film. The film lacks dramatic suspense – you are in no doubt what will happen from the opening confrontation with the Baron's men - and only becomes more tedious as we labour towards the conclusion. We crave suspense, light and shade and emotional variations. We don't get them. Many sequences in this film had beginnings and middles but no endings, for example where Kohlhaas and his wife are in bed together and the child comes in and tells them they are making a noise. Right, okay, so then... Some scenes are unnecessary, for instance, where Kohlhaas' adherents are seen learning the hard way that they mustn't loot. Much later Kohlhaas delivers a speech (important in the context of the nature of his revolt against authority) - his followers mustn't steal and mustn't take gifts but must pay for everything they take. Surely one of these two sequences is repetitive and weren't they out of order? In the attack on the Baron's stronghold, I was left very confused about the outcome for the woman and her crying baby. There were a lot of cross bows and arrows flying about. Does Kohlhaas accept killing everyone there or not? There are peculiar lapses in the script – Kohlhaas talks more than once about his children but we only meet the daughter so where are the others? Are his sons with him in the revolt? Apparently not. And who is Jérémie – nephew or neighbour? Existential detachment posing as a chronicle is not a natural fit for narrative cinema, for good reason. As a documentary maker Pallières knows how to make something out of the material available to him but as a narrative film-maker he has refused to shape his story, sticking to his existential detachment etc above. Unfortunately, he isn't Bergman or Brecht. The camera frames tightly on each character but there is never a sense of life going on outside the frame. In this world of people and horses the little daughter seems totally isolated. No other animals exist – where are the chickens, the sheep, the odd cat or mouse on this farm? Pallières is keen on big wide pans – unfortunately they don't give you much to read – men and horses, horses and men, occasionally a wagon. The opening with the long shot on the ridge against a brooding sky of the men leading their horses to market, introducing Michael Kohlhaas and his world, was striking. I accepted the low available light, slightly off-key sight lines, and lack of precision where we were in the set up. After all, we are post-Dogme now. But Pallières' refusal to give us a sense of life beyond the edges of each frame soon made the film airless, relying too much on Mads Mikkelsens' subtle face to keep us emotionally involved. The other actors seemed happy to convey little with their faces – but I sense he and Bruno Ganz who smuggled in a few twitches of the mouth were struggling. And it implies that the director cast for faces rather than performance qualifications. There were some sequences to enjoy – Michael Kohlhaas' dirty bare feet as he walked about the farm; unrolling the bolt of fabric to reveal the dress for his wife after his successful sale of the horses; and the attack by the rebels on the convoy supposedly taking the Baron away, shot from up high on a hill top and watched with detachment. But in the scene where the mother's body is returned home and the little daughter runs and runs and runs it would normally carry a weight of emotion – fear, suspense, horror – but here it's just a lot of running. The editing is chaotic, the flow fractured, and we never know where we are in the story. If this is the fruit of existentialist detachment give me old-fashioned narrative. In judgement – I think the film long, confused and emotionally neutered – but faithful in intent to the novella. But why should books and films be a pure reflection of the other? Maybe Pallières is saying that anyone who isn't familiar with the novella isn't worth the trouble of an explanation about anyone or anything that happens. If he is holding two fingers up to most of his potential audience it's not much of a career move. And he has certainly queered the pitch for the next enterprising but unknown filmmaker who wants Mads Mikkelsen to come work with him. I look forward to Mads Mikkelsens' THE SALVATION for his own take on man against the powers that be. It will be interesting.

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.

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.

Stubborn people will love this movie! Kohlhaas is a great reinforcement for the beliefs of stubborn yet principled people. I enjoyed this movie as I enjoy the sublime acting of Mads. I think he should do more historical pieces like this one as he is very comfortable and believable in the roll.

If you enjoy historical movies you will like this one. Even more so if you speak French I'm sure.

I did not, however, feel his "righteous" indignation and could never fully get behind his rebellion. Especially when by his own words it was "Not about the horses, nor his wife's death" either of which would not have justified his bloody rampage anyway.

The movie redeems itself through Kohlhaas himself who is taught and eventually understands the purpose, reason and power of forgiveness. Although too late. His ending is sad and tragic, even pathetic as he is set up to be betrayed so obviously. You can't help but feel that he is one of those doomed souls who, if he had the chance to do it all over again differently, he would.

This movie made me sad and angry. I am like his daughter who wants to get away at the end because it's all just so stupid.