Yesterday, i went to the Cinema to look Heidi with my wife to to please her. Besides of the good reviews and the participation of Bruno Ganz I didn't expect too much. But the film convinced me totally, especially emotional. The film is very faithful to the books of J. Spyri even to small details. They are used very good to compound the overall story. Therefore, the film lacks inventions for the story telling. Instead it is using a proper selection of the original material given. As J. Spyri defined the idealised view on Switzerland, this Swiss film showed it as the story was intended . The looks of the Dörfli, the mountain pasture and Frankfurt are really faithful and believable while idealised as it was intended. The Alps panorama was breathtaking as could be expected from a Swiss film. The casting was very good. The short scene of the Alp-Öhi with the Grandma Sesemann played by H. Hoger showed the great actors chosen. The children were very good, too. Anuk Steffen had to carry the complete weight of the story with leading adult actors and she really did. The facial expressions and the language with the mild Swiss dialect was perfect. The roles of Fräulein Rottenmeier and the teacher was laid out overacted. I think it was made to attract children for this film. For a film targeting only adults this was too much. The story is well known, I think and of course J. Spyris master work making it one of Swiss national epics (Quotation from B. Ganz why he took the role). The film follows this absolutely truthfully. For the content of both books, the time is too short so psychological developments could only be hinted at. Another half hour of an extended version concentrating on the development of personal relationships as Heidi <-> Alp-Öhi would make the film perfect. But then it may be too long for a young audience.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Krabat
(2008)
The missing year
7 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
After watching the film, I was unsure what was wrong with it. The pictures are magnificent, the acting was OK to good the score was good and the plot was there. Palpatine replacing the Gevatter was may be OK. I think the Gevatter as described in the book is really hard to transfer onto the screen.
The magic was changed in a bad way as described in comments before. The landscape is changed, too. I did not like this, but one has to see the film as an own work. A "Plan 9 from outer space" like goof is the Kantorka entering the mill in the night and the journeymen leaving with her in bright daylight only minutes later. But this only explains, why the film is not a really great one and not, why it is only a film as thousands more.
After rethinking what did not work, things came back to the missing year. The point which worked the least in the book is the shortage of time. Krabat is getting from the newbie to one main antagonist and the possible successor of the master within three years in a ritual death cycle lasting one year. So in the book he is able to see the rhythm of new trainee to prey only two times completely while other journeymen had an advance of at least 9 years for this and react accordingly at the end of the year. And the relationship of Krabat to the Kantorka can built up by very few meetings within year 2 and 3. So the development of Krabat himself is very fast and nearly unbelievable in the book.
By omitting one year in the film, the pace goes over the edge. To explain the Krabat/Kantorka relationship, the journeymen have to stumble massively into the town life as positive figures, therefore the awful fight scene. And Krabat has to go to the town on easter himself and Juro has to catch him in the town (and reveal himself). The original scene in the book, where Juro is "accidently" burning Krabats' hand is much more appropriate but give not enough time for Krabat to physically meet the Kantorka during the rest of the film. As a result of all this, the changing of Krabat during the story is getting implausible. So is for an example to add the suicide attempt.
The film is simply lacking plausibility by telling a story of breaking a cycle in too short time. You can not give the real impression of a cycle by only showing it once. An additional hour for the third year would have made the film a much better one. Even then, Pumphutt or Dresden had to be left out which still changes the picture of the master, but a film can never suit a novel.
The magic was changed in a bad way as described in comments before. The landscape is changed, too. I did not like this, but one has to see the film as an own work. A "Plan 9 from outer space" like goof is the Kantorka entering the mill in the night and the journeymen leaving with her in bright daylight only minutes later. But this only explains, why the film is not a really great one and not, why it is only a film as thousands more.
After rethinking what did not work, things came back to the missing year. The point which worked the least in the book is the shortage of time. Krabat is getting from the newbie to one main antagonist and the possible successor of the master within three years in a ritual death cycle lasting one year. So in the book he is able to see the rhythm of new trainee to prey only two times completely while other journeymen had an advance of at least 9 years for this and react accordingly at the end of the year. And the relationship of Krabat to the Kantorka can built up by very few meetings within year 2 and 3. So the development of Krabat himself is very fast and nearly unbelievable in the book.
By omitting one year in the film, the pace goes over the edge. To explain the Krabat/Kantorka relationship, the journeymen have to stumble massively into the town life as positive figures, therefore the awful fight scene. And Krabat has to go to the town on easter himself and Juro has to catch him in the town (and reveal himself). The original scene in the book, where Juro is "accidently" burning Krabats' hand is much more appropriate but give not enough time for Krabat to physically meet the Kantorka during the rest of the film. As a result of all this, the changing of Krabat during the story is getting implausible. So is for an example to add the suicide attempt.
The film is simply lacking plausibility by telling a story of breaking a cycle in too short time. You can not give the real impression of a cycle by only showing it once. An additional hour for the third year would have made the film a much better one. Even then, Pumphutt or Dresden had to be left out which still changes the picture of the master, but a film can never suit a novel.
Visual great, but the directing...
29 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Second part contains some spoilers.
Just seen ROTK in cinema and as expected: visual an absolute great movie, never seen before some of the imaginaries. An absolute must to look. As a Tolkienist, I am satisfied with the ending and can understand the differences to the book. The prolog is really good. What is not OK: every action scene is overdrawn, Jackson screwed them all one turn too much, as he want to show more than is in the book. Logic and character understanding are often lost to show even more fighting and danger and *** SPOILER ahead *** cliffhanging, where it is physical impossible. Why is Denethor acting like he does? The film explanations are much too thin. Why is the straight book explanation for his behaviour left out, when it is prepared? Every time, when there is a logical or motivative gap, a look in Tolkiens book would have helped. And less fighting and cliff hanging would be sometimes more. The big battle is much less boring than in TTT. *** Bigger SPOILER ahead *** I do not like the falling of the tower. Have to reread the book in this point, but the vanishing of the Ork army is a bad joke.
Just seen ROTK in cinema and as expected: visual an absolute great movie, never seen before some of the imaginaries. An absolute must to look. As a Tolkienist, I am satisfied with the ending and can understand the differences to the book. The prolog is really good. What is not OK: every action scene is overdrawn, Jackson screwed them all one turn too much, as he want to show more than is in the book. Logic and character understanding are often lost to show even more fighting and danger and *** SPOILER ahead *** cliffhanging, where it is physical impossible. Why is Denethor acting like he does? The film explanations are much too thin. Why is the straight book explanation for his behaviour left out, when it is prepared? Every time, when there is a logical or motivative gap, a look in Tolkiens book would have helped. And less fighting and cliff hanging would be sometimes more. The big battle is much less boring than in TTT. *** Bigger SPOILER ahead *** I do not like the falling of the tower. Have to reread the book in this point, but the vanishing of the Ork army is a bad joke.
Not as good as FOTR
12 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Contains Spoilers I waited a year for this film. Overall, it was a disappointment to me. As a real Tolkien fan, I loved the first film and understood most alterations to the book as more or less necessary for shortening the plot to three and a half hours. I love the long DVD version even more than the shorter cinema version as the extension calms the journey a little bit, so the watcher can really see what is happening.
In the second film TTT the sets, tricks and character looks are again excellent. The best persons in my humble opinion are Wormtongue and of course: Gollum really put to live, the most interesting person even in the books; here a real character.
What I don't like are the alterations to the book, as they replace plot with massacre! A chapter in the book is made the central part in the film, lasting may be half an hour while eight chapters are left out and shifted partly to the third film, as the last scene clearly implies. That the battle is changed: replacement of the rangers by elves and Erkenbrand by Eomer is not the problem, but for example the Ents: Why do they turn up at Isengard so suddenly after the decision to do nothing at the Ent Thing and the rethinking of Treebeard ad the border of Fangorn? Or why does Frodo face a Nazgul at Osgiliath who should clearly feel the presence of the ring and restart the hunt for it at Osgiliath? A decade of plot outline from Tolkien is replaced by holes!
Overall a must see film, but a clear decrease after FOTR. What will we see in the third film? The book alone has enough plot for two Jackson films, but elements of the TTT book have to be added to Return of the king, namely Shelob and the joining of Merry/Pippin with Gandalf/Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli (and Eowyn!!!) for further adventures together.
In the second film TTT the sets, tricks and character looks are again excellent. The best persons in my humble opinion are Wormtongue and of course: Gollum really put to live, the most interesting person even in the books; here a real character.
What I don't like are the alterations to the book, as they replace plot with massacre! A chapter in the book is made the central part in the film, lasting may be half an hour while eight chapters are left out and shifted partly to the third film, as the last scene clearly implies. That the battle is changed: replacement of the rangers by elves and Erkenbrand by Eomer is not the problem, but for example the Ents: Why do they turn up at Isengard so suddenly after the decision to do nothing at the Ent Thing and the rethinking of Treebeard ad the border of Fangorn? Or why does Frodo face a Nazgul at Osgiliath who should clearly feel the presence of the ring and restart the hunt for it at Osgiliath? A decade of plot outline from Tolkien is replaced by holes!
Overall a must see film, but a clear decrease after FOTR. What will we see in the third film? The book alone has enough plot for two Jackson films, but elements of the TTT book have to be added to Return of the king, namely Shelob and the joining of Merry/Pippin with Gandalf/Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli (and Eowyn!!!) for further adventures together.
Tell Your Friends