Krabat

Krabat, boring??? How can that be? I just don't get it - Preussler s novel would have made a wonderful script, if they stuck to his idea instead of changing most of it. didn't they see it? In an age when fantasy works like the Lord of the Rings are made into fantastic movies, it is inexcusable that the screenwriters changed so much of the original storyline, and killed so much of its beauty and depth. The movie was shallow at best Yes, the basic story is about love being the only thing that can overcome the darkness. the biggest crime that was done here was to change the characters: The deep bond between Michal and Merten, which leads to Merten trying to run away and finally kill himself. Lyschko not a bad guy in the end, the betrayal played down to nothing... I really like Daniel Brühl, but Tonda? Also, whatever magic there was, it didn't come through.

It was all about power over people, why not lighten the story up as Preussler had done magnificently in the book and send them off to the market or show how the master - and therefore the devil whom he served - manipulated the politicians of this time? could it have been a matter of budget? Or is it just impossible for us Germans to dive into the spiritual side of things? I don't think any of the changes made to the story were really necessary - it was perfect as it was written, and the screenwriters changed it into a mediocre, lenghty dark tale, nothing more or less. Definitely not what the book was: A story that captured generations of readers. I predict that this movie will be forgotten very quickly.

I found Krabat to be rather disappointing. I expected something better after reading some extremely positive reviews on here. And it's not because of the German language, which is a nasty aggressive language to listen to by the way, but more because of the plot that wasn't that interesting to follow. I do like fantasy and tales, but sometimes it's just not there. Krabat lacks of good entertaining scenes and even if the acting wasn't bad I never got completely into the story. I read that the book was better, maybe I should have done that instead of watching this movie.

"Krabat" has been one of the classics of youth literature in Germany for almost 40 years and one wonders why nobody tried to make a movie out of it earlier. Actually, it is not that hard to answer this question since "Krabat" is a very grim and dark tale with some gruesome deaths, an ending that comes across as rather anticlimactic and above all an incredible amount of religious symbolism (even though the book is no sappy Christian novel) that would make it hard to market it. Parents would not go and see this movie with their kids and young people might not find it cool enough. Fortunately, the producers were smart enough to think of another target group: grown-ups who read the book in their youth and have been haunted by it ever since.

Some changes have been made. The symbolism is reduced, the role of the "Kantorka" is slightly expanded, which makes the showdown a little more exciting and Tonda's love to Worschula plays a bigger part than it does in the novel. Make no mistake, though, both women still have small roles. The story is shortened by one year (so that it now covers only two years instead of three which ultimately saves the life of one of the boys - and to those who only watched the movie but haven't read the book: It is not the guy you think it might be) and the story centers even more on Krabat than in the book, which means that all scenes that explain more about the master such as the sorcerer's duel and the trip to the Elector in Dresden were left out.

I don't mind these changes too much. While the trip to Dresden was in my opinion one of the most memorable scenes of the book I can understand why it had to go. There are some other minor changes which I won't go into. But even with the shortening of the story, Kreuzpaintner still had a lot left in his hands that he had to press into two hours. And I have to say that he does not entirely succeed. Kreuzpaintner does something Preußler does a lot in his book: He only hints at many things and hopes that the viewer will link the parts together. But Preußler had a much bigger story than Kreuzpaintner does and often this makes the movie feel rushed or incomplete. But still, the story is touching and gripping and in my opinion totally satisfying.

The cinematography is outstanding. The images are truly beautiful, and the aerial shots even allow the viewer to see the entire set. Incredible work has been done here. Now, in most big German productions there is one scene in which the director decides to go totally Hollywood and usually this ends in a disaster. The same thing unfortunately happens here when the boys get into a fight with some marauding soldiers. Kreuzpaintner tries to out-Scott Ridley Scott here and the picture is so distorted that not only can you barely see what is happening but it also really hurts the eyes. What makes this even worse is that this makes it look like they tried to cover up bad fighting stunts with these scenes even though I am sure that they were in fact done well.

The actors are mainly well cast. Brühl, Redl (especially Redl!), Stadlober all act well and make us forget the actor behind the role (Brühl and Redl succeed better than Stadlober) Hanno Koffler, whom I usually like a lot, does some over-acting which seems annoying at first, but since he plays Juro that might have been a deliberate choice. Unfortunately, David Kross is a little weak, but this seems to be the curse of title characters who, after all, are supposed to serve as models for identification. The guy I actually liked best was Moritz Grove, who plays Merten as thoughtful, caring and in the end almost tragic. All in all,it has to be said that the casting agents really did their job well in making these guys distinguishable, even though some of their parts are rather small.

While I liked the set design and the costumes, I was not too pleased about the make-up. Smeering some black paint on strategic places on the actors' faces so that they look dirty but still pretty gets on my nerves when it happens through an entire movie. It really looks fake after a while and when you get to scenes where the actors show their shaved armpits, you cannot help but laugh at this pseudo-historical mess.

I have to say, in spite of some criticism I really liked the movie and I will recommend it to everyone. To people who read the book it will bring back great childhood memories and others who have not read it will find the movie entertaining, thrilling and maybe even scary.

But just like the movie ends on a big "f--- you" to the audience I will end this review with my biggest gripe about the movie: Who on earth made the decision to put such a terrible song at the end of the movie? The picture has such an incredibly beautiful score and does everything to set the mood right and they actually decide to put some electro dance track over the credits!!!! This must be one of the worst choices of a film-promoting song in film history! The people behind this decision should really lower their heads in shame!

Having read the book times and times again since my childhood, I was excited to learn a movie was made, but I was disappinted.

The story, quickly summarized, is located in Augustus the Strong's Saxony, Germany around 1700. It is about a dark magical school disguised as a mill with 12 young journeymen and a master who trains his pupils but also has a contract with the devil to offer one of them each year. Krabat, a 14-year-old beggar enters the school, enthusiactically picks up magical knowledge but then notes the evil behind it and that he and his comrades are all in a deathly trap. The only way out, he learns, is to gain the love of a girl and have her asking his release from the master. But this comes at a deadly risk, and others have already failed and lost their lives...

Things that bother me on this movie: 1. The movie's mood is always dark. But in the book, while the apprentices are generally in a desperate situation, they are also young, and there are episodes full of wit and humor, the optimism of the youth. 2. Scenes of the book which would have been great in the film have been omitted, and dull scenes with no sense have been inserted instead. Left out are the Pumphutt duel (a great effects opportunity missed), the Dresden visit (again a great opportunity missed to show the beautiful palaces), the oxen sale, the mocking of the recruiters and much more scenes who could have inserted some fun into the dreary dullness. Instead we see a pointless and boring scene where the young men fight some soldiers who want to loot a village - this was not in the book. 3. The screenwriters and directors could not free themselves from images of other fantasy films with somewhat similar plotlines, mainly Star Wars and Harry Potter. Why do we need to see Palpatine the Emperor and the Marauder's Map in this movie? Why are the journeymen waving around with sticks like Jedi trainees? 4. In the book, the Kantorka has light hair to symbolize her "white magic" of love as opposed to the Dark Arts taught in the mill. In the movie she is black-haired and thus adds no visual contrast to the overall dark picture.

Summary: A missed opportunity. Please do a remake with better screenwriting/directing which follow the book more closely, because the book is a masterpiece you cannot improve.

Krabat is a good adaption of the novel by Otfried Preußler. The story is set in the mid 17th century during the Thirty Years' War, and tells us the story of Krabat, a homeless orphan that finds shelter in a mill. But not everything is as it seems to be. A beautiful cinematography, fine settings and good acting make watching this dark and twisted fairy tale a real pleasure. There are only a real few movies of German cinema that provide this quality regarding the fantasy genre: The NeverEnding Story (1984) and Momo (1986) comes to mind.