Michael Kohlhaas

In this day and age of fast scenes and bloody gore, apparently this movie left some critics calling it dull and lifeless. Not me.

The measured pace was right for this film. It's simplicity was correct and fitted the era. By simplicity, I mean the lack of 'Hollywood-ised' scenes that we're used to seeing about peasants, barons and queens.

If you're a thinking person who enjoy very good actors, a movie that travels at a pace that reflects an actual story about human beings, social justice and conflicts, irony and dilemma, the stuff of life, this is a powerful and intense drama.

As always, anyone who fights for what is right, is never seen in a perfect shade of black or white.

I gave this a 5 mostly for technique because that is the strongest point of the film. The film is an encyclopedic article as filmed by an art-house director- at least that was my impression. While the characters had legitimate, sympathetic motivations, and there were a couple of interesting discussions, there was no theme, no thrust, no spirit or spin. The ending is a fizzling out. Mads Mikkelsen, as always, can make anything seem profound, even though he only gets a line per twenty minutes of horse visuals- on the other hand, the horses were beautiful! Lol.

My rec: watch this if you really have time to waste, I've certainly seen worse, but don't believe the title, "age of uprising." That implies action. This is a quiet classic or art-house-style flick.

Some people might not feel comfortable with this film, which is not surprising. It does move with a very slow pace and it is a movie about values. The question is, do you want a movie that might feel like a lecture to you? It isn't of course, but I would understand if some viewers would feel like that.

Mads is playing as strong as ever and the character is complicated, but has a strong sense of righteousness. Something that has been the downfall for many people. And standing up for yourself or others is not that easy. It's easier to just back down and take it, than to stand up and fight. But is it worth it? There are quite a few questions that you might ask yourself after watching this movie, because it does not answer everything for you ...

What would you do if the legal system didn't support you or your rights? What would you do if you tried to take someone to court for compensation for something that was taken from you, and then, because of this, your family is dealt a terrible blow? Knowing you have no way to legally seek justice, would you take matters into your own hands? And once you have taken the law into your own hands, do you simply become as bad as the original aggressor? This is not something most of us have to worry about, if we live in country where rule of law is upheld. But in 16th century Europe (and in some parts of the world even now) not everyone could rely on the law.

This movie asks us to explore these questions and more. It doesn't provide us with the passive experience of sitting there and having the story, the moralities, the emotions, fed to us, as so often happens in films. It presents the material to us, and ask us to decide on who is right or wrong, who is at fault, and maybe to ask us what we might do in the same situation.

Visually, it is sumptuous, organic, exquisitely beautiful. Rugged mountain vistas, timber, earth, stone and leather. And let's not forget that it has Mads Mikkelsen as the lead character, speaking French and riding horses. This is a combination that is hard to beat, for sensory appeal. I don't speak French so I have no idea how his Danish accent is accounted for in the film, but his steely stares to the horizon and his drive for justice, and the consequences that follow, are powerful to watch.

This film is definitely on the art-house side of film-making, and probably wont appeal to those who want everything delivered to them, but asks us powerful questions about rights and wrongs, actions and their consequences, while delivering a beautiful visual experience.

French films dealing with medieval events tend to be romantic, adventurous and beautiful, with colourful costumes, picturesque landscapes and magnificent dwellings. The story around Michael Kohlhaas is originally German, so is the book, that is why it is difficult to comprehend why the French became interested in this. The result is a joint French-German drama (well, I even recognised some German actors in small roles) where the French language is aggravating rather than supplementing - at least for me. The run is slow, the environment is ugly, there are a few twists, thus I started to focus on acting very soon. Of course, Mads Mikkelsen (a Dane!) is great as usual, and as far I understood, his French was very good (true, he is often employed in foreign films, I have seen him speaking Swedish, English, German as well throughout the film). Other performances seemed a bit arid to me - apparently due to the characters - and, all in all, the film in question caused ambivalent feelings; there was a lot of inner profundity, but the course of events seemed perfunctory. But fans of Mikkelsen will not be disappointed as there are a few scenes without his presence only.