User reviews

I watched this movie at a preview here in Stockholm a week or so ago. The theater was filled with people and i must admit i never thought this kind of movie would have that kind of attraction on people.

I can start by saying that i really liked this movie. I'm not sure i was entertained by it, and many times it was not a pleasant experience, but still the overwhelming feeling is that i really liked it. This is not a movie for everyone though. A lot of people will probably have a hard time with the strange mix between comedy and tragedy, others will be put off simply because of the themes and the presentation. There is a lot of nudity here, a lot of explicit language and scenes that are disturbing in more ways than one. A lot of people will probably find it gratuitous, although i feel it's more a part of an uncompromising attitude towards the movie and the story.

The story revolves around two brothers, Bruno and Michael. Bruno is the brother that really stuck with me. Moritz Bleibtreu is excellent and the character really displays how the complexity of a human being can cause you to both hate and pity him. The other actors are also very good, which is probably necessary considering the subject of the movie.

I have to stress one last time that this is not a movie for everyone. And by that i don't mean that it's demanding in the sense that you have to be a film-student to appreciate it. Rather i mean that the themes and the presentation are probably too much for many people. This movie is rough around the edges, very blunt and raw. These are the characteristics i appreciate it for, but i realize other people won't feel the same way. My guess is that either you really like it or you hate it. But you'll never know until you watch it, and therefore i feel it's still a strong recommendation. 7/10.

In Berlin, the scientist Michael Djerzinski (Christian Ulmen) decides to return to Ireland to proceed his research about genetics that he left behind three years ago. Meanwhile, his racist, bigoted, sexually disturbed and addicted in masturbation half-brother Bruno Klement (Moritz Bleibtreu) has just divorced from his wife and is interned in a psychiatric clinic for therapy. Michael and Bruno were left by their hippie mother that moved to Poona when they were child and their dysfunctional childhood reflects in their personality and sexual behavior. When Michael is informed that the remains of his grandmother should be replaced since a new road will pass by the cemetery, he visits his childhood sweetheart Annabelle (Franka Potente) and finds that she is an experienced woman that has had a crush on him since she was five years old. Further, she had had many deceptions in her love affairs, while Michael is still virgin. Meanwhile Bruno meets the liberal Christiane (Martina Gedeck) in a nudist camp and he believes she is the woman of his life, until a tragedy happens.

"Elementarteilchen" is a tragically weird, sometimes very unpleasant, low budget movie. Bruno is hateful character, with his sick and selfish behavior and prejudice. His essay about black people and his comments about Brazil are despicable. However, the performance of Moritz Bleibtreu is top-notch. I also liked very much the performance of Martina Gedeck. Christian Ulmen and Franka Potente complete the good cast of this strange and dramatic romance. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Partículas Elementares" ("Elementary Particles")

Interesting commentary on the damage done by loose morals developed from the late 60s. From the selfishness of hippie moms to sex crazed men going to special resorts under the pretense of spiritual enlightenment, only to get laid. The sexual "liberation" of the late 60s only led to selfishness and loneliness.

Outstanding acting, particularly Bleibtreu and Potente did a great job.

Also, the film provides a guilty pleasure as you can take a peek into how things work at various sex parties, it seemed quite realistic.

While depressing at times the film can also be absolutely hilarious, at the same time. This can be accredited to Houellebecq who I've become more and more interested in.

That said the movie is flawed, it feels unbalanced and missing too much. I was already interested in reading the novel and I definitely felt there were too many things left out, for instance I never saw the apparent marriage of Bruno. The film is quite rushed and ends rather abruptly. The scientific part also clearly played a second violin and didn't make much sense, as the subject of cloning and making a new human was too superficially touched upon.

All in all a good way to spend 100 minutes if you are interested in a confronting view on the depressing inheritance the sexual revolution has left for us.

"In the end, there's only death." If you do not bother to read books, this is a naked centerfold of the author's fantasies and shortcomings. Michel Houellebecq's novel shine in new elements. Unusually gifted screenwriter and director, this Oskar Roehler. His innovated remake of "Jud Süss" is well worth two hours of your life. In this film you find an inflamed brilliant ensemble. Try to match this gang. Martina, Nina & Franka is almost too god to be true. And you get all the essential keys to understanding the persona of Houellebecq. Plus an overdose of sadness and grief.

I really looked forward to this film because I've read the book of Michel Houllebecq and this book was quite an interesting piece of literature...written in a very direct and unusual way, compelling, intellectually challenging. But still...this comment is not about the book so a few words about the film: My impression was that they failed to create the typical kind of atmosphere that you experience reading one of Houllebecqs novels. the story often seemed to be an arbitrary mix of some scenes of the book...needless to say - having read the book I knew the deeper sense behind many scenes but I guess without that I would have asked myself quite often...'what has this to do with the rest of the film and why should this be of any interest??' This film never really convinced me nor caught my interest and I think the only remarkable thing about this movie was the solid acting performance of Moritz Bleibtreu in the role as "Bruno". So, all in all it is maybe a better choice for you to grab the book out of the shelf instead of wasting your time with this second-class interpretation.

only if you are able to deal with its strong topic. It's about the meaninglessness of being depressed in an unsatisfying environment built up by oneself. Two brothers Michael and Bruno grow up with different characters and backgrounds. What keeps them together is the inability to create a stable life on their own what can be predominantly deduced on a lack of mother love or interest. I don't want to go into detail or present any spoilers. Therefor check out other reviews. What I really appreciate is the surprisingly good work of all actors who do great in this movie. Especcially Christian Ulmen (who needs little words to say a lot)knows how to present Michael's character so perfectly that it's really a pleasure to watch him on the screen. I also like the development of the plot. You don't know how the characters will develop and how their story will end. Both brothers are not changing in big steps within the movie but in the end you are surprised how far they have drifted from each other.

Just watch it yourself to make your own opinion but please don't expect it to be to entertaining.

This is a plodding, clueless adaptation of Michel Houellebecq's novel of the same name. It manages to include many of the book's dialogs verbatim, while completely missing its point. The main evidence is the outrageous change of the conclusion - the director just mined the novel for catchy phrases and totally refused to tackle its challenging ideas. Or rather he was not able to notice them. Even apart from that, the adaptation is dumb. One example: when Bruno describes to the psychiatrist the biological details of the decomposition of a human corpse, he uses lines that are there in the book, down to the moths with "the names of Italian starlets" - but they belong to the narrator, not to Bruno! Such knowledge is completely inappropriate for his character.

I don't mind the downplaying of the sex scenes - watch some porn if you have never seen it. The causality of the philosophy and culture of the times and the parents' lives on the lives of the main protagonists, the whole point of Michael's enigmatic life, the desperation of the obsession with sex and narcissism of the body, the sheer horror and cruelty of Bruno's existence, all this is downplayed to the point of absence. Houellebecq created a gripping world in his novel that you cannot shake off even if you think you know that he isn't right. The director produced a made-for-TV movie.

Elementary particles starts out as a quest for existence and what this word really means. Two brothers (half-brothers to be precise) realize their lives are not what kids dream about however much they seem to fit in the „mechanism". One is having doubts about his devotion to chase his scientific pioneering while the other does not seem to find comfort in teaching literature any more while being constantly turned down by publishers and neglected by his wife. They both have to reach back to their roots to be able to find out where to go from here, though Bruno (Moritz Bleibtrau) does so amidst rather compulsive circumstances, in a clinic he ends up in. They have not been given much of a head-start in life with their capricious, self-indulgent, impulsive and utterly careless hippie mother who left them both with their troubled and lonesome adolescence. Life has taken no mercy either – that is not the nature of things. Michael (Christian Ulmen) however, finds some inspiration to carry on in the shape of an old, more-than-friend girl pal, while Bruno has to rethink and reestablish his everyday needs and desires. He is living his second childhood – a time without constraints but full of uncertainty and odd, unbalanced characters – trying to escape his feeling of being redundant. Oscar Roehler's stark and thick drama seems a little exaggerating, a bit too much, nevertheless depicts life as it is: after stripped from all the fake Christmas wrappers, often desperate, pitiful at most times and forgiving only every once in a while.

Bernd Eichinger and Oskar Roehler messed it up. Completely. How that was even possible considering Houellebecqs brilliant novel is unbelievable. They just made completely shallow, awful melodramatic crap out of what can be considered probably the single most important and greatest novel that world literature has seen at the turn from the 20th to the 21st century. This film is unbearable for all who have read and understood the book that undoubtedly is as deeply philosophical as it is scandalous, provoking and moralizing.

Eichinger and Roehler stated at the 2006 Berlinale, where the movie premiered: "YOU CANNOT FILM SOCIAL CRITICISM, YOU CAN ONLY FILM MELODRAMS." (Eichinger) "THE UTTERLY FATALISTIC RESUMEE OF THE BOOK COULD NOT BE USED. WE DID NOT WANT TO ADOPT HOELLEBECQ'S MORALE." (Roehler) Besides that, they claimed the novel to be too pornographic to be filmed without major changes. They also frankly admitted not to have had any contact with Houellebecq.

These statements and the attitude behind them are shocking, disgusting and can only serve as a negative example for all film-makers. They can only be adequately qualified with the facit: FILMING A NOVEL - HOW YOU MUST NOT DO IT.

Luckily, there are some brilliant films, which prove all the points claimed by Eichinger and Roehler completely wrong: You can film social criticism and not produce shallow melodramas, as proved for example by Harron's wonderful "American Psycho" (from the Bret Easton Ellis Novel). You can translate the pornographic of a novel into a film without censoring it as proves Despentes' magnificent "Baise-moi!" (from Despentes' identically titled novel). You can adopt a completely fatalistic resumee of a novel in a film as proved by Radford's adorable "1984" (from the famous George Orwell Novel).

It is exactly when this happens, that excellent novels are translated into excellent films. Eichinger and Roehler never had the intention to do so, nor would their abilities have been sufficient to do so, even if they had wanted. So, they had to produce this catastrophe now unjustifiedly bearing the name "Elementarteilchen". They failed as drastically as it is possible.

I think this movie have accomplished something very rare. It's an adaptation that respects the spirit of the novel but doesn't follow it blindly. That's very welcome because Houellebecque is notorious for his polemical discussions, something that would be very hard to fit on a movie or entertainment television. The Movie, then, avoids any major discussion of society, individualism, decadence, and the scientific fiction that closes the novel. It keeps things simple and offers viewers only the "story" of the two brothers, keeping the more hardcore stuff on the books. Photography is very colorful, casting is excellent. The new ending is beautiful. At the bottom, maybe the best introduction to Houellebecque's world.

I wasn't expecting much of this film, even knowing what's it about. I was surprised how cleverly it was made. The main themes of this film are sex and love. Though there was a lot of profanity, everything fit perfectly. It's not one of those films where is a lot of unnecessary profanity just to shock audience. Another good thing about this film is, that it's characters always talk openly with each other, so you get to know them in a very short time and even start to like them. Actually this is a sad story, but I found this movie being optimistic sometimes. It's well filmed and there are many good German actors in this film. There were many unexpected twist, even the ending was not like I expected. It's interesting, funny, shocking and really worth your time.

... or what Ostrakosmos ( another poster ) said ;)

truth be told, the movie tries. it takes random scenes from the novel, it even translates them onto the screen line by line... sometimes. some other times, it rewrites them completely... and poorly. IMO, the problem is that we get only half of the story. or rather, one third... OK, one can't film social criticism - maybe- but at least one shouldn't butcher a splendid novel. we get part of Bruno's desperation and madness, but we don't get to feel or see Michel. what we are given instead is a mere caricature... and it's a pity. the two brothers were each at one end of the human emotions specter. we were given the lower end, but how about the higher one ? I agree, it IS a challenge to bring Michel onto the screen, in a believable way. a challenge the director and the scriptwriter took... and failed at. in the same way, Annabelle's story is ...not diminished, but almost nonexistent. her drama was the catalyst for Michel's drama, but...the movie does not show this. in any way. and on top of all that, the movie starts with the novel's ending, ruining the whole point ! AND it does not touch at all the revolution brought by Michel's utopia ... long story short, in Bruno's language, the novel "delivers" . the movie does not.

great soundtrack, though ;)

oh, to think what Wim Wenders could have done with this material...

Other reviews suggested this film was based on a French novel. If so, I have not read it and have no intention to. I watched this film strictly as a stand-alone entity, not knowing much about its background and its director, Oskar Roehler. I watched it out of a liking for international cinema, hoping I would land a good one. And I did.

One can argue this is a serious film, on a popular subject: love and its impact on life. Apart from some minor 'imperfections', e.g. the physical resemblance of the brothers played by different actors portraying them in youth and adulthood, with one done right and the other out of whack, I find the film was very well done and it commanded my attention throughout all its 112 minutes.

Perhaps it strikes a chord with intellectuals - one brother is a renowned physicist and the other an academic. It is a film that engages you and makes you think and try to get inside the minds of the protagonists, played as two half-brothers with entirely opposite life styles. One more likable than the other.

I enjoyed this film greatly, and regarded it one of the few, memorable German films I have seen in recent years.

... and I'm not talking about the overall voting, that is higher than what I gave the movie. Imo it just doesn't work. Yes it occasionally sparks and has original ideas, but overall it is a mess. A mess that does not care about the characters portrayed in the picture, a mess that doesn't care for the viewer or a storyline/theme that it could follow.

And those are the main points that I do criticize. It begins very good, with many conflicts and interesting story lines ... but after a certain point that breaks up and it is just a mess ... sorry there is no other word to describe it. And just rating that movie good because it goes against the mainstream? Nope won't do it, because I'd betray people who wanted to know what I think of the movie ... So yes the actors are mostly good, but they also disappear into the black hole that must have it's origin in the script ...

OK, so I haven't actually caught any comedy films this year, but I was expecting this to be bleak and unfunny. Instead, myself, my squeeze and most of the audience were bursting out laughing. Never mind the continuity error - if the gravedigger doesn't have you in stitches, then you probably need his skills. This certainly passes the Kermode comedy test! I liked the acting by the tongue tied Michael (Christian Ulmen), who can hardly speak to an audience of his scientific peers, let alone the love of his life. A great deal is conveyed through facial expressions in this film, with one of the best coming from psychiatrist Dr. Schäfer (Corinna Harfouch). The childhood and adolescent scenes get top marks, the younger actors are convincing versions of their older counterparts.

The direction concentrates on that staple of comedy: the stereotype. So the scenes when repressed, reactionary Bruno arrives at the New Age summer camp are certainly predictable, but still genuinely funny, as they unfold, more or less to expectation. The science at the Irish Rosslyn Institute lookalike is just as whacky as the ideas at the summer camp, so I wonder why the director didn't make more of it? Still, at least he showed us how well the cows understand scientists.

I'm giving this eight rather than seven points, for defying my expectations from the synopsis.

The Elementary Particles is a genuinely beautiful movie, well-shot and with several very powerful scenes; it also has two very strong lead performances. The first half is captivating and intriguing; unfortunately, that's where everything that's good about the film is. By the time the film was half-finished I was exhausted and felt like it was trying very hard to shock me. The real shame is that while the film feels like shock cinema, it actually deals with some very important and delicate issues - but it relies far too heavily on clichés and melodrama to allow for those to be taken seriously or create any real thought or debate. It's a self indulgent art piece that tries so hard to be artistic and tragic that it loses sight of what it actually wanted to say.

Two half brothers, Michael and Bruno, abandoned as children by their hippie mother, struggle to form loving relationships. Michael remained faithful to his childhood first love, one he could never act on out of a mixture of cowardice and fear of abandonment. His half-brother whose past is so outlandish the character has no idea how to deal with himself other than walking into a psychiatric ward. Two brothers are left to their own devices, but neither is really strong enough to bear the weight.

It is mostly Bruno's tale, rather than the virginal innocence and weakness of Michael, that dominate this film. The level of ridicule of Bruno's life exceeds most other characters in other films, but none the less brought to you somewhat convincingly by actor Moritz Bleibtreu, although it is hard not to laugh at the absurdity of the events we are supposed to believe. At some point we reach Volaire's 'Candide'-point, where you just wonder what other proof will be brought on stage to illustrate that life is a slow-moving catastrophe. My favorite, however, did not come from Bruno but from the disastrous life of the first love of his brother Michael. Her first (post-prom) relationship left her after two years to join a satanic sect and ended up mutilating and killing people (!?). The movie is a sequence of such tales leaving the psychologically unstable Bruno under -badly needed- medical care, and Michael finding love with his barren childhood sweetheart, excluding the possibility of an improved next generation.

Since the movie is based on Houellebecqs' book, there is some obligation to take it seriously, further promoted by the ending of the film which adds some textual fast-forward into the rest of the characters lives suggesting it is a true story. The complete absurdity of the 'how can we make it worse' attitude which dominates, makes interpretations equally absurd, but we will hand it over none the less: A society which deviates from the loving nuclear family renders people anchor-less, free floating elements in the winds of their time, ever- processing the wounds left behind from their stagnated psychological development. Whether or not you are willing to sit through the movie for this is up to you, but be reassured that it is technically well made and acted. Quite an accomplishment considering the script.

This movie has as much to do with art or originality as a toilet graffiti written with lipstick. (Not that graffiti can't be art or original, but they very rarely are.) It manages to be, just because it can, extremely sappy and extremely crass at the same time, and proud of it.

In comparison with it "American Pie" is innocence itself, and "Sleepless in Seattle" is a sophisticated drama. Oh, and "K-Pax" is rigorously true to scientific facts.

Don't step in it.

(I went to see the movie accidentally without checking it out first, which I usually do. This experience reminds me why.)