Michael
2012 Directed by Markus Schleinzer
Synopsis
A drama focused on five months in the life of pedophile who keeps a 10-year-old boy locked in his basement.
Cast
Popular reviews
More-
A film with such a challenging and sensationalist subject matter as this (a man keeps a child locked in his basement) would lend itself to being exploitative yet director Markus Schleinzer’s, Michael, is far from trashy and is all the more disturbing as a result whilst its timely connection to the Josef Fritzl case makes it frighteningly believable.
The film documents, in cold aloofness, the banality and routine of their ‘relationship’. There is little emphasis on character histories, how long the boy has been Michael’s prisoner and sex slave nor even any moral outrage aimed towards the lead. Instead it is detached with static framing forcing the audience to focus on every little detail and imprisoning the characters within the…
-
Part of the 30 countries festival. Austria
I have no clue why this film works.
Michael is one sick puppy, that much we know right from the beginning.
He is the worst of the worst.
Considering that the film is basically a two-hander with Michael being the centre of it all, it is unimaginable that this film could hold your attention for more than 10 minutes. Why didn't I leave in disgust? Why was I so engaged? How did writer/director Markus Schleinzer pull that off?I think it has to do with two things: our fascination with evil and the 'fly-on-the-wall' camera.
We all know evil people don't have fangs. We know this, but it doesn't change the fact that…
-
Part of Lise and Jonnie’s What A Wonderful World: May 30 days, 30 countries.
Film 8 – May 8 – Austria
The first thing that surprised me about Michael is that I didn’t immediately want to leave the room. If I had known anything about the story ahead of time, I probably would have passed on this screening. I’m a parent, and this is the worst possible nightmare. Hell, I’m so skittish that I still haven’t been able to bring myself to watch The Sweet Hereafter, and my son is an adult now.
Schleinzer’s dispassionate eye, combined with the incredible understated performances by both Michael Fuith and the young David Rauchenberger act like an anesthetic. The most horrific parts are…
-
Although the similarities to Haneke have been noted in other reviews, the film this most reminded me of was Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Both films throw out any preconceptions of their subject and cast them in a unemotional, non-judgemental light and allow you to really get inside the mind of their central figure.
Away from the captive child he keeps locked in his basement, Michael is largely portrayed as a very boring, very normal man and it's easy to see how someone like him could largely go under the radar. However, as we see more and more of Michael and his day to day life, the cracks begin to appear and knowing his secret gives you a different…
-
The story of a man going about his day completing mundane tasks like going to work, eating dinner, grocery shopping, cleaning, and oh by the way he's a pedophile who has a 10 year old boy locked in his basement.
My problem wasn't with the subject matter, it was with how the subject matter was presented. I can handle a film about a pedophile. I've seen The Woodsmans and it's a good film. The way this film goes about telling it's tale just made me very very uncomfortable. I'm not sure what point director Markus Schleinzer was trying to make. Did he want me to sympathize with this guy? Was I supposed to hate him? (which I did) None of…
-
It was a difficult film to watch, horribly, nastily believable and very difficult to review.
Michael appears to be a completely ordinary, not very interesting man, but, unbeknownst to anyone else, hidden away in the basement of his house is a young boy who he abducted from his family.
All films about paedophilia are hard to watch (as they should be) but the utter ordinariness of the characters in this film made it compelling viewing; that similar stories have been seen in real life, and children have suffered the fate of Wolfgang (the imprisoned boy) makes it very difficult to sit though. A deeply upsetting film.
Recent reviews
More-
Films offer us an escape. Often we are taken to a world of wonderment, a life of adrenaline pumping excitement and places of passionate romance. Some films refuse to allow this transport. There is no egress in “Michael”.
Check out the full review: www.lonelyreviewer.com/2013/05/17/foreign-friday-michael/
-
When best of the year lists started appearing in late 2012, I noticed Markus Schleinzer’s Austrian film, Michael, pop up occasionally. Upon reading a brief plot synopsis, I was curious. I was curious to see how a movie about a man who keeps a 10-year-old boy locked in his basement could actually be something people wanted to watch. I was curious how such a seemingly difficult film was considered for the Cannes Palme d’Or. I was curious, but not entirely motivated. In short, I knew enough to know I didn’t want to go there. But one early morning last week, I decided to watch Michael and brave what lie ahead.
Click here to read my full review:
www.andsoitbeginsfilms.com/2013/05/michael-2011.html -
Part of Lise and Jonnie’s What A Wonderful World: May 30 days, 30 countries.
Film 8 – May 8 – Austria
The first thing that surprised me about Michael is that I didn’t immediately want to leave the room. If I had known anything about the story ahead of time, I probably would have passed on this screening. I’m a parent, and this is the worst possible nightmare. Hell, I’m so skittish that I still haven’t been able to bring myself to watch The Sweet Hereafter, and my son is an adult now.
Schleinzer’s dispassionate eye, combined with the incredible understated performances by both Michael Fuith and the young David Rauchenberger act like an anesthetic. The most horrific parts are…
-
Part of the 30 countries festival. Austria
I have no clue why this film works.
Michael is one sick puppy, that much we know right from the beginning.
He is the worst of the worst.
Considering that the film is basically a two-hander with Michael being the centre of it all, it is unimaginable that this film could hold your attention for more than 10 minutes. Why didn't I leave in disgust? Why was I so engaged? How did writer/director Markus Schleinzer pull that off?I think it has to do with two things: our fascination with evil and the 'fly-on-the-wall' camera.
We all know evil people don't have fangs. We know this, but it doesn't change the fact that…
-
Well made uncomfortable film.Had a few problems with the film but it is a daring piece of work that plays it alot straighter than it could of done.I Couldnt recommend it but seek it out and see what you think.
-
Der Film macht sprach- und fassungslos. Die beiden Hauptdarsteller performen auf höchstem Niveau. Das Thema ist kontrovers, die Umsetzung aus Österreich ebenfalls. Empfehlenswert!
Videoreview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mracivGZ6MI
-
The influence of Michael Haneke lingers over one of his disciples work, but this tale of an Austrian pedophile doesn't have the same level of class or intrigue as the best of his master.
-
Essentially a film about the banality of evil. A man keeps a young boy captive in his basement. We see the man and the boy go about their everyday seemingly normal routines, at the same time aware that something awful and immoral is happening.
Because of the "normality" of the action in the film, it could have become boring, but it kept my attention. Probably influenced by Haneke. -
This is one bizarre film, and upon watching it, it’s very easy to tell that the director was influenced by Michael Haneke (I actually think he served as the casting director on Haneke’s films). Overall, I enjoyed this film (if that term can even be applied to a film like this), though it never really added up to much for me. It would have been more interesting if there was some sort of statement trying to be made, or even a deeper theme within the film. I felt that the film was devoid of both of these aspects. And in some cases, the Haneke influence did start to bother me, as it felt that the director wasn’t so much influenced by his style, but rather simply ripping him off. Still, it’s worth a watch, though beware, this is a disturbing film.