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…

Twenty-sixth watch of March around the World: Austria. Surprisingly watchable due to the detached stance of filmmaker Markus Schleinzer, which I think is the only ‘good’ way to tackle the subject of a paedophile who has a ten-year-old locked in his basement. An emotional drama would always result in something exploitive or worse; this on the other hands keeps temperatures low, even though some (implicated) scenes - naturally - will make the viewer’s blood boil. As a whole, however, the film relies too much on its unbelievably satisfying ending; it wouldn’t mind if there were more elements contributing to the plot, since it is already quite unique in its premise and doesn’t need to be so stripped down in order…

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…

*Hands my friend six DVDs*

Me: "So which one do you want to watch."

*Friend starts going through DVDs*

To Myself: (Please don't pick Michael, please don't pick Michael).

Friend: "Hey, this movie Michael looks pretty weird. Want to watch it?

To Myself: (Say no)!

Me: "Yeah, definitely."

BIG MISTAKE. GODDAMMIT.

I haven't been this fucked up from a movie since watching Angst and that's saying something considering NONE of the violence (except for a car crash) or sexual content is shown on the screen, only alluded to, which makes this movie all the more chilling. This is definitely one of the creepiest movies I've ever seen, and probably the most realistic portraits of a pedophile I've seen on film.…

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…

Michael is a cold, matter of fact observation of a paedophile, and it is all the more bleak and terrifying for its approach. Markus Schleinzer's style is somewhat similar to Haneke—the camera is mostly stationary, there's very little in the way of stylistic flourishes—yet there's a homelier quality to Michael. An almost TV movie feel with its slowly paced, evenly balanced, steady flow of mids and wides. That might sound like an insult, but it really works to the film's favour in creating an unassuming atmosphere that emphasises the banality of Michael's life outside of his house versus the depravity of what goes on inside. It is a beautiful example of the powers of subtlety and restraint. Michael is difficult…

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…

Jesus fuck.

Michael is horrifying in showing the mundane life of a monster. As Michael goes about his every day chores, a lot centring around the young boy he has kidnapped and kept in his basement, the audience sees just how "normal" evil can be. This isn't John Martin in Vanbebber's Roadkill or Hannibal Lector. This is way more soul shattering, and probably a lot more realistic, than those other cinematic "monsters".

And though a lot of the film is shockingly low key, we see the subtle changes in the kidnapped child that are much more heartbreaking than had it been over the top. I could almost see another filmmaker make the kidnapped boy go into a "dream world" to…