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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

Do you think you have a chance?

Michael is a film that sets out to disturb the viewer by portraying the everyday life of a seemingly normal man along side the unsettling story of his secret paedophilia and the child he has hidden away in his basement.

The film lacks enough impact to really be truly thought-provoking and feels like there is a lot of filler and seemingly random moments throughout. There are plenty of scenes where nothing is really happening and I assume these are here to either create a sense of unease in the viewer or to make the whole thing seem more realistic, however neither of those felt true to me. All of this leads up to…

We find it easy to separate evil between good. People are often judged that way on a first instance. However, we spend our entire lives trying to figure out what we really are. The only thing we can be sure of is that only you can really find out, and no one around you ever will. Humans spend years, if not entire lives, with deep secrets that could change anyone's opinion about them.

At its core, this is what Michael is about. We follow a pedophile who keeps a boy locked in his basement. As the audience, we know exactly who he is and we are simply waiting for him to be caught. However, his colleagues, his friends, and his…

I couldn't help thinking of Force Majeure when Michael hits the ski slopes, not just because of the setting of that particular segment, but because of it's parked shooting style, framing the conventional routine of a character down to their personal foibles. More notably however, I realised this was simply not as good as Force Majeure as a spectacle.

Though in no way entertaining, and regrettably unsatisfying, I did enjoy the film's purpose. As other reviewers have said, evil is not always gory or transparent. When Michael becomes aroused on the child's bed, he is in no theatrical quandary, he instead looks accustomed to what should be an unthinkable act, and it is that that makes us shudder. When the…