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…

PORTUGUESE

------

Michael (2011) é um excelente exemplo de interpretação, devido á sua trama, há muitas críticas negativas e positivas, bem divisível e acredito que isso deve ser pelo fato da interpretação, por mais que Michael (2011) não seja explícito, o fato de ser tudo tão natural, lento e cru é o que realmente incomodou a maioria das pessoas que assistiu, inclusive a mim, mas essa é a mensagem do filme, por mais que seja angustiante acompanhar o protagonista em todo o tempo de rodagem e as suas terríveis atrocidades, é isto que o torna essencial e de certa forma necessário de se assistir, pois a maioria dos longas-metragens que tenta retratar essa infeliz realidade de casos de pedófilia, sempre…

*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.…

Austrian movie that shows a couple of days in the life of Michael. Sounds rather mundane, but Michael has a little boy locked up in his basement so that kinda sets the tone very much. It is honestly just a character study of a very disturbed person, but the thing is, you wouldn’t really be able to tell he is. Everything is shot and told in a rather mundane fashion, Michael is generally liked by his family, friends and colleagues, but fuck he has a little boy locked up in his basement!

It’s a disturbing movie/story, without it being gratuitous in its portrayal of, well you can probably imagine what goes on here. Still, I’ve read multiple reviews saying something…

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…

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…

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…

Are all Austrian directors  this clinical and masterful with composition? This film goes about the topic of child abduction in such a non sensational way. It takes a kind napper and uses him for such a chilling character piece. It shows how such a creepy sociopath can not only blend in to society, but actually thrive by mimicking the motions. A lot of practices that we use to evaluate if someone’s sanity are gone through in pane staking fashion. It makes it even more chilling when you see what he’s secretly up to. The performance by Michael Fiuth as the titular Michael was too real, he is cold and menacing in such a subtle way. The editing in this film…

"This is my knife and this is my cock, which should I stick in you?"

The banality of the banality of evil. Enslavement just another chore to work through. Park the car in the garage, put the dishes in the sink, garbage in the bin and trap the child in the basement. The daily grind continues.

Haneke is the obvious reference point, Schleinzer's work too hollowed in the absence of psychology within the cold-hearted home. Michael heads the family unit but the connection to his abducted son is the cruellest appropriation of parent-child relationships as Stockholm syndrome, the routine of homemaking enabling a productive loop of exploitation. Schleinzer's depiction of this sexual violence is spoken solely through his edits -…

PORTUGUESE

------

Michael (2011) é um excelente exemplo de interpretação, devido á sua trama, há muitas críticas negativas e positivas, bem divisível e acredito que isso deve ser pelo fato da interpretação, por mais que Michael (2011) não seja explícito, o fato de ser tudo tão natural, lento e cru é o que realmente incomodou a maioria das pessoas que assistiu, inclusive a mim, mas essa é a mensagem do filme, por mais que seja angustiante acompanhar o protagonista em todo o tempo de rodagem e as suas terríveis atrocidades, é isto que o torna essencial e de certa forma necessário de se assistir, pois a maioria dos longas-metragens que tenta retratar essa infeliz realidade de casos de pedófilia, sempre…

Durante todo o filme eu fiquei querendo uma catarse, e não foi isto que me foi entregue. Mesmo apresentando um final longe do pessimismo que alguns filmes do Haneke trazem (uma clara inspiração para essa produção), ainda assim me sobra ódio de Michael, um homem que sofreu pouco para o tanto de dor que ele trouxe ao mundo.

Mas, pensando bem, talvez o filme seja demasiadamente otimista quando se constata o número de casos impunes de pedofilia e abuso sexual da vida real. Não raramente os pedófilos são membros queridos de uma comunidade ou família, e escondem boa parte de seus comportamentos predatórios do restante do mundo. O mal é ilusório, e as pessoas mais desprezíveis também são capazes de…

Well-acted and interesting, but the modern blasé indie ironic detachment thing is an awkward fit with the story of a pedophile with a kid locked up in his basement, especially the attempted black comic moments; Boney M over the end credits is several steps too far for me (though at least it's not "Daddy Cool"). I understand it's an exercise in exposing potential evil in the outwardly everyday, but that seems like an awfully banal thesis to me after generations of filmmakers informing us of the vitally important fact that your neighbor might be a murderer or child molester. Some surprisingly effective moments, reprehensible in all the ways it should be (though Michael Fuith is almost too "perfect" for the…

Are all Austrian directors  this clinical and masterful with composition? This film goes about the topic of child abduction in such a non sensational way. It takes a kind napper and uses him for such a chilling character piece. It shows how such a creepy sociopath can not only blend in to society, but actually thrive by mimicking the motions. A lot of practices that we use to evaluate if someone’s sanity are gone through in pane staking fashion. It makes it even more chilling when you see what he’s secretly up to. The performance by Michael Fiuth as the titular Michael was too real, he is cold and menacing in such a subtle way. The editing in this film…