Michael

There are some really tense/interesting scenes, and I am a sucker for this Haneke/Dogtooth-esque tone, but there honestly just wasn't enough going on. It felt like Schlenizer thought the character being a paedophile would add an extra layer of context to absolutely anything, and that sadly turned out to not be the case. Still, we learnt one important lesson: paedos can't ski.

Aside from a few tense scenes, this Austrian slice of misery is pretty unedifying, and as drab as its Dogme styling.

It's commendable that Schleinzer chose to tread carefully with this inherently difficult and disturbing subject matter, neither condemning nor condoning Michael. But this objective lens through which we view the characters is just not sufficient. The characters (Michael and the boy) remain almost impenetrable all throughout. I gained no sense whatsoever of the internal turmoil that must be going on underneath. The convenient, easy-way-out ending only added to the disappointment.

"Michael" manages to be hard hitting and tense without actually having anything happen. The subject matter is taken seriously, which I imagine will disappoint people looking for shock value or extreme cinema, and the actors (the kid should probably book therapy in advance) all do a good job. I couldn't decide if there was some pitch black humor in there or if I'm just a terrible person.

A stark look into the life of a pedophile which is probably as slow-of-a-burn as you can get but had me up and about in my seat once the final 10 or so minutes kicked in. Throughout the film you will be asking yourself how many more of these cases have been left unsolved. Utterly terrifying stuff and it does not even feature mature graphic content.

Troche jak u Haneke i milosnicy nieco wczesniejszych filmow tego rezysera powinni poczuc sie niemal jak w domu. Dobry film.

was one of the best in cannes competition,deserved at least one major award.a powerful satire about the contemporary western society with a sarcastic attitude.a powerful and cold blooded directing,sencronyzed with the story.

Enthralling.

Hard to rate. It did keep my attention, and it was well made (even with some overly long shots towards the beginning). While naturally disturbing, it doesn’t got out of its way to be shocking or graphic. It’s not a “must see”, and it’s hard to recommend, but it’s a decently made film.

(i had promised myself that i'm not gonna give 7 to a film anymore because that's what i'm prone to but, i just have to!) i wish the storyline was a bit more progressive.

It's macabre, dark and very unpleasant. But I hated that fucking ending. I'm so bored with this cold and ironic haneke wannabe directing, it worked fine for a while in here because of the film's main character, but it's just not a right approach to storyteling, I think.

nisan 2012, ist film fest & Michael, pedofili gibi zor bir konuyu, haneke-vari bir tavir ile sorgulamadan, oldugu gibi ortaya koyuyor. Takdir edilesi bir dengeye sahip. film, asil basarisini da bu dengesine borclu.

The story of the worlds most boring man. Who just so happens to be a pedophile.

"Markus Schleinzer turns the film's victim into little more than a kicking, screaming cipher whose sufferings, while not exploited, are nonetheless diminished to the stuff of clinical observation." - Andrew Schenker

Understated and naturalistic in its approach, but the build up to the ending was totally gripping. A film that stays with you.

What a horrible film. It's well-made, but I'm not quite sure what the point of it all was

The stark, matter-of-fact approach Markus Schleinzer takes to this movie (about a paedophile and his captive child) is more terrifying than any number of graphic horror movies you can name. It left me shaken, even though there is nothing remotely graphic here, and the sexual abuse taken place is discreetly implied only once or twice. There's a lot to think about here, though you might not have fun doing so.