Krabat is a good adaption of the novel by Otfried Preußler. The story is set in the mid 17th century during the Thirty Years' War, and tells us the story of Krabat, a homeless orphan that finds shelter in a mill. But not everything is as it seems to be. A beautiful cinematography, fine settings and good acting make watching this dark and twisted fairy tale a real pleasure. There are only a real few movies of German cinema that provide this quality regarding the fantasy genre: The NeverEnding Story (1984) and Momo (1986) comes to mind.
19 Reviews
Decent movie
Alamarena12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
(I will keep this as spoiler-free as I can, mostly checked the box to be on the safe side).
I loved this book when I was younger (I'm in my mid-20s now) and I played the part of the "Master" in a school play one year, so I have a bit of a connection with the story and was very looking forward to seeing this movie. Overall, I have to say it was decent, but nothing to knock my socks off (7 out of 10). They did have to compress a lot of the action, and a lot of the character development suffers (Krabat's evolving from ambitious prize student to somewhat suspicious to doing his own thing), though this is always a problem with book adaptations and not generally something I blame them for. I do have issues with parts of the story that are outright changed, but not necessarily for the better. While I go back and forth on the showdown scene, the previously mentioned "soldiers" scene is absolutely terrible. As a suggestion, the events that lead to Tonda's having gray hair could have been covered in a brief flashback (they don't actually occur during Krabat's time at the mill, anyway), and made room for something else. The acting is very good, especially on the parts of Brühl and Redl; the main character is a bit annoying (he goes from blank-faced boy to angry rebel, skipping the more insightful aspects of Krabat's character -and one of his lines towards the end of the movie was so cheesy I wanted to punch him for it). Scenery and music were nice if a bit Lord of the Rings-esquire (the "Gevatter" was totally a Ringwraith before he turned into Emperor Palpatine and the Kantorka had some initial backup from Enya it seemed), though I'll have to agree on the cliché medieval fantasy bit (especially the bad teeth looked fake). I would not recommend this movie for people who have not read and enjoyed the book, but for those who have, it's quite worthwhile to see, despite all.
I loved this book when I was younger (I'm in my mid-20s now) and I played the part of the "Master" in a school play one year, so I have a bit of a connection with the story and was very looking forward to seeing this movie. Overall, I have to say it was decent, but nothing to knock my socks off (7 out of 10). They did have to compress a lot of the action, and a lot of the character development suffers (Krabat's evolving from ambitious prize student to somewhat suspicious to doing his own thing), though this is always a problem with book adaptations and not generally something I blame them for. I do have issues with parts of the story that are outright changed, but not necessarily for the better. While I go back and forth on the showdown scene, the previously mentioned "soldiers" scene is absolutely terrible. As a suggestion, the events that lead to Tonda's having gray hair could have been covered in a brief flashback (they don't actually occur during Krabat's time at the mill, anyway), and made room for something else. The acting is very good, especially on the parts of Brühl and Redl; the main character is a bit annoying (he goes from blank-faced boy to angry rebel, skipping the more insightful aspects of Krabat's character -and one of his lines towards the end of the movie was so cheesy I wanted to punch him for it). Scenery and music were nice if a bit Lord of the Rings-esquire (the "Gevatter" was totally a Ringwraith before he turned into Emperor Palpatine and the Kantorka had some initial backup from Enya it seemed), though I'll have to agree on the cliché medieval fantasy bit (especially the bad teeth looked fake). I would not recommend this movie for people who have not read and enjoyed the book, but for those who have, it's quite worthwhile to see, despite all.
The missing year
dbudelsky7 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
After watching the film, I was unsure what was wrong with it. The pictures are magnificent, the acting was OK to good the score was good and the plot was there. Palpatine replacing the Gevatter was may be OK. I think the Gevatter as described in the book is really hard to transfer onto the screen.
The magic was changed in a bad way as described in comments before. The landscape is changed, too. I did not like this, but one has to see the film as an own work. A "Plan 9 from outer space" like goof is the Kantorka entering the mill in the night and the journeymen leaving with her in bright daylight only minutes later. But this only explains, why the film is not a really great one and not, why it is only a film as thousands more.
After rethinking what did not work, things came back to the missing year. The point which worked the least in the book is the shortage of time. Krabat is getting from the newbie to one main antagonist and the possible successor of the master within three years in a ritual death cycle lasting one year. So in the book he is able to see the rhythm of new trainee to prey only two times completely while other journeymen had an advance of at least 9 years for this and react accordingly at the end of the year. And the relationship of Krabat to the Kantorka can built up by very few meetings within year 2 and 3. So the development of Krabat himself is very fast and nearly unbelievable in the book.
By omitting one year in the film, the pace goes over the edge. To explain the Krabat/Kantorka relationship, the journeymen have to stumble massively into the town life as positive figures, therefore the awful fight scene. And Krabat has to go to the town on easter himself and Juro has to catch him in the town (and reveal himself). The original scene in the book, where Juro is "accidently" burning Krabats' hand is much more appropriate but give not enough time for Krabat to physically meet the Kantorka during the rest of the film. As a result of all this, the changing of Krabat during the story is getting implausible. So is for an example to add the suicide attempt.
The film is simply lacking plausibility by telling a story of breaking a cycle in too short time. You can not give the real impression of a cycle by only showing it once. An additional hour for the third year would have made the film a much better one. Even then, Pumphutt or Dresden had to be left out which still changes the picture of the master, but a film can never suit a novel.
The magic was changed in a bad way as described in comments before. The landscape is changed, too. I did not like this, but one has to see the film as an own work. A "Plan 9 from outer space" like goof is the Kantorka entering the mill in the night and the journeymen leaving with her in bright daylight only minutes later. But this only explains, why the film is not a really great one and not, why it is only a film as thousands more.
After rethinking what did not work, things came back to the missing year. The point which worked the least in the book is the shortage of time. Krabat is getting from the newbie to one main antagonist and the possible successor of the master within three years in a ritual death cycle lasting one year. So in the book he is able to see the rhythm of new trainee to prey only two times completely while other journeymen had an advance of at least 9 years for this and react accordingly at the end of the year. And the relationship of Krabat to the Kantorka can built up by very few meetings within year 2 and 3. So the development of Krabat himself is very fast and nearly unbelievable in the book.
By omitting one year in the film, the pace goes over the edge. To explain the Krabat/Kantorka relationship, the journeymen have to stumble massively into the town life as positive figures, therefore the awful fight scene. And Krabat has to go to the town on easter himself and Juro has to catch him in the town (and reveal himself). The original scene in the book, where Juro is "accidently" burning Krabats' hand is much more appropriate but give not enough time for Krabat to physically meet the Kantorka during the rest of the film. As a result of all this, the changing of Krabat during the story is getting implausible. So is for an example to add the suicide attempt.
The film is simply lacking plausibility by telling a story of breaking a cycle in too short time. You can not give the real impression of a cycle by only showing it once. An additional hour for the third year would have made the film a much better one. Even then, Pumphutt or Dresden had to be left out which still changes the picture of the master, but a film can never suit a novel.
Expected the worst and was surprised
periocus9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Went to see the movie yesterday.
I have been a fan of the krabat-book since i was young and the film ,made by Zeman, made me some kind of fanatic and it seems i am not the only one.
I read a lot of critics about this films. Other people like me, being disappointed what they made of the book, but as a real fan you have to see it all, even if it breaks your heart. In fact i cannot share most of the bad reviews about it. It is not a literature film, but i does not intend to be it. When you keep that in mind it was entertaining, more like the "Hollywood"-Version of the book.
OK! The behavior in the film of the boys is not affected by fear, as described in the book and they are more like individuals, than a band of lost souls. The acting could have been better of some actors, but Daniel Brühl and some others kept the level very high to the point of his characters death. For the rest the story was very close to the book, so it held itself. I think it is important to show their despair and they did with the suicide scene, which is also in the book. The only thing i really did not like was the fighting scene in the middle of the movie, which is not in the book. I could hardly watch it. Very fast and the picture seemed to be broken. It was very eye- and mind hurting for me. Some funny, important scenes from the book are left out, which might have done the movie good. Why they use Magic is not explained in the movie and the master is more like a father figure, then the all evil in the book. If they did, then movie would have been a mess. The book tells, that they learn Magic to trick other people, to rob them, to betray them, to gain power over them, which is very tempting. It is more like an allegory for the youth in the third Reich. The movie is more like the youth in the 30-years war and their search for a home, a base, at all costs.
But they kept the main aspect. Power can lead you on the wrong way and everything has its price. This is important.
I have been a fan of the krabat-book since i was young and the film ,made by Zeman, made me some kind of fanatic and it seems i am not the only one.
I read a lot of critics about this films. Other people like me, being disappointed what they made of the book, but as a real fan you have to see it all, even if it breaks your heart. In fact i cannot share most of the bad reviews about it. It is not a literature film, but i does not intend to be it. When you keep that in mind it was entertaining, more like the "Hollywood"-Version of the book.
OK! The behavior in the film of the boys is not affected by fear, as described in the book and they are more like individuals, than a band of lost souls. The acting could have been better of some actors, but Daniel Brühl and some others kept the level very high to the point of his characters death. For the rest the story was very close to the book, so it held itself. I think it is important to show their despair and they did with the suicide scene, which is also in the book. The only thing i really did not like was the fighting scene in the middle of the movie, which is not in the book. I could hardly watch it. Very fast and the picture seemed to be broken. It was very eye- and mind hurting for me. Some funny, important scenes from the book are left out, which might have done the movie good. Why they use Magic is not explained in the movie and the master is more like a father figure, then the all evil in the book. If they did, then movie would have been a mess. The book tells, that they learn Magic to trick other people, to rob them, to betray them, to gain power over them, which is very tempting. It is more like an allegory for the youth in the third Reich. The movie is more like the youth in the 30-years war and their search for a home, a base, at all costs.
But they kept the main aspect. Power can lead you on the wrong way and everything has its price. This is important.
Unsatisfying compared to the novel
g-moff13 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The story is set in the European 30-year-war and is about a young homeless boy (Krabat) who ends up as an apprentice in a mill. Its miller is in fact a dark magic master who needs 12 apprentices to get the mill going. Every year, one of the apprentices has to die to keep the master alive; this does, no surprise, somehow frighten the apprentices... There is a way to become free again: through the love of a girl. Etc. etc. guess what happens? Right... The movie is based on Ottfried Preußler's "Krabat" novel which I recommend very much. The movie I don't recommend so much. It starts OK, setting is OK, actors are OK, Krabat slowly unfolds the mill's secrets - but after about two thirds of the movie, it slows down somehow and you can pretty much guess what's gonna happen. Problem is that vital elements of the book were left out: a confrontation between the master and a straying legendary wizard (the master loses and therefore the apprentices learn that he can be beaten) and a magical journey to the magnificent Saxon capital Dresden, which certainly should have been included into the film. Also, in the book it takes three years (which are actually nine years outside the mill) until the final showdown; in the film one year has been omitted and, knowing the book, I felt rather disappointed and betrayed about that. It might not be that bad if you don't know the book. Like other commentators, I recommend not to watch the movie in case you have read the novel; if you haven't you might watch it and get entertained a little but not too much.
Dark movie, but a bit predictable
KrisNederland28 December 2009
I went to see this movie a couple of days ago, not knowing what to expect. I never read the book.
I kind of liked it, but it wasn't as good as I hoped it would be.
It was really easy to predict the way the story unfolded and in the end it's just another 'love conquers all' storyline. (which isn't that bad, because we all want love to conquer, don't we?)
I found the transformation to ravens was very beautifully done. And there's the scene when Krabat meets his girl, which was a nice way to visualize the magic.
I enjoyed myself with this movie, but I don't think I will remember it a year from now...
I kind of liked it, but it wasn't as good as I hoped it would be.
It was really easy to predict the way the story unfolded and in the end it's just another 'love conquers all' storyline. (which isn't that bad, because we all want love to conquer, don't we?)
I found the transformation to ravens was very beautifully done. And there's the scene when Krabat meets his girl, which was a nice way to visualize the magic.
I enjoyed myself with this movie, but I don't think I will remember it a year from now...
why ruin a perfect storyline?
brigitta-schmid7 August 2012
Krabat, boring??? How can that be? I just don't get it - Preussler s novel would have made a wonderful script, if they stuck to his idea instead of changing most of it. didn't they see it? In an age when fantasy works like the Lord of the Rings are made into fantastic movies, it is inexcusable that the screenwriters changed so much of the original storyline, and killed so much of its beauty and depth. The movie was shallow at best Yes, the basic story is about love being the only thing that can overcome the darkness. the biggest crime that was done here was to change the characters: The deep bond between Michal and Merten, which leads to Merten trying to run away and finally kill himself. Lyschko not a bad guy in the end, the betrayal played down to nothing... I really like Daniel Brühl, but Tonda? Also, whatever magic there was, it didn't come through.
It was all about power over people, why not lighten the story up as Preussler had done magnificently in the book and send them off to the market or show how the master - and therefore the devil whom he served - manipulated the politicians of this time? could it have been a matter of budget? Or is it just impossible for us Germans to dive into the spiritual side of things? I don't think any of the changes made to the story were really necessary - it was perfect as it was written, and the screenwriters changed it into a mediocre, lenghty dark tale, nothing more or less. Definitely not what the book was: A story that captured generations of readers. I predict that this movie will be forgotten very quickly.
It was all about power over people, why not lighten the story up as Preussler had done magnificently in the book and send them off to the market or show how the master - and therefore the devil whom he served - manipulated the politicians of this time? could it have been a matter of budget? Or is it just impossible for us Germans to dive into the spiritual side of things? I don't think any of the changes made to the story were really necessary - it was perfect as it was written, and the screenwriters changed it into a mediocre, lenghty dark tale, nothing more or less. Definitely not what the book was: A story that captured generations of readers. I predict that this movie will be forgotten very quickly.
Beautiful
lual16 October 2008
"Krabat" has been one of the classics of youth literature in Germany for almost 40 years and one wonders why nobody tried to make a movie out of it earlier. Actually, it is not that hard to answer this question since "Krabat" is a very grim and dark tale with some gruesome deaths, an ending that comes across as rather anticlimactic and above all an incredible amount of religious symbolism (even though the book is no sappy Christian novel) that would make it hard to market it. Parents would not go and see this movie with their kids and young people might not find it cool enough. Fortunately, the producers were smart enough to think of another target group: grown-ups who read the book in their youth and have been haunted by it ever since.
Some changes have been made. The symbolism is reduced, the role of the "Kantorka" is slightly expanded, which makes the showdown a little more exciting and Tonda's love to Worschula plays a bigger part than it does in the novel. Make no mistake, though, both women still have small roles. The story is shortened by one year (so that it now covers only two years instead of three which ultimately saves the life of one of the boys - and to those who only watched the movie but haven't read the book: It is not the guy you think it might be) and the story centers even more on Krabat than in the book, which means that all scenes that explain more about the master such as the sorcerer's duel and the trip to the Elector in Dresden were left out.
I don't mind these changes too much. While the trip to Dresden was in my opinion one of the most memorable scenes of the book I can understand why it had to go. There are some other minor changes which I won't go into. But even with the shortening of the story, Kreuzpaintner still had a lot left in his hands that he had to press into two hours. And I have to say that he does not entirely succeed. Kreuzpaintner does something Preußler does a lot in his book: He only hints at many things and hopes that the viewer will link the parts together. But Preußler had a much bigger story than Kreuzpaintner does and often this makes the movie feel rushed or incomplete. But still, the story is touching and gripping and in my opinion totally satisfying.
The cinematography is outstanding. The images are truly beautiful, and the aerial shots even allow the viewer to see the entire set. Incredible work has been done here. Now, in most big German productions there is one scene in which the director decides to go totally Hollywood and usually this ends in a disaster. The same thing unfortunately happens here when the boys get into a fight with some marauding soldiers. Kreuzpaintner tries to out-Scott Ridley Scott here and the picture is so distorted that not only can you barely see what is happening but it also really hurts the eyes. What makes this even worse is that this makes it look like they tried to cover up bad fighting stunts with these scenes even though I am sure that they were in fact done well.
The actors are mainly well cast. Brühl, Redl (especially Redl!), Stadlober all act well and make us forget the actor behind the role (Brühl and Redl succeed better than Stadlober) Hanno Koffler, whom I usually like a lot, does some over-acting which seems annoying at first, but since he plays Juro that might have been a deliberate choice. Unfortunately, David Kross is a little weak, but this seems to be the curse of title characters who, after all, are supposed to serve as models for identification. The guy I actually liked best was Moritz Grove, who plays Merten as thoughtful, caring and in the end almost tragic. All in all,it has to be said that the casting agents really did their job well in making these guys distinguishable, even though some of their parts are rather small.
While I liked the set design and the costumes, I was not too pleased about the make-up. Smeering some black paint on strategic places on the actors' faces so that they look dirty but still pretty gets on my nerves when it happens through an entire movie. It really looks fake after a while and when you get to scenes where the actors show their shaved armpits, you cannot help but laugh at this pseudo-historical mess.
I have to say, in spite of some criticism I really liked the movie and I will recommend it to everyone. To people who read the book it will bring back great childhood memories and others who have not read it will find the movie entertaining, thrilling and maybe even scary.
But just like the movie ends on a big "f--- you" to the audience I will end this review with my biggest gripe about the movie: Who on earth made the decision to put such a terrible song at the end of the movie? The picture has such an incredibly beautiful score and does everything to set the mood right and they actually decide to put some electro dance track over the credits!!!! This must be one of the worst choices of a film-promoting song in film history! The people behind this decision should really lower their heads in shame!
Some changes have been made. The symbolism is reduced, the role of the "Kantorka" is slightly expanded, which makes the showdown a little more exciting and Tonda's love to Worschula plays a bigger part than it does in the novel. Make no mistake, though, both women still have small roles. The story is shortened by one year (so that it now covers only two years instead of three which ultimately saves the life of one of the boys - and to those who only watched the movie but haven't read the book: It is not the guy you think it might be) and the story centers even more on Krabat than in the book, which means that all scenes that explain more about the master such as the sorcerer's duel and the trip to the Elector in Dresden were left out.
I don't mind these changes too much. While the trip to Dresden was in my opinion one of the most memorable scenes of the book I can understand why it had to go. There are some other minor changes which I won't go into. But even with the shortening of the story, Kreuzpaintner still had a lot left in his hands that he had to press into two hours. And I have to say that he does not entirely succeed. Kreuzpaintner does something Preußler does a lot in his book: He only hints at many things and hopes that the viewer will link the parts together. But Preußler had a much bigger story than Kreuzpaintner does and often this makes the movie feel rushed or incomplete. But still, the story is touching and gripping and in my opinion totally satisfying.
The cinematography is outstanding. The images are truly beautiful, and the aerial shots even allow the viewer to see the entire set. Incredible work has been done here. Now, in most big German productions there is one scene in which the director decides to go totally Hollywood and usually this ends in a disaster. The same thing unfortunately happens here when the boys get into a fight with some marauding soldiers. Kreuzpaintner tries to out-Scott Ridley Scott here and the picture is so distorted that not only can you barely see what is happening but it also really hurts the eyes. What makes this even worse is that this makes it look like they tried to cover up bad fighting stunts with these scenes even though I am sure that they were in fact done well.
The actors are mainly well cast. Brühl, Redl (especially Redl!), Stadlober all act well and make us forget the actor behind the role (Brühl and Redl succeed better than Stadlober) Hanno Koffler, whom I usually like a lot, does some over-acting which seems annoying at first, but since he plays Juro that might have been a deliberate choice. Unfortunately, David Kross is a little weak, but this seems to be the curse of title characters who, after all, are supposed to serve as models for identification. The guy I actually liked best was Moritz Grove, who plays Merten as thoughtful, caring and in the end almost tragic. All in all,it has to be said that the casting agents really did their job well in making these guys distinguishable, even though some of their parts are rather small.
While I liked the set design and the costumes, I was not too pleased about the make-up. Smeering some black paint on strategic places on the actors' faces so that they look dirty but still pretty gets on my nerves when it happens through an entire movie. It really looks fake after a while and when you get to scenes where the actors show their shaved armpits, you cannot help but laugh at this pseudo-historical mess.
I have to say, in spite of some criticism I really liked the movie and I will recommend it to everyone. To people who read the book it will bring back great childhood memories and others who have not read it will find the movie entertaining, thrilling and maybe even scary.
But just like the movie ends on a big "f--- you" to the audience I will end this review with my biggest gripe about the movie: Who on earth made the decision to put such a terrible song at the end of the movie? The picture has such an incredibly beautiful score and does everything to set the mood right and they actually decide to put some electro dance track over the credits!!!! This must be one of the worst choices of a film-promoting song in film history! The people behind this decision should really lower their heads in shame!
Rare German fantasy movie, except the fairy tales of course
Horst_In_Translation3 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
When you hear the word "Krabat", you will probably wonder first of all what is that. If you think, it has to do with the Moroccan city, you are completely wrong. If you think it includes the German word for raven, you are much closer, but most of all the film is simply named after the film's main character played by David Kross. This movie has some of the most known younger German actors in its cast. Apart from Kross, who you may have seen in "The Reader", there is also Daniel Brühl, Robert Stadlober, Anna Thalbach, Hanno Kofler and my personal favorite Charly Hübner. I'm usually not too big on Kross, Stadlober and Brühl, but at least the latter impressed me occasionally here. I would say that this is mostly a kids movie, although a fairly dark one, but adult audiences can also have a good time watching.
The main antagonist is played by Christian Redl, who is also the only older actor in the cast. He plays an evil sorcerer, but as he seemed to be a bit of a father figure to the boys for quite a while, it was initially unclear how evil he really is and I even considered for a moment that Stadlober's character my be the main villain because of Krabat's dislike for him. The movie is written and directed by Marco Kreuzpaintner. It is an adaptation from the late Otfried Preußler's (one of Germany's most famous children's book authors) novel. Kreuzpaintner already worked with a few cast members like Kofler, Stadlober or Paula Kalenberg, the female main character and love interest to Krabat. For the director it is the return back to Germany from Hollywood after making a film with Kevin Kline one year earlier. He is still fairly young, was 30 when he made this film, so we may get many more films from him and I hope they won't be worse than "Krabat".
The film won a handful awards and also scored nominations at the German Film awards in the smaller categories. There really wasn't much wrong with this movie. The thing that maybe bothered me the most was the choice of the song "Allein, allein" for the soundtrack. It was a huge hit here in Germany, but I felt that it did not suit the film or the topic at all. Apart from that, it's not a good song at all in my opinion. Really bad choice. They simply should have gone for some gloomy tune without lyrics in my opinion. But back to the more positive factors: I liked how, with the introduction of Krabat's childhood friend, Krabat turned into Brühl's character and the young boy was pretty much Krabat when he freshly joined the group. The fact that the boys are the ravens was clear from the very beginning and it is a good idea although I wish it could have surprised me or they would have added more to that subplot except the ending scene with the girl choosing the correct raven. The 20th Century Fox intro with the ravens was pretty nice as well. However, I wondered what the whole leaving your body plot was about. Brühl's character and Krabat were doing it when Krabat meets his girl the first time. And what was behind the whole thing that they should not have a girlfriend? I guess it was the sorcerer's fear that he could not fight love and that he may lose all his boys just like he did at the end of the film. But one or two more scenes could have helped in my opinion. They could have cut some of the less significant scenes for that. The film runs for pretty much exactly 2 hours and they could have done without 5-10 minutes, because it is already very long, especially for children. Most German kids movies these days do not cross the 100-minute mark.
Anyway, as a whole I liked this movie and finally I would also like to mention explicitly the good work with the aging makeup for Redl's and Brühl's characters. The film has some nice fairytale and fantasy elements which made sure it did not drag at all or only once or twice which is very acceptable given the runtime. Very atmospheric too. Recommended.
The main antagonist is played by Christian Redl, who is also the only older actor in the cast. He plays an evil sorcerer, but as he seemed to be a bit of a father figure to the boys for quite a while, it was initially unclear how evil he really is and I even considered for a moment that Stadlober's character my be the main villain because of Krabat's dislike for him. The movie is written and directed by Marco Kreuzpaintner. It is an adaptation from the late Otfried Preußler's (one of Germany's most famous children's book authors) novel. Kreuzpaintner already worked with a few cast members like Kofler, Stadlober or Paula Kalenberg, the female main character and love interest to Krabat. For the director it is the return back to Germany from Hollywood after making a film with Kevin Kline one year earlier. He is still fairly young, was 30 when he made this film, so we may get many more films from him and I hope they won't be worse than "Krabat".
The film won a handful awards and also scored nominations at the German Film awards in the smaller categories. There really wasn't much wrong with this movie. The thing that maybe bothered me the most was the choice of the song "Allein, allein" for the soundtrack. It was a huge hit here in Germany, but I felt that it did not suit the film or the topic at all. Apart from that, it's not a good song at all in my opinion. Really bad choice. They simply should have gone for some gloomy tune without lyrics in my opinion. But back to the more positive factors: I liked how, with the introduction of Krabat's childhood friend, Krabat turned into Brühl's character and the young boy was pretty much Krabat when he freshly joined the group. The fact that the boys are the ravens was clear from the very beginning and it is a good idea although I wish it could have surprised me or they would have added more to that subplot except the ending scene with the girl choosing the correct raven. The 20th Century Fox intro with the ravens was pretty nice as well. However, I wondered what the whole leaving your body plot was about. Brühl's character and Krabat were doing it when Krabat meets his girl the first time. And what was behind the whole thing that they should not have a girlfriend? I guess it was the sorcerer's fear that he could not fight love and that he may lose all his boys just like he did at the end of the film. But one or two more scenes could have helped in my opinion. They could have cut some of the less significant scenes for that. The film runs for pretty much exactly 2 hours and they could have done without 5-10 minutes, because it is already very long, especially for children. Most German kids movies these days do not cross the 100-minute mark.
Anyway, as a whole I liked this movie and finally I would also like to mention explicitly the good work with the aging makeup for Redl's and Brühl's characters. The film has some nice fairytale and fantasy elements which made sure it did not drag at all or only once or twice which is very acceptable given the runtime. Very atmospheric too. Recommended.
Much worse than the book
Ralf-319 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.
If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.
Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse):
Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes:
If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.
Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse):
- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.
- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.
- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.
- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.
- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.
Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes:
- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.
- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.
Unexpected Greatness
patrickgamer10 September 2008
I went to see this last night at the Toronto Film Festival. My wife picked it out, and I had expected it to be a silly kid's flick about magic and I was happily surprised. Krabat turned out to be a very good movie.
It is not at all cheesy or goofy. I found the screenplay well written, the acting was impressive, and the plot that keeps you engaged. I would recommend this to anyone looking for a change of pace from American fantasy flicks.
The basic story takes place at the end of the 30 years war in Germany. It focuses on a young orphan named Krabat. I won't give any more details, except to say that it's an interesting twist on the idea of magic.
I'm not saying it's a 10/10 (I gave it 9) there are a few inconsistencies in the film, but they exist outside the main line of the story, and you don't notice them until after the credits are finished.
It is not at all cheesy or goofy. I found the screenplay well written, the acting was impressive, and the plot that keeps you engaged. I would recommend this to anyone looking for a change of pace from American fantasy flicks.
The basic story takes place at the end of the 30 years war in Germany. It focuses on a young orphan named Krabat. I won't give any more details, except to say that it's an interesting twist on the idea of magic.
I'm not saying it's a 10/10 (I gave it 9) there are a few inconsistencies in the film, but they exist outside the main line of the story, and you don't notice them until after the credits are finished.
Not as good as it should have been
praagsigaar10 February 2010
Hm. I read the book as a kid (a long time ago) and was impressed back then. So no movie could ever live up to that. I've seen it in English but would probably have preferred the German version. To late now. But anyhow. The cinematography is great, the art direction is good (a bit too much 'puppet house style' for me) and the acting is OK. The story is just like I remember it. But without the magic. I do not mean wizardry, of that there's enough. But it never really got to me. Unfortunately. It might be the art direction that does not feel real enough. It might be the acting. I do not know. I need ten lines so here is the tenth line.
Disappointing
pkanzow6 January 2020
Having read the book times and times again since my childhood, I was excited to learn a movie was made, but I was disappinted.
The story, quickly summarized, is located in Augustus the Strong's Saxony, Germany around 1700. It is about a dark magical school disguised as a mill with 12 young journeymen and a master who trains his pupils but also has a contract with the devil to offer one of them each year. Krabat, a 14-year-old beggar enters the school, enthusiactically picks up magical knowledge but then notes the evil behind it and that he and his comrades are all in a deathly trap. The only way out, he learns, is to gain the love of a girl and have her asking his release from the master. But this comes at a deadly risk, and others have already failed and lost their lives...
Things that bother me on this movie: 1. The movie's mood is always dark. But in the book, while the apprentices are generally in a desperate situation, they are also young, and there are episodes full of wit and humor, the optimism of the youth. 2. Scenes of the book which would have been great in the film have been omitted, and dull scenes with no sense have been inserted instead. Left out are the Pumphutt duel (a great effects opportunity missed), the Dresden visit (again a great opportunity missed to show the beautiful palaces), the oxen sale, the mocking of the recruiters and much more scenes who could have inserted some fun into the dreary dullness. Instead we see a pointless and boring scene where the young men fight some soldiers who want to loot a village - this was not in the book. 3. The screenwriters and directors could not free themselves from images of other fantasy films with somewhat similar plotlines, mainly Star Wars and Harry Potter. Why do we need to see Palpatine the Emperor and the Marauder's Map in this movie? Why are the journeymen waving around with sticks like Jedi trainees? 4. In the book, the Kantorka has light hair to symbolize her "white magic" of love as opposed to the Dark Arts taught in the mill. In the movie she is black-haired and thus adds no visual contrast to the overall dark picture.
Summary: A missed opportunity. Please do a remake with better screenwriting/directing which follow the book more closely, because the book is a masterpiece you cannot improve.
The story, quickly summarized, is located in Augustus the Strong's Saxony, Germany around 1700. It is about a dark magical school disguised as a mill with 12 young journeymen and a master who trains his pupils but also has a contract with the devil to offer one of them each year. Krabat, a 14-year-old beggar enters the school, enthusiactically picks up magical knowledge but then notes the evil behind it and that he and his comrades are all in a deathly trap. The only way out, he learns, is to gain the love of a girl and have her asking his release from the master. But this comes at a deadly risk, and others have already failed and lost their lives...
Things that bother me on this movie: 1. The movie's mood is always dark. But in the book, while the apprentices are generally in a desperate situation, they are also young, and there are episodes full of wit and humor, the optimism of the youth. 2. Scenes of the book which would have been great in the film have been omitted, and dull scenes with no sense have been inserted instead. Left out are the Pumphutt duel (a great effects opportunity missed), the Dresden visit (again a great opportunity missed to show the beautiful palaces), the oxen sale, the mocking of the recruiters and much more scenes who could have inserted some fun into the dreary dullness. Instead we see a pointless and boring scene where the young men fight some soldiers who want to loot a village - this was not in the book. 3. The screenwriters and directors could not free themselves from images of other fantasy films with somewhat similar plotlines, mainly Star Wars and Harry Potter. Why do we need to see Palpatine the Emperor and the Marauder's Map in this movie? Why are the journeymen waving around with sticks like Jedi trainees? 4. In the book, the Kantorka has light hair to symbolize her "white magic" of love as opposed to the Dark Arts taught in the mill. In the movie she is black-haired and thus adds no visual contrast to the overall dark picture.
Summary: A missed opportunity. Please do a remake with better screenwriting/directing which follow the book more closely, because the book is a masterpiece you cannot improve.
Crow noises
Henry_C_Roberts7 April 2019
I first watched this as a teen, and it made me remeber the uneasy feelings I got out of reading the book as a kid. The movie managed to capture that certain lasting sadness and the underlying sense of danger that makes the book so memorable to me. Being able to fly and all of that cool stuff, but at what cost.
Anyway, the movie is far from perfect, but they did pretty good with the budget they had imo. The acting was ranging from OK to damn, Daniel Brühl! The soundtrack is amazing.
Anyway, the movie is far from perfect, but they did pretty good with the budget they had imo. The acting was ranging from OK to damn, Daniel Brühl! The soundtrack is amazing.
beautiful
btfilther6 April 2009
I am absolutely aesthetically satisfied by this film. So much out of the cliché. Great storyboard, visuals, acting and sound. It is actually a very profound film done with German precision. European film making in its best form. I haven't read the book and I don't really care about it whatsoever as in my opinion the film served its purpose. Passionate actors play combined with beautiful yet depressive atmosphere. Sadly sometimes sites like this one are doing us bad favours, we came to see medium ratings plus low voting activity and the film is lost...we never even give it a chance. Well, that one definitely proves us wrong. Bravo to all of you who took part in it.
Not that good, just average.
deloudelouvain19 December 2020
I found Krabat to be rather disappointing. I expected something better after reading some extremely positive reviews on here. And it's not because of the German language, which is a nasty aggressive language to listen to by the way, but more because of the plot that wasn't that interesting to follow. I do like fantasy and tales, but sometimes it's just not there. Krabat lacks of good entertaining scenes and even if the acting wasn't bad I never got completely into the story. I read that the book was better, maybe I should have done that instead of watching this movie.
Got my heart racing away
MartinusExLullesdorp15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As some other previous writer I do not intend to spoil contents but nevertheless it may happen. Therefore I checked the spoiler alert. 1) I slowly but surely learn not to expect a movie being exactly like the book. So I was able to enjoy "Lord of the Rings" which I have read once every year in full for several years There are movies like "The Stand". The novel written by Steven King. I never felt more content in a movie with in-depth knowledge of the book
Now Krabat: They changed the time back to the 30 year war (No sweat) They left out scenes like the sorcerer fight "Meister" vs "Pumphutt" (to bad) They changed a real funny scene when the soldiers come to press the boys into the Prussian army to a real bad Ridley Scottisch (I have stolen this comparison) fight with too fast and bad made fighting scenes. (Very bad) They left out a visit of Krabat and the "Meister" in Dresden, which should show Krabat what power being a sorcerer would give him (unlucky) They missed the new mill wheel, which is not a big deal. There are some other thing they changed, but not to the bad.
2) I expected no good, but I was driven by knowing the book and I wanted to see how they would interpret it. The movie feels like the book. Starting somewhat easy it gains a lot of tension up to the end. Although I knew what would have to happen I was gripped by it.
3) They got me with the music which was really good and fitted with a great scenery. What a landscape, what pictures. Just for that I'd go again.
4) I'm no good at rating the acting but Christian Redl did an outstanding job. The Meister was just a bit too fatherly. I felt as if the boys where just fallen out of the book. The Kantorka was somewhat too maiden, not cool enough and too bodily. Tonda should have been more chiseled. (They missed him having total white hair within one day.) All in all the acting was quite persuasive.
5) Music again. I was deep into the movie and still sat with a racing heart when "Allein, Allein" came up. It's like getting a load of ice cold water on a your fevered body. I never ever have been so disgusted.
Conclusion: Well, a movie is a movie and as much people see it as much opinions are available.
I do not expect a movie being the book. This one is well done, better than most German movies (Besides for instance you like "Das Boot". This is one VERY good movie sequel) Krabat takes you away if you allow it to. It delivers real nice landscape pictures and mostly good to very good acting and persuasive characters.
If you like it philosophical, just look for other comments. There's a lot of deep thinking in this novel of Preussler and I have seldom found movies which really transport the in-depth meaning of their basic story (besides for instance "Schindlers Liste")
I say: go and relish it, regardless whether you know the book. (Close your eyes through a certain fight though and your ears during the credits if you don't leave the move when credits start, like most people nowadays do)
rgds
Now Krabat: They changed the time back to the 30 year war (No sweat) They left out scenes like the sorcerer fight "Meister" vs "Pumphutt" (to bad) They changed a real funny scene when the soldiers come to press the boys into the Prussian army to a real bad Ridley Scottisch (I have stolen this comparison) fight with too fast and bad made fighting scenes. (Very bad) They left out a visit of Krabat and the "Meister" in Dresden, which should show Krabat what power being a sorcerer would give him (unlucky) They missed the new mill wheel, which is not a big deal. There are some other thing they changed, but not to the bad.
2) I expected no good, but I was driven by knowing the book and I wanted to see how they would interpret it. The movie feels like the book. Starting somewhat easy it gains a lot of tension up to the end. Although I knew what would have to happen I was gripped by it.
3) They got me with the music which was really good and fitted with a great scenery. What a landscape, what pictures. Just for that I'd go again.
4) I'm no good at rating the acting but Christian Redl did an outstanding job. The Meister was just a bit too fatherly. I felt as if the boys where just fallen out of the book. The Kantorka was somewhat too maiden, not cool enough and too bodily. Tonda should have been more chiseled. (They missed him having total white hair within one day.) All in all the acting was quite persuasive.
5) Music again. I was deep into the movie and still sat with a racing heart when "Allein, Allein" came up. It's like getting a load of ice cold water on a your fevered body. I never ever have been so disgusted.
Conclusion: Well, a movie is a movie and as much people see it as much opinions are available.
I do not expect a movie being the book. This one is well done, better than most German movies (Besides for instance you like "Das Boot". This is one VERY good movie sequel) Krabat takes you away if you allow it to. It delivers real nice landscape pictures and mostly good to very good acting and persuasive characters.
If you like it philosophical, just look for other comments. There's a lot of deep thinking in this novel of Preussler and I have seldom found movies which really transport the in-depth meaning of their basic story (besides for instance "Schindlers Liste")
I say: go and relish it, regardless whether you know the book. (Close your eyes through a certain fight though and your ears during the credits if you don't leave the move when credits start, like most people nowadays do)
rgds
Epic and fantastic. Not.
benedikt-entner16 January 2015
I have never seen a movie with such an overuse of voice-off. At least 10 times (and I am not exaggerating) there is some guy mumbling about "Krabat doing this, Krabat doing that..." Sometimes stuff that could have been easily displayed in some scenery, for example "Krabat is hardworking, others are lazy...this guy right here, he is very strict" Fine shut up already and just show it. A Narrating voice from the off should be used sparely and mostly to give interesting information or meaningful insight. As a part of narration, a stylistic element, not as a substitute of narration, which I call lazy and bad filmmaking.
Speaking about that, the fighting scenes were filmed and cut so poorly that it was a pain to watch. I thought they are disappointing at best, especially for a film that wants to be epic. It takes more than a shaky cam to create a good fighting scenery.
And thats the next thing: the film tries hard to be epic, but fails hard in achieving it. The story is not that bad, nor are the actors, but I think Krabat would have been much better if produced as a TV series. The source material would have been perfect.
Some young men who are ordinary apprentice lads are getting trained to become powerful wizards. This training should be interesting, you may think, but yawn all we see are some guys with wooden staffs. There is no exciting arc for the characters, Krabat and the others don't seem to change very much, even since they are wizards.
And what is there motive? Why is Krabat even there? Because he followed a raven? I know he shook the hand of the sorcerer and now he is bound to him, but why does the sorcerer train all this young lads? For what purpose? What is his plan... is it for fun or does he want to achieve something? So many questions, so less answers.
At some point I didn't care anymore, I am sure there is an answer somewhere, but it is not illustrated very well in this film.
Overall a waste of good actors and a potentially great TV series.
3/10
Speaking about that, the fighting scenes were filmed and cut so poorly that it was a pain to watch. I thought they are disappointing at best, especially for a film that wants to be epic. It takes more than a shaky cam to create a good fighting scenery.
And thats the next thing: the film tries hard to be epic, but fails hard in achieving it. The story is not that bad, nor are the actors, but I think Krabat would have been much better if produced as a TV series. The source material would have been perfect.
Some young men who are ordinary apprentice lads are getting trained to become powerful wizards. This training should be interesting, you may think, but yawn all we see are some guys with wooden staffs. There is no exciting arc for the characters, Krabat and the others don't seem to change very much, even since they are wizards.
And what is there motive? Why is Krabat even there? Because he followed a raven? I know he shook the hand of the sorcerer and now he is bound to him, but why does the sorcerer train all this young lads? For what purpose? What is his plan... is it for fun or does he want to achieve something? So many questions, so less answers.
At some point I didn't care anymore, I am sure there is an answer somewhere, but it is not illustrated very well in this film.
Overall a waste of good actors and a potentially great TV series.
3/10
WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN
vildearntzen8 January 2020
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
