Michael (2011)

None yet... Got one?

• 
  
  June 3, 2012

  blacksheepboy

  A deeply disturbing character study that takes on the hard task of humanizing a monstrous psycopath, focusing on a three-dimensional human predator who can blend into society like many others - but wisely never offering easy reasons for his repulsive actions.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  August 26, 2012

  ryguy4738

  ***1/2 out of ****
  
  Michael (Michael Fuith) is a shy little man who works a competent job and seems to live a competent life with a competently spacy home and a competent body. In the eyes of pretty much any German citizen, he'd be a pretty decent working class male. He's not p... read morearticularly social but his behavior doesn't appear destructive. This is what Michael appears to be on the outside; just an average Joe. But as we see him return home on the night that the film begins, we witness the opening and closing of the fateful blue safe-like door in the basement; which conceals a small room behind it in which a young boy named Wolfgang (David Rauchenberger) is being held captive.
  
  Michael only lets Wolfgang out of his room between meals and occasionally to watch some evening television. Afterwards, he'll take the kid back to his room, close the metal door, and rape him. Michael is a meek gentleman on the outside and a pedophile monster on the inside. But nobody has to know this. The child has been his worst kept secret for what feels like a while now. But then again people don't usually come by his place often anyways. He's broken off most contact with the outside world for the mere satisfaction of his confused penis. I can totally understand the guy.
  
  At times, Markus Schleinzer's "Michael" borders on being exploitative. While the disturbing acts that are the film's central themes are shown mostly off-screen, it also lacks the finger-wagging moralism of most Hollywood pictures covering the topic of pedophilia although I think that is precisely why it is so effective, haunting, and horrifying. Most people will not think twice before writing Michael off as just another monster who needs to be locked away from society (even though he essentially does that on his own); while some, like myself, will view the film as a chance to see things from his point of view. We aren't supposed to sympathize with his problems, which aren't even presented as problems, but I think it's better off that way.
  
  The relationship between Michael and Wolfgang is strange and disturbing. Sometimes by day, Michael will take the boy out to the park or something like that; he's convinced the child that his parents don't want him back and that it's basically useless to run at this point, so Wolfgang puts up with everything that he has to go through. There are almost distressingly tender scenes in which these two clean together, play games together, and are able to uphold awkward yet decent conversations; while we also see them at their worst, in some truly brutal and uncompromising scenes. The film is sad, tragic, and real all at the same time; and it creeps up on you in such an unexpected way that it imprints images and concepts in your mind that won't soon leave.
  
  I love movies like this. Movies that refuse to conform to clichés or common stylistics. Films that have the bravery to exist on their own terms and according to their own rules. "Michael" achieves an impeccable sense of unease through a minimalist style and the brave, dedicated performances of both Michael Fuith and David Rauchenberger. The film is probably going to upset a lot of people with its grit and realism; there is an element of dark humor that will probably come off as particularly off-putting. But if you want a movie that doesn't sugarcoat the truth and doesn't try to shallowly moralize it, then you've found it. In a review, I'm supposed to recommend the movie for a certain audience. I think with a fantastic and creepy film such as this, the only audience that I can recommend it to is the one that's most like me. Conventional movie-goers be damned; for this is not a conventional movie, and it's not afraid to cross a few lines. It's exploitation with artistic purpose.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  May 26, 2012

  fb1364753347

  The premise for this film is more fascinating than the film itself. It is well directed and really well acted but it delves no deeper than the shallow end in any of the characters or themes. Everytime you think the film will take a dive in the deep end, it quickly paddles back to... read more the simple idea of the guy with a kid in the basement. The premise is such a complex issue but there is no exploration, just bland presentation. Because of this the minimalist, realist style does not work because the beauty of minimalism is that while you are watching a scene that raises subtle themes your brain is de-constructing the themes from the previous scene, but here I there is nothing to think about because it all surface deep, which makes some of the banality just so dull, especially the final 10 minutes.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  October 31, 2011

  danieljparsons

  Michael is a disturbing but quiet, largely evasive drama involving Michael - a man with a regular job who "keeps to himself", and whom hides in the specially locked and separately wired basement of his house a 10 year-old boy; Michael is a paedophile. The film shows Michae... read morel going about his day-to-day life for five months. He's a fairly private man, by necessity of course, though not without a social life. But in general, he goes to work, comes home, has dinner. Often, we see him interacting with the boy in his basement - giving him chores (the basement is an effect a miniature apartment - outfitted with it's own kitchenette and toilet), reading to him, sharing with him a meal. Aside from one moment of nudity, no sex is shown and is barely implied. The film doesn't try to show horrific abuse, though at the same time it's clear that the boy loathes Michael (there's no Stockholm Syndrome here). The boy has been lied to about his circumstances (we never see how he got there, or if his family are searching for him) but is intelligent enough to realise that he is being manipulated. The film takes a massive shift in the last 20 minutes with an unbearably tense final, prolonged sequence, and director Markus Schleinzer cleverly heightens the tension merely by showing people walking through rooms. The ending is incredibly courageous, refusing to offer any closure, answers, sense of justice or injustice, and provoked a very split reaction in the screening I saw (I was very much reminded of the reaction to the ending of Meek's Cutoff, with which Michael shares a similar detached - but not clinical - tone). However, the main problem I have is one of point. Why does the film exist? What is it trying to say? How am I supposed to feel? For many this was one of the film's virtues and indeed it's refreshing for a film - particular one with this kind of subject matter - to not entertain any usual conventions. The one thing it does show is that even though Michael is a monster, he still has a family that cares for him and whom presumably will have much to "deal" with after the film ends - unusually it will be them you are thinking of, not Michael, not the boy. But for much of the running time I wondered why I was watching it. Not that I was bored, that wouldn't be true - it's very, very well acted, interestingly filmed and edited, and quite gripping. But there just didn't seem to be much reason for the film to exist.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  June 3, 2012

  piranhaa72

  This is hands down one of the scariest movies I've seen. Delving into the mind of a pedophile in such detail is no easy ride for sure. The implied sexual violations are brutal and never fall onto easy exploitative territory. Never knowing if the predator has feelings, is just a m... read moreonster, if he's seeking a relationship with a child, if he regrets it is explored into such detail we just want it all to end quickly. This is obvious a masterful work from the director who keeps things really well balanced without falling into easy shocking territory and always showing as well how the victim is affected throughout. It also needed a really strong lead to succeed and Michael Fuith delivers with scary detail.
  
  Not an easy watch but an intriguing scary ride on humanity's worse depravity.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  February 16, 2013

  fb100004905157511

  Australian director Markus Schleinzer's first feature is a markedly cold, matter-of-fact depiction of five months in the life of a practicing paedophile who has imprisoned a 10-year-old boy in his sound-proofed basement. Schleinzer's film is a story heavily anchored in controvers... read morey which, through revealing very little, has traversed sensationalism and created one of the most provocative and alarming arthouse features of recent years.
  
  Michael (Michael Fuith) is a thirty-something unmarried insurance agent who, by necessity, meticulously keeps up domestic ritual. Michael, you see, is a homosexual pederast. A white-collared office worker by day, Michael keeps to himself, shying away from human contact until he returns home after work. Behind his suburban home's mechanical steel shutters and a soundproof basement door, Michael is holding a 10-year-old boy (David Rauchenberger) captive--and apparently has been for some time.
  
  Much of the film takes place in the house they inhabit, both as prisoners; the boy-literally and Michael--captive to his perversion. "Michael" is most affective however when young Wolfgang is away from the screen. Schleinzer sporadically removes us from Wolfgang's suburban prison to observe Michael clumsily attempt to integrate himself into society. Whether he's out trying to 'find' a companion for Wolfgang, or on an awkward work skiing trip, it becomes agonizing to watch,
  
  The sexual encounters between Michael and Wolfgang are sparse and brief, with Schleinzer unwilling, and obviously unable to depict the acts of molestation in a graphic nature. The directors handling of such scenes is representative of Michael as a whole - we as an audience are always left to fill in the blanks. No worries here about it ever displaying anything outright shocking, it remains suitably restrained.
  
  Ultimately, "Michael" hinges on the subtlety and believability of its characters. Without such performances, the film could easily have been little more than a slice of shock cinema. Fuith is not just a convincing predator, but all the more crucially a convincing human being, driven by motivations outside of mere sexual gratification. "Michael" allows itself and its characters to slowly develop over its runtime so you get not just the immediate impression of how reprehensible this man is, but to really get a sense of the depth of his insanity.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  June 5, 2012

  RicardoCraneo

  Didn't think I'd see one of these for a while, wherein the pedophile is frankly analyzed bare bones and all, in his rugged terrain accompanied by his victim in his claws, leaving the audience to helplessly sit back and watch as he devours the prey in plain sight. Not to mention t... read morehe depth a devil is given, committing one of society's unpardonable sins. Then again, "Foreign film. From Austria." Male director though. Hmmm, I'm guessing sex is less worrisome over there in this context, or the guy just hopes his audience consists of mature minded arthouse individuals, which I sometimes still don't think is the case when it comes to provoking some of the more emotional art fans. Anyway, the reactions from virtually every perspective are way too convoluted for a simple dissection. There is no doubt that the people that are involved with this film in any way, whether it be the production department, the unsuspecting viewer, the film critic, the Flixster critic, the critic of the Flixster critic, etc. risk being seen in a stigmatizing light because the subject and theme is that strong, especially in this scenario, given the raw manner of filming arguably the most taboo subject in the West with an awkward, unafraid, contentious precision. The film is remarkably well written, acted, and filmed. Even without the morbidly compelling element of being witness to....you know...."that".... it stands on its own as an evenly paced, thought provoking, taboo shattering polemic study while remaining even handed. I'm genuinely curious what the "Immediately shut off, take disc out and burnt it" rate is for people as I'm sure parents are programmed to have this elephant's feet super glued to the floor of their kids' rooms rather than figure out how to shoe it away, and secondly they feel it's illegal to have the film in their possession.

  Share This Review

• Naseeruddin Shah
• Mahi Gill
• Purav Bhandare
• Sabyasachi Chakraborty
• Irawati Harshe Mayadev
• Michael Fuith as Michael
• David Rauchenberger as Wolfgang
• Christine Kain as Mother
• Viktor Tremmel as Brother-in-Law

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

• 
  The Snowtown Murders (96%)
• 
  Funny Games (100%)
• 
  Chained (0%)
• 
  One Hour Photo (50%)

• Michael Keaton change his legal name because another actor had the same last name as he did .What actor had this name ?  Answer »
• There is another actor whose real name is Michael Douglas, besides Kirk's son. What is his stage name?  Answer »
• What actor was born Michael John Douglas and changed his name to prevent confusion with the already well known actor?  Answer »
• What are the names of the children of Vito Corleone in the movie The Godfather? (Including the boy who was 'adopted' into the Corleone family and later became the family advisor)  Answer »

No quizzes for Michael. Want to create one?

• Michael (Uk)
• Michael (German)

• agustinlugo
• aerlanbarrett

No recent headlines. Got one?

• 

  Interesting

  by fb687315176
  22 Movies
• 

  Want to See 2011

  by 009prasanna
  139 Movies
• 

  2012: Movies Watched

  by waldosanmiguel...
  585 Movies

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?