Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

one of my absolute favorites!

Just so...so bad

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

(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.

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.

"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!

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): 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.