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.

(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.

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.

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.