This film could be roughly divided into 2 halves: 1st, with 3 main characters, is more dynamic, 2nd, with 4 main characters, is more static; the 1st means more action, the 2nd - more reasoning. Both are skilfully created and accomplished, but the 3 young people among themselves seemed more interesting and realistic to me than 3 young vs 1 older; the latter's reactions were sometimes not so feasible. Luckily, the ending has several twists, so you "forget" that/if you started to scent a trivial round-up.Anyway, all performances were good and distinct, perhaps Daniel Brühl's character was more versatile, with more presence on screen (or he is just more famous internationally?).Thus, a recommended film about reality vs. idealism, empathy vs. conformism, and other topics giving food for thought. And I began to yearn for their hippie Volkswagen bus again... :)

The first review I read of this movie criticized the camera work. I wonder why? For an indie production, this was a surprisingly high quality film and nowhere near as jerky as, say, Cloverfield. If you tend towards sea-sickness and have been avoiding watching this film for that reason then rest assured that there is no need to bring a sick bag to the viewing. Having said that, I found the Edukators to be a well developed character drama that pulled the carpet out from under my feet just when it started to get too comfortable. The three central, activist characters have perfect amount of cynicism, idealism and vulnerability. Their views never came across as preachy, merely pragmatic. But then I'm left wing, so I guess I would say that - however, the 'other side of the story' gets a chance to be heard in the form of Mr. Hardenberg. As a child of a baby boomer I found him to be a familiar character, full of his generation's mournful sense of complicity in corruption. The only complaint i had is that the action drags a bit towards the end, but this is compensated for by the clever twist at the ending. It's hard to find a story out there that actually contributes emotional depth to the 'capitalist vs. socialist' debate instead of focusing on rhetoric. That's why I am thankful to the makers of this film for contributing such a solid story to the mix. I would definitely recommend it to any activist friends who want to think beyond the next demo and/or leafletting session.

One of the 2 films i manage to catch during the German film fest w my friend is The Edukators, incidentally both films has this actor Daniel Bruhl in it. The Edukators started off w 3 young adults who are very involved in protesting for their rights and opposing capitalism in their country, trying their own ways to influence the country into listening to their voices. Other than protesting on the streets, the 2 guys have another way of showing their capability in influencing the society. By breaking into rich houses and re-arranging the furnitures without taking anything and leaving a note saying 'The Days of Plenty Are Over'. One of the couple are lovers to start off with and slowly the plot reveals that the other guy acted by Daniel likes the girl too and started to involve her into their nite activities which ended in a very awkward manner: The owner came back! During this part of the film, i was getting a little bit irritated already due to the girl's clumsiness and inability to heed instructions. Then i slowly realise that actually this is the point the plot starts to become really really interesting and will end w a simply great twist. Dun really wanna reveal too much of the ending but highly recommended to watch this film for reasons like the great Germany hillside sceneries (beautiful!), cute actors (ok, towards the end of the film, i switched from liking Daniel to really liking Stipe Erceg (the chiselled-chin guy)), funny funny one-liners, and of course a fantastic ending. Overall a great German film not to be missed!

Blair Witch Project was one of the worst things that has happened to my movie world. Each film that uses that running, jumping, bouncing technique has left me cold. One or two frame shots, while bouncing around are difficult enough to follow, but on low light conditions I am left wondering what happened? Films that use gimmicks are usually weak in acting or story lines. This film had potential in both of those categories. Why the need to junk it up? Why bother developing special effects that can't be fully appreciated because of juke and jive camera work? Or maybe it is an attempt to disguise flaws. I don't know, but they will continue to lose my attention.