Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

paul2001sw-1 I read another review of this film which described it as a "clunker", and sadly it's true. Based on a novel itself inspired by a true story, it's the tale of a horse trader who comes into conflict with authority. The problem with this movie is not just that it's slow and solemn, though both of these things are true, but that it's dramatically inept: the main events all occur off-screen, and we see how they affect the protagonist without ever really understanding the power relationships that have led to the critical decisions being taken. Pondering the ethics of rebellion, justice and loyalty can make for a good movie - think of 'A Man For All Seasons', for example - but this one is leaden and dull.

Leofwine_draca AGE OF UPRISING: THE LEGEND OF MICHAEL KOHLHAAS is an interesting film about a mini revolution that took place in historical France. It's often a beautifully shot film, breathtakingly so at times, and it features a typically strong performance from Mads Mikkelsen in the lead role. Mikkelsen plays a sympathetic figure, a man who becomes oppressed to the extent that he has no choice but to fight back.The problem with AGE OF UPRISING is that it goes out of its way to be as slow and arty as is humanly possibly. There's an hour's worth of plotting and incident dragged out to two hours, and boy, does it drag. Each scene plays out for far too long, and everything seems to be deliberately subdued and painstakingly detailed. Now, I do appreciate all of the lovely scenery, and having seen this in high definition I can say it's a visually stunning film.But movies are about more than the visuals, and in that respect AGE OF UPRISING disappoints. The traditional storyline is a familiar one and nothing much happens that hasn't been seen elsewhere. In the end you can only sit back and enjoy it to a degree - and roles for the likes of Bruno Ganz help - but without getting more fully invested in a more involving movie.

peterk727 This movie is so slow, you can watch it in 2x and it still will seem slow. If you think I am kidding this is exactly what I did after 10 minutes of being bored to death. The story almost started to get interesting but then it fell apart. It was simply a terribly directed movie based on a very old novella from centuries ago. When you finally get to the end, that is providing you do not turn it off, you will be disappointed. I cannot say much for the acting as there was so little dialogue in it you would not believe it. Apparently this was a second attempt at directing for Arnaud des Pallières who was a writer. He should stick with writing. Both movies he directed are absolute stinkers and this is the worst of them. AVOID!!

Kirpianuscus I saw it with the fresh memory about Kleist's novel. and it was not a surprise. not a disappointment. only a correct work, exploring the story's possibilities, using the perfect cast, remembering the high talent of Mikkelson and the classic recipes of European historical movie.and the result is interesting at all. for the solutions for details. for the precise science for use the landscape. for the atmosphere. for the art to transform a cold story about revenge in a film who gives more than events but useful occasion for reflection. the best thing - the courage to adapted the story of Michael Kohlhaas. the inspired thing - to give the lead role to Mikkaelson. an interesting film. far by blockbuster 's recipes. but that could be its basic virtue.