Kinderfanger

I thought it was a decent B-Movie with an interesting take on an old fairytale. The female lead, and the boy have an emotional story to them, and you really root for them. Which is nice to do in a horror.

Although the emotional pain of the female lead is quite intense, and might be triggering for some as the subject is child abuse. I think it's an important story to tell, and it makes her very real. I actually really loved the ending as well even though I saw it coming a little.

It wasn't really tense, or scary though, but I did like the creature design. The special effects weren't the best, but I found it easy to look through that with the story. The male lead was meh, and just felt like a tag on though. I felt he could have been developed more.

I thought overall it was worth a watch.

It was a difficult watch I must say, and I am certain that not for me alone. Whoever dares to give this a try will have the same faith, standing still in front of the TV, waiting, praying for something to happen. Kinderfanger has 2 stories, the main one, that gets too little time, and surprisingly a second one, that is sort of better developed. Problem is the first one is the real story and the second one is simply to fill the time, which is only 90 minutes!

Now, I'm not going to say that it was infuriating, but at times it really was, because this little film gives close to nothing to the viewer. Perhaps on paper it looked good, I honestly can't say, but it offers as little as possible: no real effects, no cool deaths, no real villain, no heroine and no surprises.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason to recommend it, simply look elsewhere and find anything else, probably it will be better. For a low budget horror, it failed as bad as possible.

Cheers!

I have to admit that initially I wasn't harboring much of any hopes for this 2023 horror movie titled "Kinderfanger" (aka "Kinderfänger", which is the correct German spelling). A German title for an American movie? Odd.

Yet, I opted to sit down to watch "Kinderfänger", even without never having heard about it prior to stumbling upon it. After all, it was a horror movie that I hadn't already seen.

However, I must admit that writers Aaron Burgess and Matthew Golad actually managed to put together an enjoyable script for director Bridger Nielson to bring to the screen. I was genuinely entertained throughout the course of the 94 minutes that the movie ran for.

There was some old school type of horror vibe and atmosphere to the storyline and the narrative, and that definitely resonated very well with me. Plus, it was an interesting tale on the classic piper tale, and that certainly worked well in favor of the movie.

The casting in the movie was good, and it was nice to see Angel Theory in a leading role, and she did carry herself and the movie quite well. And it was certainly also nice to see Andi Chapman in the movie, despite her despicable character in the movie, but she performed quite well.

Visually then "Kinderfänger" was quite good. The piper creature was nicely rendered and looked rather interesting. Lots of nice details to the character, and it looked real, which was something I thoroughly enjoyed. Having a poorly rendered CGI creature in a movie just ruins the movie experience, luckily that wasn't the case with "Kinderfänger".

If you enjoy horror movies, then "Kinderfänger" is quite worth taking 94 minutes to sit down and watch. I was genuinely entertained by it.

My rating of "Kinderfänger" lands on a six out of ten stars.

As far as I can tell the Kinderfanger (or, "Child Snatcher" in German) isn't actually a real folklore character.

Rather, use of the term generally applies to the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

Whom, in the case of this film (and previous CryptTV webseries, after which this film is based) has been combined with a Wiedergänger type character...to give us the monster we see here (who also happens to be called The Piper...though, only in the credits).

Although, there is also an earlier short film of the same name; and a Wizards Of The Coast card relating to it...so perhaps it's origin lies there, somewhere.

Either way...the thing is known to snatch children.

And, an urban legend has popped up around him.

Even though it's the children, themselves, who do most of the snatching in this film.

Albeit, after they have gone missing, only to return as his demonic minions...that exhibit zombie like qualities.

In the case of the plot, we find ourselves following a formerly deaf music teacher (who has regained her hearing from a surgery...after losing it as a result of childhood trauma); and a man who lost his son to the creature...rendering him hellbound to kill whatever the Kinderfanger might be.

Angel Theory (from The Walking Dead) plays the main character, Olivia.

And does a competent job with her performance.

However, the plot is severely lacking, in regards to quality.

Because, instead of developing the backstory of the Kinderfanger...they focus on developing the story of how Olivia went deaf.

And, while it's clear they were trying to establish her as an empathetic motherly character, despite her past (in which she killed her father, for abusing her- hence the resentment her mother shows her).

It's just not very well done.

And leaves you with a number of questions about the kinderfanger, himself.

Questions you can only answer, by knowing the legends surrounding the pied piper, and wiederganger-type characters.

Effectively, it seems like are trying to establish Olivia as a sort of reverse Pied Piper.

But, honestly...it just doesn't work.

To their credit...they make an attempt to bring this around, in the end.

But it's pretty underwhelming.

After having watched a number of impressive CryptTV short films...I fully expected this to be much better than it is.

To be fair, it's not that it doesn't make sense.

It's just bad storytelling, pure and simple.

Which is hard to appreciate, when it concerns a German folktale, in the tradition of the Grimm's.

So, whereas it might not be totally unwatchable.

It's certainly not very good either.

Definitely falling short on what it could have been.

2.5 out of 10.

At the beginning of the film, it is already said what kind of movie it is. The director of this film does not understand how the script and staging work; how the methods of camerawork work and for what purpose; how and why motivated conflicts arise and how they affect the plot. Therefore, all this creative enthusiasm is perceived as a school theater production, which, moreover, is completely uninteresting, a banal, cliched attempt to pass off primitive fantasies as a film form, without content, without at least some dramaturgy.

Talented creators can do without special education, based on their inner world and unique intuition, but here it's the opposite.