Berlin Syndrome

So what we have here, is Fifty Shades of Stockholm Syndrome (Google it if you're unsure what that is, the film will make more sense knowing the definition).

Right off the top, waaaay too slowly paced. I get it, it needed to be a little slow, but not 2 hours (that felt like 3) of slow. Had I watched this film at least 1.25x faster speed, and edited properly, it would have been more enjoyable, and shorter.

The directing was OK, the writing needed tweaking (e.g. the ending was too stale for all that tension that was built up) but the cinematography was on point.

The best part of this film was Teresa Palmer in her role... she aced it. Very convincing and played her emotional roller-coaster well. Max Riemelt was stale and I felt his role should have been cast better or he shouldn't have been as 'flat' as he was. The director needed to direct his role better as he was unconvincing.

The screenplay (combined in part with the score) was the only other positive attribute of this film. The tension was constant, and just when you relaxed, it got built up again.

There were however many plot holes - specifically the amount of defensive weapons available for escaping, such as the heavy pots on the stove, glass from any of the two broken windows that she could have hid pieces and slit his throat while he was sleeping etc... and unnecessary sub-plots (e.g. his dad, the parts when other women touched him and he portrayed a germaphobe).

A few ill-informed reviewers stated it was an independent film, of which it was not. Having production companies left right and center backing it such as: Aquarius Films, DDP Studios, Entertainment One, Film Victoria, Fulcrum Media Finance, Memento Films International, Photoplay Film, Screen Australia, and distributed by Entertainment One, Curzon Artificial Eye, Vertical Entertainment and Netflix... it's clearly not an independent film. For a B-type film with that type of backing, it needed to be much better in my opinion.

So rating it as a B-type film, it's a generous 6/10 from me.

If you are hanging out for a good thriller with real style then this will capture you as surely as the girl at the centre of the story is caught.

Clare (Teresa Palmer), a young Aussie tourist travelling alone in Berlin meets handsome Andi (Max Riemelt). They have a one-night stand in his apartment in a rundown neighbourhood of Berlin. However when she goes to leave next morning she finds that Andi is a man with unexpected interests and likes having her around so much that she isn't going anywhere.

"Berlin Syndrome" has been compared to "The Collector", the old William Wyler movie with Terrance Stamp, but that was an overly mannered number compared to this.

If the film reminds me of any other, it would be "Something Wild" starring Carroll Baker and Ralph Meeker as the kept and the keeper. Made in 1961, there are big differences, but that film had a dose of Stockholm syndrome before we realised there was a Stockholm syndrome (named in 1973).

Of course the Stockholm syndrome is a theme in the "Berlin Syndrome" and if I have any criticism it is that the title "Berlin Syndrome" is a bit too obvious for a film that takes a fresh approach in nearly every other way.

Director Cate Shortland ("Somersault", "Lore") tells her stories as much visually as she does verbally; she isn't afraid of silence, and her choice of actors is inspired.

Teresa Palmer is disarming. Her Clare is a little shy, but she also invests her with sexiness, and feistiness. Her character epitomises those youthful, adventurous spirits that parents wave off at airports all over the world hoping that nothing like what happens to Clare will befall them.

Good looking Max Riemelt's Andi seems so intelligent and grounded at first that it is a surprise when his true nature is exposed; perfect casting against type.

"Berlin Syndrome" oozes quality from the engaging actors to great locations, photography and an understated, atmospheric score. Cate Shortland has cast just as fresh an eye on the psychological drama/thriller genre as Canadian Denis Villeneuve did on "Prisoners".

This film tells the story of an Australian tourist, who meets a charming German man while she is backpacking in Berlin. A night of passion then leads to months of nightmare, as she is locked up in his fortified home.

I have not heard of the film "Berlin Syndrome" before, so I was pleasantly surprised by how well made it was. The story is realistic, convincing and very very disturbing. The thing is that, it could really happen to anyone in every day life. How would you know your new friend is not a psycho? The man in the film is so sick and perverted, that words just cannot describe it. This fear and uncertainty translates to real life easily, which makes the film very engaging and unnerving. The thrill of the film is very well portrayed and maintained. I find myself hoping for the best, but mentally prepared for the worst. It is a surprisingly thrilling film, and I would definitely recommend it to other people.

Australian Clare Havel (Teresa Palmer) is backpacking in Berlin. She meets a local named Andi and goes home with him. Next morning, she tries to leave after he left for work but finds that she's locked in.

A normal beautiful-woman-getting-kidnapped movie usually involves a violent shove into a murder van. The interesting change in this movie is that Clare willingly walks into her cage. It's a Venus flytrap. The moment of realization is great. I love the camera pushing in on the locked door. I would delay smashing the window. On the negative side, I don't think I care about the guy and his life. He's not original enough. This is a slow creepy movie.

'Berlin Syndrome' was setting itself up to be something great, but it just couldn't quite deliver the knock-out punch. I love the idea for the story. It's creepy and a little too real (this kind of thing happens more than people realise). The characters were also well created. They were believable and charming in their own dark ways. Then there were two very fine acting performances by Teresa Palmer and Max Riemelt. So why didn't I enjoy this film as much as I should have?

The problem lies in the story development. There really isn't any. The film sets itself up and then just drifts along for the next two hours. Some films can get away with that but not when they run 20-30 minutes longer than they needed to. There was a lot that could have been left on the cutting room floor in this one. Then the ending came around and it was about as "meh" as you could possibly get. Very disappointing. Not a bad film, but if you're looking for something great, look elsewhere.