Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

redpaperweight The movie does a good job at a general overview of Marx'process in becoming the person he was, together with his legacy.It shows the reader how the ideas of both Marx and Engels are not some farts in the wind but indeed theoretical and even genius. They were highly educated intellectuals, which is well communicated. Marx as a critic of everything is profoundly integrated. The same goes for the friendship between them, how deep it was and how it developed: well communicated. While Marx was not as poor as the proletariat, he indeed struggled to survive and provide for his family. Something that is also shown properly. His relationship with Jenny, however, is mostly overlooked and only abstract, his kids are nearly completely left out of the picture.The ideas of Engels and Marx that are portrayed are only basic, but formulated on a level not so basic...their intellect is basically communicated too well. This movie has great potential to spread their ideas and to introduce new people to the idea of Communism, it does however take some knowledge to understand the concepts thrown around. As such the movie has failed in the way that it only deals with the top layer of their ideas but fails to clarify them clearly. Therefore it only has potential.Clothing style and the used shots and settings seem very realistic, the atmosphere feels right. The feeling of the Communist specter haunting Europe is kind of missing for the lack of any real footage of revolts/uprisings. The struggle should have been visualized.The movie is about the young Karl Marx (and Engels I would add, he is there for the most part, an intrinsic part of Marx'life), as such it is an introduction into his life. The foundation upon which his book 'Capital' has been build. Following this summary, the movie itself is also an introduction and foundation upon which could be build. With more knowledge of their work, and perhaps a better understanding as to enhance clarification, its potential could be multiplied.

Will Jeffery 'A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of communism'. These are the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto which ironically is the film's conclusion. We learn that the purpose of the opening paragraph in the manifesto was to be simple and straight to the point, while saying so much. That's what this film is and what it did so well, draw the viewer into a simple world of major importance and complexity. "Substance, but no style!" Is what I heard people say as they left the cinema. Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree...well, fully. Indeed the film had its flaws and yes, it lacked urgency to go read Marxism but what we did get was the man himself and his 'world'. The title using 'young' is realistic; a man most known for the 'birth' of communism is the premise of the film and it was super compelling. This film could have had more style sure, but what is style if there is no substance. Communism has a collaborative process so it was great to see its collaborative side through a fantastic supporting cast ushered by an intelligent screenplay, though the film may be overwhelming for some with its excessive discussion of 'Marxist' philosophy. You never see Marx in a room by himself which ignores an independent or 'hero' image that he may be associated with because he was honestly a family man who liked to chat and have a good laugh. A family man, with the help of his friends, produced the product (The Communist Manifesto) that the film ends with in its final scene and is ultimately what the film is about.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Le jeune Karl Marx" is a co-production between France, Germany and Belgium that resulted in a German-language movie with some parts in French and English too because of the actors' nationalities, but also because of the countries where the film plays. It runs for almost two hours and as the title already says it focuses on the younger years of German philosopher Karl Marx. The director is Raoul Peck and he is also one of the writers here. I guess his origin and native language is also the main reason (just like other writers' nationalities) why this film is listed in the French language here on IMDb. Peck himself was just nominated for the first time for an Oscar in the documentary category (for a pretty controversial movie) after a filmmaking career of almost 35 years now and this will probably get his future works more attention, maybe also in Hollywood. But now let us take a look at this one here. The cast includes some names that German film buffs will probably recognize, but not too many either, such as Diehl and Scheer. Even Diehl's co-lead Konarske was pretty unknown to me. But he did his job well and held his own nicely next to Diehl, who certainly gives the most commanding performance in the film. It is not a coincidence that this film's name is "The young Karl Marx" and not "The Young Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels".I have really liked Diehl for a long time now and it's nice to see him add another impressive performance to his body of work. He has been in some strong German films, but also appeared in Hollywood stuff. It is a bit sad that he has not managed yet to get beyond playing Angelina Jolie's character's husband or a Nazi commander in a one-scene performance in a Tarantino movie, even if he managed to be somewhat memorable in these parts too. He seems so natural at what he does and always disappears in character. Makes me a bit sad to see far more limited actors like Schweiger, Brühl, Schweighöfer, maybe even Waltz, get much more attention in Hollywood. But as long as Diehl keeps making films like this one here as well in the future, it's all good. I personally must say that 19th century politics never really interested me at all, back from my school days, but Peck and Diehl and the rest made it not only very watchable, but pretty exciting and interesting. The key to success here may be that the focus was really on the two central characters and their lives (private and public), and did not try oh so hard to make a political impact and be really important and relevant, i.e. full of himself. It is all about the simplicity of a strong story well-told as Frances McDormand said so fittingly. The only reason why I did not give it an even higher rating is probably that I always cared for for 20th century politics, but I learned a lot while watching this one here and that is certainly a strong achievement. The film also never drags during its almost two hours. Any criticisms really? Not that much. I found the song of the closing credits and the scenes not a good choice as the film should have been staying in the 19th century and it did not really fit. Jumping ahead a century in time roughly was too much, even if the scenes of course had a lot to do with communism. As a whole, a pretty good work and everybody who knows and cares about 19th century politics and communism must see it.

Indie Cinema Magazine The Young Karl Marx chronicles the period when young Karl Marx meets his future long-term friend and co-author Friedrich Engels and the several following years. During the Berlinale press conference dedicated to the film Raoul Peck was asked if he read Karl Marx. He answered that he attended seminars dedicated to Marx's Capital. His film is reminiscent of such a seminar; interminable and tedious.There are many dialogues, questions, answers however the film completely lacks artistic vision. There is no interesting music, camera-work or a gripping plot.Raoul Peck tried to underline the more materialistic side of his relationship with Jenny, showing his sex life and child birth. To deprive Marx of certain romanticism is also not fair, the young philosopher was a romantic of his own kind; he was engaged for seven years to Jenny and dedicated many poems to her.The discussions depicted in the film are too primitive for such great thinkers such as Marx, Engels, Proudhon and Bakunin. The proletariat, on the other hand, is shown as a group of people with abject faces and feeble children, which makes the ideas of Marx about the proletariat too idealistic and not connected to reality.One of the positive sides of the picture is that Peck did not try to distort facts about the people in the film, however after the film finishes one feels relieved that the drawn-out seminar on Karl Marx is finally over.Read more at: http://indie-cinema.com/2017/02/young-karl-marx/