This movie is certainly not a pleasant watch, it makes you feel increasingly uncomfortable as we watch main character Ewald live out his regression fantasies with a bunch of little boys. As in a Greek tragedy it's clear that he is unavoidably bringing about his downfall and that this cannot end well for him and the children. In that respect the actual conclusion of the movie is surprisingly mild: we're back to square one, with the same sense of an unfulfilled, lonely life and a hopeless yearning for human warmth and the carefree life of children (as it ideally would be).

Director Ulrich Seidl (of such other controversial films as Paradise Hope and Rimini) tells his tale from three parallel perspectives: the relation between Ewald and his old demented father (we for instance see how Ewald clings himself to his father in the bed in the rest home), the way Ewald gathers the young kids around him and acts as their playmate as well as as a caring father figure, and the relation between some of the boys with their bullying and violent father.

But the main uneasiness stems of course from the fact itself that this 40-something grown man surrounds himself with little boys, plays physical games with them, often in flimsy briefs or swimwear, photographs and films them, and regularly tentatively caresses them. Although we never see him cross the line to actual sexual acts, it's almost impossible not to suppose some erotical motivation (like when he showers naked in front of the children). In this way the movie raises the well known question with possible pedophile behavior: can a hard line be defined between acceptable and innocent, versus abuse and criminal? Without judging, we know for sure that Ewald only means well, and the boys like him and love to be with him. Is he still bad??

Anyway, a fascinating and sincere movie with an important topic, very well made, not easy to watch, but with much to think about, which of course is not a bad thing at all.

This is not the first abuse-themed film I've seen but being quite minimalistic, it IS very dark and, in my view, devoid of any hope. All we see is a vicious circle where three generations co-exist interdependently and endlessly: the deeply traumatized father, an old victim of war, who lost his mind; his son Ewald, not less deeply traumatized, which results in him being fixated on little children; a little boy Octavian, who is traumatized and abused by both his family and Ewald. All the other characters as well as the social surrounding are either violent or apathetic to what is happening and why. Yes, the story is more delicate than that: for example we can easily see that Octavian's family is abusing the boy a lot more violently than Ewald does or could do but in my opinion, this is less important.

What sends shivers is the fact that this can be people's everyday life and there seems to be nothing they can do to understand there's more to life than what they know. Sordid and harrowing life.

I watched this film back to back after the first in the driptych, "Rimini," and it really makes you question what you thought you knew about human nature, and human culpability, or maybe you've already thought about these things at great length. Either way, this film gives you a lot to think about through the purest minimalism imaginable. There's something supremely majestic about that to me. You often see directors with this same style fall flat, or more accurately, fall limp, but in my opinion, this series is not only some of Seidl's best work, but the absolute best that minimalism can be.

This film FEELS very different than the film "Rimini." In Rimini, you see a certain lethargy while watching the film. All the tenseness in that film tends to be washed away by Richie Bravo's lackadaisical good nature, and willingness to please. It's like a symphony of grotesque hedonism, which you accept for all its excess. Conversely, throughout the film "Sparta" you experience a constant looming sense of dread, which intensifies more and more up until the climax. On a standalone basis, the film "Sparta" is probably superior from a mechanical point of view, but in the end, it really all depends on where you personally are more comfortable in your emotions, and there's no doubt that I personally am more comfortable in strife, than in opulence.

Why the looming dread? It's all through implication. Erwald is soft spoken, is kind, is giving, is loving, and has a gentle nature. You only want to see the best for him, but early on, you know that something is deeply deeply broken in his mind, and you're in constant fear that he will act on it, or be blamed for something he didn't do. As of now, (2023-07-08) *(word censored by IMDB)* is listed on the page of this film's keywords, which adds an interesting layer, albeit inaccurate... or IS it inaccurate? In and of itself, the IMDB title page really made me question this issue in a serious way.

Peter Pan Syndrome is defined as a psychological disorder where the "sufferer" has childlike sensibilities, and is interested in children's things, having never left their childhood mentally, I.e. "the desire to be young forever." Is it even POSSIBLE to have those sensibilities as an adult without it being sexual too? People who defend Michael Jackson say there's a difference. I'm not so sure that there is, and while you might not like this film because you think it humanizes a *(word censored by IMDB)*, I think what it actually does, is it casts a very dark shadow, basically on ANY man who has a fixation on children: this would include Mr. Rogers; this would include Mr. Dressup.

As far as we know, and all the evidence suggests, that Erwald actually doesn't do anything illegal or criminal, or "evil," at any point in this film. All we know is that he has an OBSESSION, with being around kids that HE himself thinks is wrong. We know this from the scene where he gingerly puts his arm around the boy, watching tv together, hesitating a long time, as if he feels guilt or apprehension. He psychotically joins a bunch of children having a snowball fight, and then just as quickly as he joined in, he departs, and breaks down weeping in his car, as if feeling guilt, when he didn't really break any laws here. This scene was actually quite funny to me, because something similar happened to me as a kid, and unlike the kids in the film who think its normal, I ran away from the guy like i was running for my life.

Ultimately the question is, is any of that WRONG? DID he cross a line? I don't know the answer to that question, but what's clear is he's a broken man who's missing something from his childhood that he can never get back. The question is, did he exploit anyone in the film? It doesn't look like it. It looks like all he did was try to enrich the lives of the boys in this community, who's lives many people would say he has no business being a part of.

In that picture, you're forced to juxtapose him, his character, and his actions, to those of all the other adults in the film, and you have to focus on the idea of TRAUMA, particularly when it comes to child abuse. Erwald didn't do anything to traumatize the kids in the film. Meanwhile, the father of one of the boys kills his son's favorite pet rabbit in front of him to "make him into a man," while Erwald vehemently protests the action. That's a life scarring and traumatic experience to put your son through, but in some cultures, it's considered normal. The father doesn't like Erwald, because he sees him as a wimp, (which by those standards, I guess he is) and he doesn't want him influencing his son... in the end, it's Sparta Vs. Greece, and if you know anything about history, the comparison here is genius in so many layers.

One minor criticism I have of the film, is I do find it a little bit hard to believe that a small Romanian town, full of some very macho attitudes, would so willingly hand their kids over to some random German newcomer teaching FREE judo lessons, with the rampant stigma that there is attached to "the shady German tourist," especially in eastern Europe. I really wish the director would have put a little more effort into building a more developed and plausible backstory for Erwald, like he moved to town with his Romanian girlfriend, or something, who you see at the start of the film, presumably a failed relationship. Simply put, that's not Seidl, and it would have made the film much too linear to maintain the same aesthetic, this film probably already being Ulrich Seidl's most linear film.

This film ends and begins the same way the first film does, at the old age home, focusing on the old man, the father of the two brothers, in the near end stages of Alzheimer's calling for his mother. This is when the arc, and message of the series really hit me. It's all about childhood trauma, and how it's passed on from generation to generation. These men all had a terrible relationship with their mother, and it scarred them for life, at least, that's what it looks like. It affected both brothers in almost the complete opposite way, Erwald internalized all of his anger and resentment, and led an unfulfilled life, and childhood. Richie developed a bombastic demeanor, and drowned himself in hedonism, ramping up debt, losing touch with his daughter, and forced to prostitute himself to haggard older women to make ends meet. Both lives are lives of desperation felt and expressed in polar opposite ways, both waiting to explode. All I can say is it would be so awesome if this was a trilogy and the third instalment would be one where the two brothers come together and all this tension finally gets its release. Again though, that might just not be Seidl.