How can this film not be compared to "Run Lola Run"? Tom Tykwer's last film has reached such a cult status in such a short period of time, and has inspired a few spoofs, most recently on a Simpson's episode. It is even starring the same lead, and although very different, both films eschew any traditional narrative structure.

Yet I have to ask why is this film so unbearably drawn out and long? "Run Lola Run" was an 85 minute film that felt like two hours, and "The Princess and the Warrior" is over two hours, but should have been about 90 minutes.

Franka Potente plays Sissi, a nurse in an asylum. Apparently she lives in the Asylum, she was born there, and her father is still a patient there. One day she is hit by a truck whose driver was distracted by a man named Bodo, played by Benno Furmann. Bodo, although no one realized has caused the accident, climbs under the truck and performs emergency throat surgery with a pocket knife and a straw. This was amazingly realistically well done and had me cringing, which I seldom do in a movie.

After two months, Sissi recovers and decides to try and find Bodo. Bodo is apparently an ex soldier who lost his wife tragically in a gas station explosion, and cannot come to grips with it. He lives with his brother, but is constantly plagued by nightmares and crying fits. Bodo is fired early in the movie for crying. He was a gravedigger, and I guess this is considered a 'no no' for that profession. Later he tells a doctor that when he looks like he is crying, it is really a gland problem. I'm not sure if this is true or not. The movie doesn't seem to really let us know.

Some movies have unbelievable coincidences that make you laugh. This entire movie is full of them, but it has been suggested that this is the point. Bodo doesn't want to see Sissi, but she is certain that fate wants them together. This movie certainly did, because their paths keep crossing through various coincidences.

Bodo's brother works in a bank, and they have a plan to rob it without putting any suspicion on the brother. They want to take the money and retire in Australia. The brothers even have a Kangaroo Crossing sign hanging up in their house to remind them of their dream. The bank robbery is a very interesting scene, and I liked the way we only learn what the plan is as we watch it take place.

A long portion of the film takes place in the asylum. The behavior I see in here is not like anything I've ever seen in a movie asylum before. An early scene has Sissi giving a patient a hand job, and the pleasure may be mutual. No other scene in the film was like this, so I don't want to turn people away because of it. I just couldn't understand the motivation in a scene that could've been left out. Another scene has a patient start to eat glass, and I think it was because he sensed that Sissi may have found another love. In another scene a patient hit her, knocking her to the ground. Her response to this is unusual, and needless to say, I think the patient probably should have had a little more therapy then she gave. She also should find a way to protect herself a little better as well.

The movie has lots of interesting camera work. The movie starts with a letter being written, that we see mailed, and follow it to the recipient, Sissi, who is asked to remove something from a safety deposit box. She is unable to do this for the two months she was laid up, so I'm surprised that whomever sent the letter didn't come and get it herself, or at least visit her in the hospital.

The final shot is very clever, starting with a photograph on a dashboard that zooms in, and then out again to realize that it is the car parked outside the photograph, which then pulls back into a very long helicopter shot. This shot may have lasted over five minutes total.

There are some very long fades, some seem to last more than a minute. One went from a starfield to a man in a shower that seemed to last more than a few minutes. First we see a man in the middle of the stars, and then we realize it is a shower, then slowly the stars become a room. Like most of the movie, it did last too long, but I found myself watching every corner of the room for something else to fade into view.

In the end, I think the movie failed more than it succeeded because it asked far too many questions than it answered. And not just little questions. I definitely have some big questions that I really wanted to know the answer to. Who exactly was the woman at end of the film? Where was her father in the film? Was that her mother being buried in the beginning or someone else's mother?

To be honest, the film is so drawn out that I really had to try hard to keep focused on it.


Note: On my own review page I gave the film 2 ½ stars.




Recommended:
No

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older