After watching the film, I was unsure what was wrong with it. The pictures are magnificent, the acting was OK to good the score was good and the plot was there. Palpatine replacing the Gevatter was may be OK. I think the Gevatter as described in the book is really hard to transfer onto the screen.
The magic was changed in a bad way as described in comments before. The landscape is changed, too. I did not like this, but one has to see the film as an own work. A "Plan 9 from outer space" like goof is the Kantorka entering the mill in the night and the journeymen leaving with her in bright daylight only minutes later. But this only explains, why the film is not a really great one and not, why it is only a film as thousands more.
After rethinking what did not work, things came back to the missing year. The point which worked the least in the book is the shortage of time. Krabat is getting from the newbie to one main antagonist and the possible successor of the master within three years in a ritual death cycle lasting one year. So in the book he is able to see the rhythm of new trainee to prey only two times completely while other journeymen had an advance of at least 9 years for this and react accordingly at the end of the year. And the relationship of Krabat to the Kantorka can built up by very few meetings within year 2 and 3. So the development of Krabat himself is very fast and nearly unbelievable in the book.
By omitting one year in the film, the pace goes over the edge. To explain the Krabat/Kantorka relationship, the journeymen have to stumble massively into the town life as positive figures, therefore the awful fight scene. And Krabat has to go to the town on easter himself and Juro has to catch him in the town (and reveal himself). The original scene in the book, where Juro is "accidently" burning Krabats' hand is much more appropriate but give not enough time for Krabat to physically meet the Kantorka during the rest of the film. As a result of all this, the changing of Krabat during the story is getting implausible. So is for an example to add the suicide attempt.
The film is simply lacking plausibility by telling a story of breaking a cycle in too short time. You can not give the real impression of a cycle by only showing it once. An additional hour for the third year would have made the film a much better one. Even then, Pumphutt or Dresden had to be left out which still changes the picture of the master, but a film can never suit a novel.
The magic was changed in a bad way as described in comments before. The landscape is changed, too. I did not like this, but one has to see the film as an own work. A "Plan 9 from outer space" like goof is the Kantorka entering the mill in the night and the journeymen leaving with her in bright daylight only minutes later. But this only explains, why the film is not a really great one and not, why it is only a film as thousands more.
After rethinking what did not work, things came back to the missing year. The point which worked the least in the book is the shortage of time. Krabat is getting from the newbie to one main antagonist and the possible successor of the master within three years in a ritual death cycle lasting one year. So in the book he is able to see the rhythm of new trainee to prey only two times completely while other journeymen had an advance of at least 9 years for this and react accordingly at the end of the year. And the relationship of Krabat to the Kantorka can built up by very few meetings within year 2 and 3. So the development of Krabat himself is very fast and nearly unbelievable in the book.
By omitting one year in the film, the pace goes over the edge. To explain the Krabat/Kantorka relationship, the journeymen have to stumble massively into the town life as positive figures, therefore the awful fight scene. And Krabat has to go to the town on easter himself and Juro has to catch him in the town (and reveal himself). The original scene in the book, where Juro is "accidently" burning Krabats' hand is much more appropriate but give not enough time for Krabat to physically meet the Kantorka during the rest of the film. As a result of all this, the changing of Krabat during the story is getting implausible. So is for an example to add the suicide attempt.
The film is simply lacking plausibility by telling a story of breaking a cycle in too short time. You can not give the real impression of a cycle by only showing it once. An additional hour for the third year would have made the film a much better one. Even then, Pumphutt or Dresden had to be left out which still changes the picture of the master, but a film can never suit a novel.