Youth (2015)

Please don't spend money on this.

A different way of telling a story

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

After 25 years of browsing IMDB and always resisting the urge to create an account, it never seemed necessary. Then I just did that to write a blurb about this film.I get it that this film didn't do much for a lot of people, reading through many of the 1 star reviews I get it that it it's probably a pretentious piece of crap. (paraphrasing the 20 or so 1 star reviews)However, for me it worked. The slow moving scenes, the absurdities, the music and the unhinged plot, it all comes together eventually. I've watched the final scene 3 times since watching the film last night for the first time and each time it's making me wanting to see it again.European cinema; pretentious and boring but great nudity when it matters!

I wonder if either Michael Caine or Harvey Keitel regrets having made this movie? One wonders what they thought of the project when proposed, and what they thought after seeing the result. I don't know about Keitel, but Caine certainly doesn't need the money, so one wonders why he signed on to such a pretentious, artsy-fartsy piece of balderdash. Unless, as I say, the project sounded different when presented. First of all, there is no coherent story line. Oh there' s plenty of family acrimony between father and daughter, and some confict between a pair of lovers splitting up, and a scenery-chewing scene between two elderly, separated show business types reaching the end sof their lives and careers. And of course the reference to homsexuality that is de rigeur nowadays. But they are presented as isolated threads with no unifying theme to draw them together. Then we have the pretentiousness. A plethora of cryptic and obscure scenes with weird stagings oddly shot, reminiscent of Fellini, are scattered throughout the film, like trash over a landscape, and make the viewer wonder just what the hell is going on at that particular moment. It wasn't quite bad enough to make me stop the film in the middle, but that is only because of the gorgeous cinematography of the Swiss landscape. Still, I wish, as they say, that I could have my two hours back.

At its best, "Youth" grabs his ideal of grandiloquence with pure cinema moments. It can get gorgeously evocative, like having an old Maradona thinking about his pre-match warm-ups. "What are you thinking about?", he´s asked, and he answers "the future". As eloquent as it can be it´s also too vague and two hours can become tedious. Maybe too sentimental as well but nostalgia is the engine after all. There´s nothing wrong in missing past times. Nothing.

I do not think it is possible I could have liked this film any more than I did. I was watching it for the second time. The first time I loved it. But, I did not understand what a masterpiece it was. It is absolutely pitch perfect. The direction of the film is stunning. Hollywood should take notice. Few films come out of Hollywood like this lovely gem. This was entirely directed and produced by Italians. It has a magical realist quality to it, and some of the cinematography was positively mind boggling. If you look at some of my other reviews, I am often tearing films apart. Most of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood these days leave me cold and unsatisfied. However, this film was written and shot for adults. I do not think the current crop of kids, that is fueling the boom in nonsensical action films, and comic reboots would get this film at all. Way, way too refined. Too much character development. Not enough action for the kiddies.There are some great scenes of the writers on Kietel's film, where they are brainstorming the script of the film they are writing. It is a wonderful irony, as the script of this film is a thing of beauty. This film centers around the characters of Michael Caine, and Harvey Kietel. Both very successful men. Caine a retired composer, and Kietel a movie director, nearing the end of his career. Wryly observing them closely, and striking up a friendship with Fred, is a movie star played by Paul Dano. The younger man is debating whether to escape his burdensome identification with a robot character in a sci-fi franchise with a drastic change of pace by playing Adolf Hitler in a movie. There is a wonderful scene where Miss Universe shows up and pays her respect to the Dano character. The dialogue is not at all what one would expect. Then Fred gets a visit from his disaffected daughter and personal assistant (Rachel Weisz). She's here to announce that her husband, Mick's feckless son (Ed Stoppard), has just dumped her for real-life rock star Paloma Faith, playing a parody of herself that stars like Mylie Cyrus, Brittany Spears, and many others would never be capable of. As in Sorrentino's 2013 foreign-language Oscar winner "The Great Beauty," the plot is less important than the characters and the opulent settings, which are populated with eccentric, magical characters in the background. This is a movie for adults. And this movie is a masterpiece. A simply stunning bit of filmmaking. Watch it with patience. Watch it with adoration. Watch it with respect. Watch it and yearn for the days when films of this caliber were more common.