Bene Cumb
I am far from of the opinion that a film should be just an entertainment with lost of fast twists and turns, but still, films should - or could - be different from theatre performances where other moments and expressions prevail. Here, the background novella with the same name is dreamy enough, and the signature of Francis Ford Coppola has brought the scenes' progression to a hectic and often difficult-to-follow level, where even the good performance of Tim Roth (definitely in my Top10 list of distinctive actors) could not make all the events and motives understandable to me, I had to delve into the plot as a whole later on.As for other performances, there were no up to the task of Roth's, Bruno Ganz spend too little time on screen, but female characters remained incomplete to me. And all this for more than 2 hours... Well, it is not bad, no flop, but a kind of "film for art's sake" with the participation of some famous filmmakers.
museumofdave
I would rather be enticed by a fascinating failure than a wholly successful mediocrity, rather see an Orson Welles than doesn't quite work than sit through a predictable romance with a pretty ending; everyone has something they want from a film--comfort, entertainment, escape, and sometimes stimulation--a film that takes you places you ordinarily wouldn't go--sometimes physically--like Malta, in this film--or a human mind unchained from reason, free-flowing through the centuries. Coppola's brilliantly colored time-travel tale is not always clear and is often frustrating for many reasons, but it is impressive craft, and shows a master filmmaker attempting something beyond the ordinary. This film is not easy entertainment, nor always satisfactory, but is often beautiful, is convincingly acted, especially by Tim Roth, and is worth watching twice--a couple of months apart, perhaps.
Charles Herold (cherold)
Youth Without Youth is a purposely odd movie. An old man becomes a young man and encounters a variety of people. There is a general story arc, but it all feels rather episodic. There are some clever moments, but overall it seems to go on and on without getting anywhere.Watching the movie made me curious about the novella it's based on, perhaps because its structure seems more conducive to literature. I don't know if the book is any good, but I could see a book within the movie that has potential.I think the problem is, the movie sits on the fence between storytelling and dreamlike mystery. And because it never commits to either, it does both poorly. I see here that responses to this film are all over the map, and that's not surprising. The enigmatic approach will always appeal to some people. But for me the film felt like a half enigma that never engaged me, even though it was just curious enough to keep me discontentedly watching until the end.
cliffchuff
I thought this film really presented in two parts, the first half was engaging and as usual Tim Roth holds the imagination. However in the second half of the film it seemed to loose its way a little, I struggled to get where it was going. Despite an interest in the themes represented and an understanding of the philosophy and religious concepts addressed I really struggled to engage with the plot/story. I will watch this again because I know there are depths to be mined. However i was left feeling disappointed. I stayed with the film but found it increasingly difficult to feel for the characters as it progressed. Too many concepts interwoven with out sufficient meaning. Way better than most productions and worth a watch but don't expect too much.
AD
