Review: Sorrentino’s ‘Youth’: A Euro Buddy Film

People loved it. People hated it. Art is experienced personally and subjectively, but we keep pretending that we are objective reviewers. Not that we can't be. We just usually fail at it because we, as a culture, have a flawed aesthetics.

YOUTH (2016)

Moving and brilliant -- it may well be Michael Caine's greatest film portrayal. But let me add that to really appreciate this movie, it helps to be old and have experienced gone through a congruent life. It is as painful as it is realistic.

Deeply touching. I wasn't expecting a meditation on lost love, bittersweet memories and regret. Nor was I disappointed. Ignore the static, it's a beautifully rendered film for adults.

Mannered and pretentious. If that's your thing, pounce!

Although I agree with most of the comments on the matter, I think the charge of sexism is a tad unfair. Not because the observation isn't true, but because the observers don't put it in a generational context of these men. I am in mid-forties and I can recall how racial attitudes began to change in pre-teen years. Attitudes towards gender roles began to change in my mid-twenties and it my early thirties society's attitudes towards gays began to change. Now attitudes towards gender identification have begun to be addressed.

Please recall how the elderly male director said I was a good director of women, just to be chastised by the young male actor you were a great director period. And yet a few scenes later the director can only recall the women he directed throughout his years.

Yes there was sexism in the film but only because the main characters were prison to it.

The comments range from "terrible" to "wonderful." This is a movie you just have to turn yourself over to, suspend judgment, and take the ride. It is beautifully shot. Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel are interesting curmudgeons. Several of the side characters are unforgettable. The young woman who plays Mr. Caine's massage therapist is one of them. It was also wonderful to see Rachel Weisz back in action. There are scenes that don't work, but many more that do.

As a creative professional on the cusp of retirement, this film really touched me.

Terrible, awful, stupid, pretentious, ridiculous and then add AO's review. That sums it up.

A.O. Scott's review of "Youth" is quite accurate. The movie is a wan attempt to emulate the works of the more accomplished European directors and writers mentioned by Mr. Scott. "Youth" fails as a good story or a character study and its occasional stabs at surrealism are cringe-inducing. And it's treatment of women is incredibly retrograde (and I don't consider myself a feminist). The acting is solid, however, and the cinematography and scenery are gorgeous.

An asinine review. 40% has nothing to do with the film. This was a masterwork; a character study in the truest sense. Emotional, thought provoking, funny, deep and yes, confusing at times. But not everything has to be Batman or toys that convert into robots. This in an adult picture, written by adults. It is also a rare picture that deals with male issues i.e. friendship, fears, sexuality and usefullness. The music is stunning and the scenery is beautiful. I highly recommend this picture. And please, simply disregard this waste of a review.

This review is spot on. The last paragraph sums it up well. There's no there there in this film. It was tantamount to watching a mindless dance of upper-class zombies and the sorry souls who serve them. Delicious to watch, but after too many empty calories, a stomach ache set in. It made me think of what a European spoof of the worst of Woody Allen would look like. To that end, it succeeded. And while I realize that some people enjoy vapid emptiness masquerading as high art, and that's certainly their prerogative, to everyone else, I say save your money or spend it on a film worth seeing.

Thanks, I was just as bored with this one as the Budapest Hotel, and I'm old too.

Guess we saw different movies. But then, I'm not going through "the pathos of male senescence." Perhaps this hits a little too close to the bone for Mr. Scott.

I was moved all the way through, and absolutely LOVED the music ... so different from the pablum that usually passes for a "score."

A ridiculous review. Pay no attention to it. See the movie. Beautiful. Funny. Sad . Wise. And, the sets ,scenery and music are great. Michael Caine deserves (but, will not get) an Academy award

My wife caught one of the best references in the movie, when the Paul Dano character says to the soccer player, "We all know that you're left handed." It's a reference to Maradona, the Argentine soccer star and his infamous "hand of God" goal in the quarter-final match against Britain in the 1986 World Cup.

I wish Mr.Scott just would have said, "I do not understand" and handed the review of this movie over to someone who can understand the movie and appreciate the great acting within it. He waffles by talking about himself and others, former movies he did not like and doesn't even show an inkling of understanding about Youth. I am surprised and perplexed that such a nothing review can appear in the Times.

Just came out of "Youth" and feel like I've aged 20 years. It was beautiful to watch, and Caine and Keitel were believable as old friends who only told each other the "happy things." But unlike the sweet decadence of the Grand Budest Hotel, there was little joy in this film. Just one moment toward the end--when Lena swooned midair in the arms of her new rock climbing love.
Fine, I'll give you a naked Miss Universe, but when Hitler dining becomes a rare high point, something's gone terribly awry in the filmmaker's vision.

How disappointing that Sorrentino lost his compass while penning the script for this movie. While there were a few strong moments the story was largely a convoluted mess peppered with pretentious side shows that added no real depth but were unabashedly contrived to impress. I watched 6 very unimpressed people walk out of the theater on his film. It appears that Sorrentino cared more about the audience's reaction to teh film than he did about the story. Unfortunately, Youth was a missed opportunity.

Mr. Scott is right to point out the location of the film as the setting of Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. The aging hotel, which no-doubt was greatly refurbished by the movie crew, as well as the guests, are all allegorical. Both Mann and Sorrentino each examine their contemporary Europe -- Mann's Europe, who died at World War I, and Sorrentino's Europe post World War II, now in the clutches of the European Union. Contemporary Europe has lost its ethnic and cultural diversity. The hotel guests all look the same and talk the same, and the young people who are trying to make a movie under the tutelage of Harvey Keitel, have absolutely nothing to say. Jane Fonda, the ex-anarchist, appears as Deus ex Machina hoping to save something that can't be salvaged... A great movie!

The reviewer seems to missed most of what the filmmaker was trying to convey. First, and perhaps most obvious, was about aging and the waning of the irrational and motivating passions that drive our younger selves. Second, and perhaps the most important point, was about the sterility of irony as an artistic perspective, or any perspective for that matter. This point was made most articulately by Miss Universe, which illustrates another flaw in the review, the assertion that the film had a sexist perspective.

Unlike Mr. Scott, I liked this movie about youth and age, emotion and apathy, beauty and decay. Caine's and Keitel's characters, a retired composer and a movie director, are commiserating old men, expertly and languidly interplayed. Weisz's and Fonda's characters, the composer's daughter and an aging actress, play incendiary scenes providing high points of rage. Dano's character, a disillusioned young actor, is self-pitying but ultimately redeemable. All this is played out in a setting of luxurious decadence and beautiful Alpine mountains and valleys. How could one ask for more?

I thought the best thing about this film was the gorgeous Swiss scenery. I tried to like this film, but there wasn't one character I was able to care about as each was self-focused and boring. Obviously, based on other comments, I missed something, but I still can't figure out what.

The scenery was beautiful. The plot of this movie was all over the place. The profanity and the nudity was not necessary. I regret having sat for two hours watching this movie. My poor wife napped through much of the movie as well.

Well, AO, not okay. To begin THE GREAT BEAUTY was LOADED with "whispers of Italy’s social, economic and political crises" of the early postwar decades. The cultural figures then young and striving (look eg at Fortini) who were jackbooted or otherwise persuaded to submit to the potemkin village of political life erected by NATO forces to keep the Commies out of power are hardly "oblivious" here decades later; rather, they convene to publicize their defeat and pick at each others' scabs. The effects decades later of such cultural submission, on a society and especially the young (several of whom we see unable to do more than bang their heads against walls) were whispered and more than once shouted throughout the film, and so steadily as to constitute its primary subject.

Just saw this movie; liked it for its amazing cinematography and several outstanding performances. Curious about one thing though: in the final shot, is that really Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip who are seated in the balcony? Would love to know more about that...

Disappointing to see AO Scott miss the boat so badly in his dismissive review of Youth. Perhaps he isn't old enough to comprehend a film about aging, memory and loss. used to place great credence in his reviews. Doubt I will do so going forward.

As Fellinies-que as possible. I was not a fan of Sorrentino’s last film, “The Great Beauty,” which commingled Fellini and Bunuel to create a snide depiction of modern Italian societal and religious decadence (say, La Dolce Vita and Exterminating Angel).

With “Youth,” director has dropped all (sacre) religion in favor of a theme of THE WEARY ARTIST. While I wouldn’t completely write off Sorrentino due to his talented eye (although film is too much of a visual feast while being dramatically undernourished), filmmaker needs to find his own direction and not just augment that of others but with an arrogant distance. Wrestling with artistic influence is a valid activity, but it doesn’t make for a satisfying meal. What’s truly amazing is that this rather uncommercial but beautifully photographed movie was given such an ample budget. Not that there aren’t scenes that strike a strong memory to those of us who have visited Switzerland (e.g. cows and bells), so I thank the director for that.

Caine and Keitel are an odd couple shown having mined their respective artistic careers for success—classical music and cinema—and who have come to the spa for a restorative/creative stay. Both actors are adequate in these roles. Most striking moments, however, revolve around two very minor players: an amazing display of soccer skill by a now quite rotund former star and a beauty beyond belief displayed by a nude Miss Universe. Perhaps get the blu-ray and, if bored, skip to those scenes.

I just saw this film and I thought it excellent. Very European. Exquisite music and photography. To me, it is a film about feelings. Caine, Kietel, and Weitz were suberb. Fonda? A bit over the top.

One has to be at least 75 years old to understand this movie and to appreciate it as a mood piece as much as anything else. The message is counter-intuitive and one's age is the greatest inhibitor. Michael Caine says in the movie that he doesn't know how he got "here" (elderly), but most viewers suffer the same eclipse. You don't "get it" unless you are there. In addition, A.O. Scott - and most movie critics - have seen too many movies to "get" it in this Star Wars era.

I agree entirely with this review, except on one point: the music, I thought was dreadful, and embarrassingly overwrought in its performance by Sumi Jo.

But aside from a matter of taste, I was more disappointed by the fact that the composer's music wasn't better integrated into the narrative. Aside from a few strains played by a child violinist, we don't get any sense of the composer's music. This may not be the point of the character, but we hear an awful lot said about how music is his only means of communicating with the world, but we hear barely a note of his music until the very end.

Another European film about a composer that integrates the music particularly well with the overall character/plot/tone is Kieslawski's "Les Trois Couleurs: Bleu". Again, people argue about the musical value of the score, but you can't deny that there's an understanding of music as an artistic value that is very much lacking in 'Youth'.

I thought the movies's sense of emptiness was both exquisite and beautiful. All in a sumptuous grandiose extraordinary landscape.

Was it not the point Mr. Scott?

Have to agree with Mr. Scott on this one. Despite the beautiful scenery, lovely music (particularly at the end, where the singing is exquisite), the terrific actors, and the sensual decadence, the film has something of an empty feeling about it. Worth going to see for the overall experience but don't be surprised if you find yourself yawning at times.

I don't know what movie A.O. Scott saw - obviously it wasn't the "Youth" that moved me to tears,

Excellent and subtle observations about "Youth," but I am fairly sure that Paul Dano's character is a movie star, not a rock star.

A. O. Scott's political correctness is fast becoming a prison holding hostage most of his reviews, particularly through a certain type of hysterical brand of feminism that is now overwhelming recent discourse on gender equality. Shame for such a talented writer whose film critiques I used to admire so.

Your reference to The Magic Mountain is important. The film was shot at Schatzalp, which is where Mann set Der Zauberberg. BTW, the obese man may not be recognized by many American viewers; he is Diego Maradona, perhaps the greatest soccer player of all time.

I saw YOUTH at The Austin Film Festival and was swept up in its beauty and its musical epiphanies. The film is composed like a song that works on the eyes, heart and ears. I was so enchanted and elated by the film that I'm helpless in approaching it critically. I was overwhelmed by its ending. And the audience I saw it with collectively achieved lift-off.

Ah shoot! I really hoped the Times would write a favorable review on this :-) I saw the film a few months ago not too far from where it was actually shot in Switzerland and I went back to see it again the next day, something I had not done since Jurassic Park but I was a 12-year-old kid when that came out. The film is ultimately sad and not the kind of entertainment one looks for on a warm sunny day. Yet I went twice. All the way through I found it to be pretentious in the most likable way if that makes any sense. There's a beautiful melancholy to it and even though some of the dialogue seems artificial, there's a lot of truth to be found in it. There is a scene (no spoilers) where Michael Caine finally explains to the British emissary why he won't conduct his Simple Songs for the Queen, the two actors being visible only in the background of Rachel Weisz' crying face. It is a heartbreaking scene and one that stayed with me as few do. In "My best fiend", Werner Herzog mocks Klaus Kinski for saying that there is no landscape more fascinating than the human face. "Youth" is shot in the most beautiful scenery imaginable but if you replace "face" with "soul" in Kinski's quote, then "Youth" might actually prove him right.