IMDb user comments for
Youth Without Youth (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

45 comments in total

---

99 out of 127 people found the following comment useful :-
Searching the eternal youth in Romania, 4 novembre 2007

Author: ekisest de Romania

It's been a while since I have written anything for IMDb. "Youth Without Youth" is not only a very personal approach to a barely known novella by Mircea Eliade, but also a homage to Romanian culture and civilization. I felt really good watching a legendary filmmaker like Coppola before the special screening (in Bucharest), walking on the stage and thanking sincerely to the Romanian cast and crew, and in the end, thanking all of us "for Mircea Eliade". I read Eliade's novella some months ago, and I found it difficult and "anti-cinematic", unlike "La tiganci" or other texts of his. "Youth" is, as I saw it, a meditation on time and the relation between human memory and identity. Eliade has been concerned with the theme of "la vita est sueno" (life is dream) for a long time, and his fiction shows it. Coppola also has been preoccupied with time, dreams and memory in his late films like "Peggy Sue", "Dracula" and "Jack". It might seem strange and paradoxical, but beyond the horror clichés and the gory make-ups, one can see lots of formal similarities in "Dracula" and "Youth...". The Italian American director is definitely bound to European Romanticism, and he tried to infuse a lot of new symbols (the mirror, the moon on the bluish night sky, the skull etc) to an already symbol-heavy-loaded narrative. Tim Roth is the ideal choice for the central character (old Dominic Matei that grows young after a lightning stroke). The rest of the numerous cast is composed mainly of Romanian actors, most of which are famous in our country. Iures is known for the international public also, and handles his role elegantly, as usual. Maria Lara is a Romanian-born German actress, playing the role of Dominic Matei's lady friend and lover. The relationship between Dominic and Laura is beautifully developed by Coppola's rewriting of the initial novella. Near the end of the film, there is a moment (shot in Malta) where Dominic decides to break away from Laura, because of the dreadful effects of his supernatural youth on her physical condition. Both actors are impressive in this delicate scene.

This film was, all in all, a pleasant surprise for me. I was expecting a more Hollywood-ish speculative and commercial-oriented style. Anyway, I personally (still) think the D.P. and the photographic department in general was overwhelmed by the magnitude of this project. Coppola should of thought more deeply about his choice, because Mihai Malaimare Jr. (the D.P.) and digital imagery was simply not enough ! It took over 2 years to complete this film anyway, so why didn't he use film instead of digital mediums? Was money really a problem here? Maybe Roth asked for a big fee, I don't know. This film won't be appreciated by a wide audience, because Eliade's literature is very special and restrictive (you need to fancy Romanian folklore and oriental philosophies in order to get into this). In fact, Eliade's novella was clearly inspired (as the main title shows) by one of the most beautiful and profound fairy-tales ever: "Tinerete fara batranete si viata fara de moarte" (hard to translate into English, but it might sound like "Eternal youth and life without death"). Even if you are not Romanian, you should check it out! It will change the way you feel about time and life, the way Eliade changed Coppola from an old mainstream Hollywood director into an arty European film experimenter.

---

27 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
Born again Coppola !, 30 novembre 2007

Author: mjsinclair de Switzerland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Don't pay too much attention to the press résumé for this film. It has nothing to do with Nazis and American agents. Although they do appear in the film they are not central to its plot, and this is certainly not a spy drama. If this is what you are expecting you risk being severely disappointed. This film will never be a box office smash hit.

No, this is a film which explores the concepts and possibilities of Reincarnation, Karma, Mysticism, Spirituality, and Time. What if time is not linear? What if reincarnation is real? What if human potential could be exponentially enhanced, scientifically? If like me, you are fascinated by these esoteric subjects anyway, and you can forgive the quirks such as "upside down" camera shots, and occasional weak dialogue, then I suspect that you will love this film. It tackles these timeless questions, whilst always managing to be engaging, and entertaining - and it is beautifully shot. At no time did I feel that the film lacked pace or interest.

Bruno Ganz is becoming one of my favourite actors. After Vitus, he turns in another great performance here as the doctor who treats Dominic (Tim Roth) after he has been struck by lightening. A brilliant academic who has sacrificed his entire life to the study of the origin of languages, Dominic knows that, at the age of 70, he will now die without achieving his goal, his life purpose. The lightening bolt burns him to a crisp, but instead of killing him instantly, it gives him a new lease of life, regained youth, super-human brainpower and thus a second chance to complete his life's work.

He also regains the love of his life, now reincarnated as Veronica. Under his power, Veronica regresses back through the ages, each time speaking an older language, until, as she nears the origin, and his work nears completion, he realises that he can have his life's desire, but first there is a test, and a choice to be made.

This fascinating film which Coppola wrote, directed and produced is well constructed and satisfying. It really made me think, and hours after the end, the pennies were still dropping.

In what it sets out to do, for me, it is a great success.

---

30 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
An interesting...failure? Success? Madness?, 9 novembre 2007
Author: Diogenes81

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Some moviegoers, no doubt, will call Youth without Youth "deep", "exquisite", a "metaphysical experience", mentioning Hinduism, Buddhism and divine epiphanies; others will dismiss it in two lines as "unwatchable crap". I will do neither.

To give you an idea, this feels like a movie co-directed by a burn-out David Lynch and a clinically depressed Terry Gilliam, based on a book co-written by a drunk Jorge Luis Borges and Philip K. Dick on drugs. Get the picture?

This was a movie I wanted to like. The plot I had heard seemed ideal for a fantastic, bittersweet tale dealing with themes such as life, death, loss, and time. I consider myself a reasonably keen moviegoer, but I found the result chaotic to say the least. I was interested by what happened, but I found myself unable to understand it completely- and judging from the other faces in the theater as the end credits rolled, I was not the only one.

Romania, 1938. Aging language scholar Dominic (Tim Roth) is struck by a lighting, and inexplicably, as he is cured by a helpful doctor (Bruno Ganz), he finds out he has become younger : he is 35 again. Besides, now he has an incredible memory, and his knowledge about languages is astounding. The Nazis soon find out about him, and Dominic escapes in Switzerland, where he is followed and has to confront a Nazi scientist.

In the second half - which feels like a different movie - after the end of the war, Dominic meets Veronica (Alexandra Maria Lara), identical to Laura (I like the nod to Italian poet Petrarca here - see the introductory dream, which is basically a "triumph of the Death"), the woman he loved (and lost) sixty years before. Veronica too is struck by a lighting (what about staying at home during storms?), and she begins to experience visions from her previous lives - she talks and behaves like a Princess from ancient India, then like a woman from Egypt... Dominic is able to understand her, and uses her mystical experiences for his study about the origin of languages.

Add to this : - some weird powers acquired by Dominic, who can read books by simply staring at them, and at a certain point is also able to control guns, like a low-rent Magneto; - a cameo appearance by a furry-fingered creature holding a skull- Shiva, apparently (?); - an incomprehensible subplot about a "double", played by Roth as a mix between Gollum/Smeagol of The Lord of the Rings (Coppola even uses the same camera tricks as Jackson during the "psycho" conversations) and Adolf Hitler. No kidding.

I like Roth (The legend of 1900, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead), but his performance here is uneven. As the quiet, decent Dominic he is nicely understated and convincing. I found him less solid as the already mentioned "double" - I suspect that Roth too did not understand what the hell he was supposed to play: an angel or a demon, Id or cold reason, or maybe a Jungian shadow? Beats me - and Roth too, I guess.

Luminous Alexandra Maria Lara is remarkable in a challenging and somehow thankless role (after a brief appearance, she disappears from the movie for the whole first half).

Although I have not read the novel by Mircea Eliade, I suspect two things: first, that it could be interesting, and make more sense than the movie; second, that the adaptation suffers from what is called "the slideshow effect": all the best bits from the book glued together with little regards for pacing (which here is totally off) and clarity.

If you like movies which answer neatly all questions, then avoid this one, or you'll want to murder someone after you leave the theater. If you enjoy incomprehensible movies with a weird fantasy twist and a bittersweet atmosphere, you might like Youth Without Youth. Only, if you understand what it meant, please give me a call.

---

24 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
certainly won't be one to show to all (some, frankly, will hate it). but it's challenging in ways filmmakers usually shy away from, 12 janvier 2008

Author: Filmjack3 de United States

It was bound to happen that Youth Without Youth, the first film written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola in fifteen years (the first directed in ten), would be lauded by the critics for not being a real "comeback" kind of project. It's surreal, philosophical, mystical, and even has a mood about it that calls as a throwback to old romantic melodramas of the 40s and 50s (hence the opening titles). It's not even any kind of great film. It's pretentious in a few stretches, maybe more-so, and it takes a convoluted explanation that comes second in 2007 film only to Southland Tales for being more complex and bizarre. But unlike Kelly's film, Coppola at least has a hold on what he's doing, or what he's trying to accomplish. Coppola once said that art is all about taking riks, and to make films without risk is like sex without children.

In the grand scheme of things, at least with his career, Youth Without Youth seems to be slightly minor a risk when compared to the likes of Apocalypse Now or One From the Heart. But it's a risk that Coppola takes all the same, and through the intellectual thicket (which, contrary to some critics, isn't completely dense) there is some truly potent cinematic expression. So, the plot, the plot... A linguistics professor, Dominic (Tim Roth) is an old man when he gets struck by lightning in 1938, then proceeds to age back to 40 in recovery, only to then find that he's being watched- and planned for abduction- by Nazi scientists who want to use his newfound super-powers (mostly that he can, at times, harness powerful energy, as Dominic describes as "out of a science fiction novel"). This might be enough for a movie alone, but there's more- years later, a woman from Dominic's past (from before the lightning strike) appears again, also still apparently young, and she can talk in ancient languages, so then...

Yeah, I could go on with that. Suffice to say there's also talk about how this whole time-warp connects into the realm of consciousness itself, or what makes up knowledge or the pursuit of language, and all relating to time, leading up to an ending that flips around itself, all inspired by an old Chinese tale that goes around and around. What it means I still can't quite figure, and it at least shows Coppola won't spoon-feed any kind of easy ending (even the whole "it's only a dream" concept has some holes to fill, leaving ambiguity as something a little more logical). Frankly, I've never read any of the Mircea Eliade's writings, but there's a lot to it that strikes up references to other works. I couldn't help but think the plot, and its themes, were as though Philip K. Dick was forced to make a melodrama- on his own terms- from an unpublished book. Or that there was a connection to the Fountain, or even Dr. Who or something else. The comparisons are endless.

But what remains, at the end of trying to figure out what the hell Youth Without Youth will say as its ultimate message, is an original work, sincerely with the verve of a filmmaker who just says 'f*** it' and makes the movie he wants to make on his own terms (with, subsequently, his own money). If there is any risk to the project it's that Coppola gambles on narrative cohesion with elements like two Dominics following the lightning strike (one of which, of course, prods the other to complete his life's work as a "failure"), or the power of emotion with two people in love vs. the tremendous, daunting task of unlocking secrets of language and consciousness and what time even means. Couple this with technique that veers into the abstract, with upside down camera angles and upfront anti-Nazi imagery ala Indiana Jones, and a music that strikes up the most melancholy and precise of aforementioned melodrama, and it becomes the weirdest hybrid Coppola's ever made.

And yet, and yet, if Youth Without Youth is one thing above all else, it's, well... interesting. I never felt like getting up and even leaving to go to the bathroom much less leaving the film for good. I cared about Dominic and Veronica as I did the direction Coppola took the story (even if pretensions, particularly in the second half, seemed to loop into the equation). And Roth is, not to forget to mention, terrific in the role, seeming to understand where his character may (or may not) be headed as he continues with his research and finds that he is sort of doomed in time unless he goes down a certain path. He even gets to dig into a certain subdued humor underneath the skin of the picture, where a few times there's some laughs to be had at the expense of what's going on with Dominic, as though some old philosopher discovered a comic book and incorporated it into his character. It's a very strange movie experience, and not one I can easily recommend. But I do all the same, and Coppola fans will either like it or, as case is turning out, they wont.

---

22 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
philosophical art film, 1 mars 2008

Author: omniron de Israel

This is definitely not everyone's cup of tea and has a pretty good chance of becoming a cult film. It explores major philosophic subjects from a dialectic angle, which might confuse pedestrians. In a nutshell: an elderly professor is challenged by his inability to complete his life's work. He is struck by lightning and gets the opportunity to observe life from a meta-human POV. He realizes that intellect, love , morals and reality in general are always ambiguous. IMO one must have some intellectual baggage, life experience and artistic curiosity in order to appreciate the profoundness of this film. Artistically, the film is very stylized and has a rather cold feel to it, something that might deter and alienate the viewer from actually empathizing with any of the characters. However, it's quite clever and stays with you after watching it. I would say that it felt to me a bit like a Darren Aronofsky film combined with Greenaway's Tulse Luper.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
A heavy and complex movie with deep philosophical implications, 3 avril 2008

Author: siderite de Romania

I was flabbergasted to see that a lot of the comments for this film were negative. The fact that the movie is not of a commercial nature doesn't make it bad, it just makes it less accessible. In this manner, it is just as bad for movies as a science paper is for publications.

Anyway, the film is based on a book of Romanian Mircea Eliade, one that I didn't read. Actually, I didn't read most of Eliade's work for the very reasons people bad mouthed this film. Then I entered adolescence :-P.

The film, though, is a resounding success to me. Not only that it is well done, but at the end of it, it let me wanting to understand more and to read the book. Maybe I will one of these days. As the film is impossible to summarize here, I will get to a quick conclusion.

Bottom line: a heavy feeling film, with a complex script and a lot of philosophical ideas of Eliade's scattered through the story; also some of his personal obsessions: orientalism and the loss of the love of his life. I personally think it was a great movie, but it became a bit confused at the end.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Cinamtic Brilliance, 28 avril 2008

Author: dani-244 de Denmark

I was surprised and fortunate to find a movie of this caliber by chance, since I'd never heard of the release; at first, I actually thought it was an old movie, one that I hadn't seen.

I' am bewildered and frankly frightened by the obscene IMDb rating of "6.6" - the current evaluation of this movie, by the audiences frequenting these boards - a prime example of the fact that taste is a controversial matter.

Albeit, this movie isn't for everyone; if you regard the world as being a solved puzzle, if you've figured it all out; what it's all about, if nothing mystifies or captivates your senses and entelechy, if you are utterly unenchanted by the magical and mysterious nature of reality, this movie will be a huge disappointment for you. Please don't watch it, since it's not made for you, and hence, you will distort the perception of the movie. In-fact, if any of the latter apply, don't watch this movie, it will only bring grieve.

The movie is stunning in its appearance, the characters are believable, the story is uncompromising, relentless, of an epic nature, and the atmosphere is hypnotic and enchanting.

I was sucked into the world of this strange professor.

I only regard the ending as being less then perfect; however, such movies are never easy to end.

An essential and unique experience.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Romance without Love: Coppola's Obsessive Fixations, 12 mai 2008

Author: mindrec de United States

I've seen movies that purport to reveal great truths. Those movies fall flat because the revelations they make are not very revealing. This movie doesn't reveal truths of that sort but nonetheless shows the mindset and tribulations of people who (at least claim to) know great things.

There are HINTS of paranoia, loves lost, sacrifices made; strange paradoxes (body doubles, visual incongruities, time warps); and great "evils" (Hitler, mad scientists, Nuclear bombs). But none of these are resolved to my satisfaction.

So, the movie leaves one with this "final" thought: Though there are suggestions that somehow love (or some other sort of gender confusion / identity crisis) might resolve "everything"; nonetheless, life is morbid. We psychotically BELIEVE in love, genius, greatness, and eternal youth as we EXPERIENCE bloody-red roses, Hitler, hallucinations, and death.

Romantic? Maybe not. But a lesson in really GOOD movie making.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Coppala's Best Film Ever!, 2 juin 2008

Author: Brent Trafton de Long Beach, CA

I know I am in the minority here but in my opinion, "Youth Without Youth" is the best film that Francis Ford Coppala has ever made.

My apologies to fans of "The Godfather" films and "Apocalypse Now." While his more popular masterpieces were certainly well made films, "Youth Without Youth" takes a lot more chances and does not make any compromises.

The film is about a 70 year old man who is struck by lightning. After he recovers from his injuries, he appears to be 30 years younger and does not age for the following 18 years – or maybe not. The ending leaves much to interpretation, which will infuriate many people who are not willing to think for themselves. Parts of the film appear to be dreams sequences (maybe the scenes that start upside down.) Maybe the entire film after the lightning strike is a dream. Maybe the entire film was meant to be taken literally (but probably not.)

At times "Youth Without Youth" seems like a David Lynch film without the horror aspects. There are doppelgangers and people with supernatural powers. It is surreal and strange and some scenes do not make sense in their sequence but are important in the entirety of the film.

"Youth Without Youth" is not a film for everybody. In fact, most people will probably not like it. But if you are a person who is willing to think about a film and bring your own interpretation to what is happening, you might end up loving this film.

---

21 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
Francis Ford Discombobulator, 4 décembre 2007

Author: janos451 de San Francisco

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

When a godfather of American cinema returns from retirement after a decade, that's bound to be interesting, at least.

In case of Francis Ford Coppola's "Youth Without Youth," the event also turned out to be "interesting," in the sense of saying politely, "What the hell?!"

In the over-hyped and underwhelming "Golden Compass," characters are accompanied by their "demons" in animal form. Coppola goes that one better in "Youth" by having a friendly alter ego of the Professor tag along in the flesh and have conversations with himself (until one kills the other). However, personalities do not split during sequences that are projected upside-down. Why two characters, why upside-down scenes? These and other mysteries may or may not be explained during the film. In my case, no explanation was discerned; might well have been my fault.

The Professor (of linguistics) is played by Tim Roth. He is 70 at the beginning of this two-hour adventure in deep thought and annoying puzzles, but early on, he gets hit by lightning, and turns into 40. His teeth fall out, but he grows new ones. The place is Romania and the time is the 1930s. Old and young Professor is in love with Hitler's secretary, and the newly young man is treated for his lightning burns and understandable confusion by Hitler himself.

OK, this is not fair. "Youth" is confusing enough without fooling around with actors and characters, so let me give you the straight poop: the doctor is played by Bruno Ganz (Hitler in the magnificent "Downfall"), and the Woman is Alexandra Maria Lara, who was Traudl Junge in "Downfall," the young woman through whose eyes life in the bunker became revealed.

Ganz and Lara have been sensational in just about everything they have done. In "Youth," not so much. Whether speaking English or, in case of the Woman, Sanskrit, Urdu, or Before-History Language, there is a sense of Tiger-Lilly-subtitle disconnect in their performances.

What's with those languages? They are very important. The Professor wants to find the origin of human speech (starting in Romania, of course), and the Woman is de-evolving in a complying fashion. Why? How? To what end? Meaning what? Search me - I never went beyond a master's degree in philosophy, and my philological explorations terminated with Leonard Bernstein's facile, shallow, and entertaining exposition in the Norton Lectures.

Honestly, I am stalling here, because I just cannot think of anything to say except "interesting." Well, maybe "galling." Two hours of weirdness, looking for meaning, not having any, watching something so self-indulgent that it will make your teeth hurt - and you won't have new ones growing.

Let's hear it for Ganz's Doctor, however, with his quaint method of sterilization: after handling blood or before performing a procedure, he wipes his hands on his jacket. Consistently. Roth's character, in addition to the quest for the origin of language, he is also dealing with the meaning of time, of life, of meaning. Unlike Douglas Adams, who had provided the answer to life, universe, and everything (42), "Youth" will give you no clue whatsoever.

Most of the film was shot in Romania, almost in secret. There are Romanian locations, crew, and cast. The little country has a lot of talent: Romanians also act as Italian philologists, Indian sages, German scientists, what have you. Most of them and Roth do well. A surprise in the soundtrack: Coppola hired one of the most promising youngish composers in the world, Osvaldo Golijov (U.S. resident, born in Argentina, of a Romanian mother), who instead of providing one of his brilliantly original scores, came up with Mahler quotes and variations on them.

Coppola is writer, director, producer, financing the project by himself. Why did he make it? "Like the leading character, I was tortured and stumped by my inability to complete an important work. At 66, I was frustrated. I hadn't made a film in eight years. My businesses were thriving, but my creative life was unfulfilled."

And so to "Youth" - a vanity project, a pile of muddleheaded philosophizing without the restraint of investors, studio politics and demands, or of good sense. He wanted to learn "how to express time and dreams cinematically," Coppola has said. "Making a movie is like asking a question, and when you finish, the movie itself is the answer." For "Youth," the "answer" at the end of two hours is: "What was the question?"

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Principaux Détails
Your user comments	Your vote history