Young Ones

This is a good movie. It looks good. It's interesting. It has a decent plot. It also has a few well defined characters, one of which is Ernest Holm, the father of two teenage children and the owner of a barren stretch of farm land turned desert. Holm is played by Michael Shannon in convincing fashion. He is determined without being unscrupulous. He is flawed yet humble enough to know it. He has convictions. He loves his family. This film reminded me of There Will Be Blood. The Daniel Day-Lewis movie is, of course, superior to this one although there is a similar perspective of harsh land and desperate men whose fates lie in their ability to coax wealth from it. The other major difference its that this is set in the near future and has the conceivable technological improvisations of a world where water has become the most rare commodity. All in all a pretty good movie well deserving of a much higher rating than it currently averages.

It almost feels like someone adapted Shakespeare to a movie set in the near future where the economy had gone to hell and the US is almost without water. The film is slow, really slow, so that in two hours you don't see much. Paradoxically, some of the important scenes are rushed through, while others, related to character emotions are prolonged.

To me it felt both as a well done movie and a boring one. The practical effects, the acting, the shots, they were all excellent. The pacing and the story, on the other hand, a bit disappointing. I guess you have to be in the mood and you have to like the technique of film rather than just look for a story to entertain you.

Bottom line: Hard to call it a bad movie in any context, but only part of the viewers will be glad to have seen it. Let it go at its own pace, watch it from start to end, try to grasp the vision of the writer/director. Hope it works for you.

First up I'd really like to counter the earlier reviewers claims that this is "A story that had true potential was crippled by a lack of character development, and the nonexistence of focus" What utter nonsense, just because a film uses subtly instead of a sledgehammer to get it's message across and credits the viewer with at least a glimmer of intelligence does not make it a bad film. On the contrary this is a fantastic film with a story arc that builds to a satisfying conclusion. Yes the pace is slow but clearly this is to enforce the ideas within the narrative, a parched existence if you will. For me the pacing wasn't an issue at all and created a pleasant tension. Visually it is stunning and the production design and the near-future technology was extremely well realised and executed. Fans of 70's sci-fi should look no further.

The plot: After a catastrophic drought, a man and his two teenaged children attempt to survive in a post-apocalyptic society.

I wanted to like this more than I did. Everything about it seems like it would appeal to me. The problem is that I got a bit bored during a few slower parts of the film as I waited for the predictable plot to catch up to where I knew it was going. That's not a deal-breaker, but the scenes were telegraphed rather overtly early on, and anyone who's familiar with this sort of story can probably predict most of the film after twenty minutes. That said, it successfully avoided several annoying clichés in post-apocalyptic films: cannibals, biker gangs, raping all the female characters, and characters who do more yelling than talking. I was glad to see a post-apocalyptic film that was more concerned with characters than gratuitous elements such as these. Don't get me wrong: I love gratuitous exploitation films, but it's nice to have something a bit more restrained every now and then.

I would hesitate to truly recommend this film to fans of post-apocalyptic science fiction. There's certainly much to enjoy if you're starved for good entries in that genre, but it's nowhere near as good as The Road, which was a near-masterpiece. Certainly, the mood and atmosphere of that film was missing, and if you're looking for a truly bleak and depressing story, you won't find it here. This is a more traditional Western story in which a family survives in a near-lawless frontier. If you're more a fan of Westerns than post-apocalyptic films, then I can see how you might enjoy this more than I did. Even so, I think that you'd be better served by watching old Sergio Leone films. You won't get robotic mules, but you'll get much better cinematography and pacing. I can't remember a time when I was ever bored in a Leone film.

This is set in the future when after prolonged droughts water has become the most precious commodity on the planet. The story is told in three chapters from the perspectives of the three main players. Ernst Holm comes first; he has stuck it out on his dehydrated farmstead. He has alcohol issues, a wife in hospital and two young children, his daughter Mary and son Jerome.

He ekes an existence by servicing the local water mine and life is hard. His daughter has a beau in the shape of Flem Lever (Nicholas Hoult) who has designs on both her and her daddies land. He soon decides to put his designs into action with repercussions for all.

Now this is an indie effort and the CGI is excellent despite that. The story is a slow burner but it is one that is very much worth staying with. Michael Shannon an Ernst is particularly effective as the guilt ridden, hard bitten man who is clinging on to hope. The sci- fi parts in terms of machines are also done quite well, there is some action, but this is a character piece with violence as a driver for the story and not the raison d'être. I like dystopian futuristic films and this is one that goes for that in most parts whilst still clinging to some of the more regular societal norms and I felt they got the mix really well. If you like to have to think about a film, but not too much, then there may well be something of merit for you here.