Gioventù perduta

Reading thru other reviews as I downloaded this, deciding if it was worth watching, I decided it was, with good actors but within 20 minutes my mind was spinning as I asked myself repeatedly "where have I seen this before"? But it wasn't the plot, nor were it the actors. It was a riff on Oliver Twist. So if any adults are familiar with Fagin and the concept of the "kid school for criminals" then this will look familiar. Is it worth watching? That's up to you. I didn't mind it. But it wasn't great.

Newb (his third resume entry - this his second full length feature film) producer, writer and director John Swab did a decent job in the directing department, but the writing was a mess. I understood the story he was trying to tell, but it had many plot and technical issues, with choppy scenes. Had a seasoned writer made some edits, the story would've been much better told. Cinematography was great, the score decent, and the acting and casting on point, although Michael Pitt's performance and/or character was bland for the most part. Otherwise, not a bad film from a newbie filmmaker. 7/10 from me

I hated this movie for showing us negative stuff like mafia, robberies, crime, violence, betrayal, revenge. Only feelings of anger and sadness. Then characters are mixed up and it is unclear who is who. Adult copies of young same characters are looking too different both by look and by character. Then story is unfinished. Too many things disconnected, nonsesnse, unexplained, occured without cause or solution. Very bad experience. Not comfortable to watch at least for people who don't like complex things and negativity (social and emotional).

Objectively: Plot holes too numerous to list but a major problem is the casting of the principals, Loux and Oscar. The features of the young actors are dramatically different from the adults but this can be excused in that I imagine that this can be a challenge. What is inexcusable is that Michael Pitt (adult Oscar) has different eye color to Mitchell Paulsen (young Oscar) and Madilyn Kellam (young Loux) has different eye color to Sam Quartin (adult Loux). Subjectively: Film is cast, directed and the script is written by very mediocre talent and by people that do not understand and have not researched the way packs of street kids work and interact together. The scene where Oscar "teaches" prospective tween muggers to commit armed robbery is ludicrous. Young inexperienced kids drawing guns in broad daylight, in the middle of a busy city?! Unrealistic. Adult Oscar does a high level disarming action and disarms and then trains the hand guns on not one but two of the trainees and then berates them for their error. Reasonable, I suppose if they are expected to be able to rob Jason Bourne. So this feeble sophomoric production meanders through its low-grade, implausible plot, with a cast of "street kids" that look more like kids on a field trip from a local prep school than street wise urchins ready to participate in armed robbery.

Young Oscar (Mitchell Paulsen) saves her friend Loux by killing her abusive father. He runs away to the big city where he is befriended by Peaches (Kylie Rogers). He joins Peaches and a group of young thieves working for Augustus (William Forsythe). It is many years later. Oscar (Michael Pitt) is leading his own group of young thieves under Augustus. Loux and her younger brother are still searching for him.

I like the first half. I like its fantastical Dickensian Oliver Twist nature. Quite frankly, I like to stay with those child actors. I like Mitchell Paulsen and Kylie Rogers. They need to resolve the story with the kids. Once the time jumps, the movie feels different. This is a tale of two halves. They really should be two different movies.