Gioventù perduta

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.

I only watched the movie because of the high rating. If I have first seen the users reviews, I would have not wasted my time!

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.

I enjoyed this film. It was an independant low budget crime story of youth without consequence. Essentially teens that spent their life robbing and holding up people. It was a life that was an escape for Oscar from his abusive father only later to repeat as the movie jumps forward 15 years. Michael Pitt amazes me with his diverse roles and again creates another character that is far removed from himself. He looks damaged, he looks on edge yet has a strange moral compass and a deep down love for his family and those that he holds dear. Ron Pearlman provides a believable performance although perhaps something that we have seen a few times before...

The story didn't overly have a strong plot or a deeper underlying message and certainly no real consequence for the crimes they were all commiting which may of added an interesting element to the movie but was interesting enough as it progressed to make you invested in the characters and enough action to keep you entertained.

Ending (NO SPOILERS HERE) was odd imo as I would like to have know what happened next, but as the director said its the kind of movie where you can go home and think about it and kinda make your own mind up.

Enjoyable ride none the less.

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.