Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:53 pm
Sure Frank... let's ALL pitch in with extra cash to save it.At an earlier screening for the press, reactions were mixed, and Coppola asked people to take their time and see it more than once.
criterionforum.org
https://www.criterionforum.org/forum/
Youth Without Youth (Francis Ford Coppola, 2007)
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:59 am
This is Mike D'Angelo's thumbnail review:
Everything I read about this, combined with the gorgeous visuals of the trailer, makes it seem amazing.Get psyched, fans of the baroque and maudit. This film is totally fucking insane.
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:48 pm
New trailer.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:54 am
I have a tickets to a preview screening of this on the third in NY. I am looking forward to it, but I am going in without expectations. I really hope this is a return to form, I mean it's sad to think he hasn't made a good film since Rumble Fish.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:16 am
Antoine Doinel wrote:New trailer.
Amazing. Looks like a masterpiece.And here is the official site for the soundtrack, which sounds as gorgeous and unique as the movie looks.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:38 am
Just a warning: Don't get your hopes up.Dylan wrote:Antoine Doinel wrote:New trailer.
And here is the official site for the soundtrack, which sounds as gorgeous and unique as the movie looks.
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:11 pm
No don't get your hopes up. Naturally it's required viewing but I wouldn't call it a 'return to form" as it's a search for new forms.
It's the sort of fantastic material that Raul Ruiz tosses off in three days, but it doesn't come naturally to Coppola. Being an "art film" its commercial prospects are next to nil. And while I can't say I disliked it I didn't really enjoy it all that much. It never seems to come to life -- though it's always on the verge of doing so. Tim Roth is a good actor but he doesn't command the screen, and neither does anyone else in this.
It all just seems to float away like gossamer.
It's the sort of fantastic material that Raul Ruiz tosses off in three days, but it doesn't come naturally to Coppola. Being an "art film" its commercial prospects are next to nil. And while I can't say I disliked it I didn't really enjoy it all that much. It never seems to come to life -- though it's always on the verge of doing so. Tim Roth is a good actor but he doesn't command the screen, and neither does anyone else in this.
It all just seems to float away like gossamer.
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:19 pm
CBS News Sunday Morning: Francis Ford Coppola: Young Again
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:21 am
Just saw this - really not impressed. A lot of story lines float around and never really come to anything, feels confused and muddled. Best part about the screening was the Q&A at the end with Walter Murch - who talked about how he thinks this would have made a fascinating silent film, which I tend to agree. The real highlight in the movie is the cinematography, very gorgeous, from someone very young. Though at times a bit too romantic golden-y for my taste, it really looked stunning in the context of the film.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:38 pm
Was it shown digitally? The 35mm print shown in Chicago looked horrendous.Saarijas wrote:The real highlight in the movie is the cinematography, very gorgeous, from someone very young. Though at times a bit too romantic golden-y for my taste, it really looked stunning in the context of the film.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:48 pm
That's funny that Murch said that. At a screening last week in Sony's own screening room in Manhattan, the opening sequence and the credits were shown with no sound -- then they stopped the film and showed it again correctly.Saarijas wrote:Best part about the screening was the Q&A at the end with Walter Murch - who talked about how he thinks this would have made a fascinating silent film, which I tend to agree.
After the screening, people were muttering that they should have kept the sound off throughout.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:10 pm
I believe it was shown digitally actually, although I can't say for certain, because Coppola when he introduced it made quite a big deal about how this was filmed digitally, as did the actors. I really can't say for sure though.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:15 pm
because Coppola when he introduced it made quite a big deal about how this was filmed digitally, as did the actors
The images from the trailer are truly as beautiful as modern cinematography gets, and I almost can't believe they were shot in digital. If this is true, then it's amazing news.Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:26 pm
It was definitely filmed digitally. I can't make any guarantees that nothing was shot 35mm but the vast, vast majority was filmed digitally.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:51 pm
It was absolutely filmed digitally. Again, when transferred to 35mm, it looked terrible. Doesn't redeem the film though even if it were actually beautiful when screened digitally.Dylan wrote:because Coppola when he introduced it made quite a big deal about how this was filmed digitally, as did the actors
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:22 am
Pathe has uploaded six (deeply intriguing) clips on YouTube.
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:13 am
I don't really give a shit about Coppola, but I liked this. I was thinking "Raul Ruiz" throughout and now, reading this thread for the first time, I see Ehrenstein had the same reaction. And I concur that Ruiz could conceive, script and shoot this in about a week.
I have no idea what people are thinking when they say it is "gorgeous". It is hideous DV--all that shiny, plastic, TVish stuff that recent DV is starting to overcome. Only a retard (sorry, Down's Syndrome victim) utterly unfamiliar with the glory of 35mm could consider the meretricious, shallow, flat, insubstantial, sequiny and twinkly video here to be remotely acceptable. OK, a mentally competent drag queen might like it too. Digital projection won't fix that.
Still, the sheer barminess of the project appealed to me. A gazillion times better than any of the "Oscar films" currently making the rounds.
I have no idea what people are thinking when they say it is "gorgeous". It is hideous DV--all that shiny, plastic, TVish stuff that recent DV is starting to overcome. Only a retard (sorry, Down's Syndrome victim) utterly unfamiliar with the glory of 35mm could consider the meretricious, shallow, flat, insubstantial, sequiny and twinkly video here to be remotely acceptable. OK, a mentally competent drag queen might like it too. Digital projection won't fix that.
Still, the sheer barminess of the project appealed to me. A gazillion times better than any of the "Oscar films" currently making the rounds.
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:06 pm
I saw the film months ago at the Rome film festival and I liked the film quite a lot..Still,I can think of many ways of how this film could have been better,but I must be a retard (just like the other critics who didn't like the film but praise its look) because too me it looked gorgeous indeed and it was the first film which made me realize maybe digital cinema ain't so scary after all.
And this from someone who can't even stand the look of digital cameras..
Maybe you saw a 35mm copy of the digital version..
Anyway after a second though I think I'd prefer to be considered a mentally competent drag queen
And this from someone who can't even stand the look of digital cameras..
Maybe you saw a 35mm copy of the digital version..
Anyway after a second though I think I'd prefer to be considered a mentally competent drag queen
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:08 pm
Yes, I saw a 35mm transfer. I didn't complain about the blurriness and scanniness that comes with the territory. I am quite confident that the flaws I identified would be present in digital projection.
Say hi to RuPaul for me.
Say hi to RuPaul for me.
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:32 am
Guess I must have seen a digital projection then (I could investigate,but too lazy for that right now) for I haven't seen any of the flaws you told me.And it was actually very hard to say it was digital.Barmy wrote:Yes, I saw a 35mm transfer. I didn't complain about the blurriness and scanniness that comes with the territory. I am quite confident that the flaws I identified would be present in digital projection.
Say hi to RuPaul for me.
RuPaul sends his greetings to you too..
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:15 am
Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly loathes it, if anyone cares:
After 10 years, Francis Ford Coppola has returned. The real question is whether what he's come back to is filmmaking. In this patchy and ponderous mystico-historical disaster, Tim Roth plays an old professor who regresses to his hardy adulthood after being struck by lightning. He's doing ''research'' on the origins of language, but who cares when Coppola, lurching through the post-war Romanian settings, has forgotten the language of storytelling? The movie is one soporific, depressed, deadeningly vague scene after another. F
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:13 am
Mike D'Angelo admires the film, to an extent.
Great filmmakers who find themselves trapped in a creative morass sometimes need to break free via a crazy, anarchic, art-damaged labor of love.
It's probably no coincidence that rejuvenation is Youth Without Youth's very explicit theme. Adapted from a novella by the Romanian philosopher Mircea Eliade, the film stars Tim Roth, initially in heavy makeup, as Dominic Matei, an elderly, despondent linguistics professor on the verge of committing suicide. A provident bolt of lightning nearly does the job for him — but not only does Matei survive, he thrives, emerging from the hospital looking a good thirty years younger and endowed with nifty superpowers, including the ability to absorb the contents of any book merely by passing his no-longer-withered hand over its cover. The prof quickly resumes his lifelong research into the origin of human language, eventually aided by a beautiful woman (Alexandra Maria Lara) who, after also being struck by lightning (I am not making this up), begins speaking in progressively more ancient tongues — and growing progressively older.
Abandon hope, all ye who enter this picture seeking narrative coherence. But if you're in the mood for a visually stunning, batshit-loco jaunt into Eastern European mysticism, you could do considerably worse. Youth Without Youth isn't perhaps quite as wildly expressionistic as Coppola's Dracula, but no opportunity for chiaroscuro lighting or canted angles is overlooked; every shot has a glossy, retro-luscious texture designed to dazzle the unsuspecting retina. And while the script is chockablock with pretentious pseudobabble, Roth and a bevy of dubbed Romanian thesps (including Anamaria Marinca, star of the Cannes prizewinner 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days) do a remarkable job of selling each new ludicrous development. Does the movie "work," in any classical sense? Not really, no. But it's something to behold all the same. — Mike D'Angelo
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:12 am
Here's a cool featurette with Coppola on the shooting and editing of Youth Without Youth, complete with many, many lovely clips and one extended scene.
And you can listen to the entire orchestral score composed by Osvaldo Golijov (and performed by the Bucharest Metropolitan Orchestra) here. The music is heartbreaking, soaring and gorgeously old-fashioned.
I'll be attending a screening of this next week, and you can bet I'll be posting my thoughts in this thread. Until then...
And you can listen to the entire orchestral score composed by Osvaldo Golijov (and performed by the Bucharest Metropolitan Orchestra) here. The music is heartbreaking, soaring and gorgeously old-fashioned.
I'll be attending a screening of this next week, and you can bet I'll be posting my thoughts in this thread. Until then...
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:49 pm
Tim Roth is a good actor but he doesn't command the screen, and neither does anyone else in this.
Thats disappointing - being such a fan of "Downfall" - i figured that the inclusion of Bruno and Maria in this film would be a great.
As for Roth - has ever ever been greater than he was in Clarke's "Made in Britain" ? - Its just more proof that youth is fearless
Thats disappointing - being such a fan of "Downfall" - i figured that the inclusion of Bruno and Maria in this film would be a great.
As for Roth - has ever ever been greater than he was in Clarke's "Made in Britain" ? - Its just more proof that youth is fearless
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:39 am
Thank you for the soundtrack link. Quite lovely!Dylan wrote:And you can listen to the entire orchestral score composed by Osvaldo Golijov (and performed by the Bucharest Metropolitan Orchestra) here.