Young Ones

Set in the future when water is hard to find a teenage boy sets out to protect his family and survive.

In a small way, this works as a companion piece to "Interstellar". Both are futuristic, science fiction movies that address a world consumed by drought. And both were released in 2014. That may be just about the only overlap, but it makes them a nice pair, and also makes me want to watch "Dune".

Somehow, though, this film never really grabs your attention. Elle Fanning is decent, and Kodi Smit-McPhee is a good actor (and a nice guy). Maybe this needed more Michael Shannon? He is, of course, among the best actors in the business today.

I just watched this movie (yes a bit late to the game) and was amazed at the, well everything. It was a minimalist movie for the genre but did so much with what they had it seemed like a big budget film. The story is compelling and you actually come to feel emotions for the characters. The direction was outstanding with shots that brought you into the action while at the same time made you feel alone in the desert. Lastly the actors how this movie escaped the Academy is beyond me. Each one brought an element unique to their part of the story from Michael Shannon who was outstanding as the farmer who struggled to keep thing as sane as possible for his children and who hoped for better days with such devotion as to be palpable. To Nicholas Hoult who showed more range than any young actor has a right to. But the rest of the cast each added an element that together make this film amazing.

If you love the artistic and non-mainstream risks taken by art-house films, then Young Ones belongs on your watch list with other indie Sci-Fis such as Lars von Trier's Melancholia, Juan Solanas' Upside Down, and Terry Gilliam's The Zero Theorem.

A gritty film about pioneers in a drought ridden landscape, it's a futuristic dust bowl tale as grim as Grapes of Wrath. It's memorable and keeps your attention, while portraying Sci-Fi in a very believable way. The mix of poverty and high technology, the extremes of the haves and have-nots, and water shortages in the US, amplifies the current state of a society as all good sci-fi films do.

Good actors and acting, and gorgeous to watch. What's not to like?

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.