Young Ones (2014) User Reviews (54)

This is not post-apocalyptic

[thekarmicnomad · 7/10 · 4 January 2016]

I am always on the look out for anything where people are trying to survive a world that is clearly screwed. This came up on some forums as fitting the bill. It isn't. In this world people are a bit thirsty, well some of them are anyway.

This is more like a western in look, feel and in plot.

A struggling farm owner is trying to get the water company to put a main into his farm. The main character is an interesting chap with high morals, including a healthy obligation to his fellow man. He does however have some drinking demons.

What plays out is story of struggle, conflict, betrayal and absolution. Pretty much like a western then.

Performances are great, scenery and production are excellent. The story is grounded and interesting - but not particularly exciting.

A well made film with a good story - just not what I was looking for on the night.

Rating Should Be Higher

[avidnewbie · 7/10 · 24 February 2015]

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.

In the middle.

[patriciovilches · 5/10 · 20 August 2015]

The movie doesn't add much to the sci-fi genre.But, the story can be interesting if you pay a lot of attention. That's one of the major problems with this movie: The story starts in a boring way making it a challenge to keep up watching but it changes it's paste when getting near to the end.At least, the actors did their best to show emotions(which are basically anger & revenge). What i liked a lot was that the movie shows many young actors with potential to make more interesting movies IF they still follow these same styles of films. I somehow feel that this movie could have been much more if the story was developed in a other way. In conclusion, i think this movie was not that bad but neither would i watch it again.

Slow paced play like future western

[siderite · 7/10 · 7 August 2016]

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.

Slow Burning Futuristic Western Tale

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 7/10 · 6 June 2015]

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.

Outstanding

[lederman-michael · 18 September 2016]

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.

second half falls apart

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 10 October 2017]

In the near future, water has become scarce. Ernest Holm (Michael Shannon) is struggling to survive on his farm as other farms are failing around him. Mary Holm (Elle Fanning) and Jerome Holm (Kodi Smit-McPhee) are his two kids. His wife is living in an institution after an accident that left her disabled. He fights off bandits and scraps by on dwindling supplies. He supplies government workers as they drill for water promising a share for irrigation. Mary is love with scheming Flem Lever (Nicholas Hoult) who has a plan of his own.

The most compelling aspect of this movie may be the robotic mules. This movie should climax with the confrontation between Flem and Ernest. Instead, it keeps going and it changes into something different. The first half has a simplicity to its sci-fi western plot. The second half bogs down as it expands. It also doesn't help to lose Michael Shannon. There is a nice desolate world being created which falls apart.

Decent tale with quite a good acting

[Seraphion · 6/10 · 25 October 2014]

In a post drought-apocalypse USA, people would literally kill for water. Ernest Holm lives with his son Jerome and daughter Mary in their small town house and field. While everybody has left, Ernest stays, believing that the land will grow once more if only there's irrigation. Ernest gets water for his family by trading supplies with the 'water people' who extract water from deep wells. When his mule breaks its legs and he has to kill it, Ernest goes to the auction and buys a robotic carrier machine to replace it, beating the offers of Flem, a young man who's been seeing Mary without his consent. Ernest rejects Flem's offer to rent the machine. One morning Ernest finds his machine is missing, and he goes looking for it. When he gets to the water people, Ernest is accused of stealing. He wins a fight with the water people's leader Caleb and takes his knife.

Continuing on, he finds his machine and Flem with it, transporting a supply of water. Flem is taking it somewhere. Ernest takes Flem tied up but he soon gets weary due to refusing to take a drink from the water they're carrying. Flem, wanting to continue his smuggling run, then throws a bottle at Ernest killing him. Time went by, the people found and buried Ernest, but the machine has gone missing. Flem marries Mary after helping the family build an irrigation system thus saving their farm. But the machine, limping and mangled, didn't shut down, and its default protocol makes it walk to a store in town. The store owner reaches Jerome in the Holm residence, informing about the machine. After tricking his way to town over border patrol, Jerome gets to the store to find the store owner has repaired the machine.

Jerome gets interested to the machine's laser sensor. It turns out the sensor can behave like a video recorder. Curious about the machine's adventure, Jerome plays the recording and finds the truth about Flem and Ernest. Arriving home before Flem, Jerome picks on him as how did the machine find its way home. Flem lies further, which only infuriates Jerome even more. But he doesn't take any action. One day Flem goes on a supply run with the machine, and accidentally falls into a pit, breaking his legs. As he cries for help, Jerome, who has been secretly following him, comes at the pit's mouth. As Jerome only stands there, Flem realizes that Jerome already knows about what happened to Ernest. Flem tries to talk his way into Jerome's mercy. Eventually Jerome shoots him in the head, and decides not to tell anything, even about Ernest, to Mary.

The story lives up to the movie's tag-line well enough. Yet it takes too much time in building up the significant characters, which are only confined to the four faces shown on the poster. The other characters are then only act to complete the story's angles here and there. The plot flows at a medium pace, although the depicted desert and drought mood and also the plenty long panoramic shots might give the illusion of a slower pace. It thus can feel somewhat boring at the first few minutes.

The post apocalyptic world is depicted nicely. Insertion of futuristic technology is just at the enough dose as to point out how far has the technology develops. Yet it's not being too overwhelming as too take away the focus from the drought problem. Also, besides the mule machine that is a central part of the story, the other technologies depicted only sport a nicer look and doesn't really interfere with the story.

The acting is a good in overall for me. Michael Shannon is an experienced actor who has no difficulty portraying Ernest's hard and strict character, which almost a signature in almost all of Shannon's role. Kodi Smit-McPhee quite surprisingly manages to act out the boy forced by situation to mature up faster than he expected. Nicholas Hoult played nicely the persistent rebellious youngster character of Flem. While she played it quite well, Elle Fanning's role sadly only serves as a complimentary dramatizing addition to the main plot.

Young Ones deserve a 6 out of 10 score for me. A recommendation is quite a so-so from me, due to there are better movies in cinemas at the time of its release. It tells a decent story combining the currently popular dystopia post-apocalyptic settings with the age old revenge plot.

An intriguing conceptual blend of science fiction, western and Greek tragedy family drama that is undermined by weak characterisation and amateurish execution

[moviexclusive · 5/10 · 3 January 2015]

A mix of post-apocalyptic science-fiction, stripped down Western and Greek tragedy makes writer/ director Jake Paltrow's (he's the younger brother of Gwyneth) sophomore feature an interesting genre experiment but nothing more. Set in some unspecified time in the future when water is scarce and the land has been decimated by droughts, it follows a group of characters whose fates become intertwined with each other in increasingly melodramatic fashion – Ernest Holm (Michael Shannon), his daughter Mary (Elle Fanning), his teenage son Jerome (Kodi-Smit McPhee) and Mary's boyfriend Flem Lever (Nicholas Hoult).

Narratively, Paltrow divides his film into three distinct acts named after each one of the primary male characters. The first kicks off with Ernest, a former alcoholic whose reckless driving left his wife a hospitalized paraplegic, and who now spends his days selling bottles of liquor to the men who work the supply lines that deliver water. Besides establishing Ernest as a hardworking man who tries his best to make ends meet for his family, it also sets in place their family dynamics – while Jerome is in thrall of his father and follows him around all the time, Mary resents her father for the accident that made her mother a cripple. In between the deliberately paced scenes, Ernest acquires a robotic mule called the Simulit Shadow, a curiously designed device that becomes crucial to the storytelling later on.

We'll let on a mild spoiler for discussing the rest of the plot – Ernest dies at the end of the first chapter. With his passing, Flem moves into the Holm family home (verbal pun not intended), and proves himself to be quite the manipulator, blackmailing who is necessary in order to get the supply lines to irrigate the barren fields and restore agriculture to the land. The third and final act shifts the focus to Jerome, who towards the end of the second act begins to wonder why Flem lied about the whereabouts of their Simulit Shadow and suspects that he might somehow be involved in the disappearance of a fellow family friend Robbie (Christy Pankhurst) and his infant son and worse in the death of his father.

While one may be tempted to read deeper about Paltrow's intentions for casting this family drama (not unlike this summer's 'The Place Beyond the Pines') against a dystopian setting, the fact remains, however unique the blend may be, that the characters and consequent narrative are largely under-developed. Amidst the three male characters, Ernest is the most fully-formed of them, labouring to be the father figure to two teenage children in largely honourable fashion – no matter that he has barely enough, he asks Jerome to give what they have to Robbie and wife Sooz when he spots them begging under the shade of a huge billboard along the dusty highway. In contrast, there is hardly depth nor motivation to Flem's character; and the same goes for Jerome, whose final transformation into his family's keeper hardly bears any resonance.

Yes, Paltrow's intention to explore themes of family, vengeance and fate is noble, but his method strains to catch up with his ambition. Certain scenes betray his amateurish tendencies, bleeding into each other and fading out slowly for no apparent reason. Some good ideas, like a back brace which Ernest's wife wears that is attached to overhead lines like that of a tram or gas stations that pump water, are never developed fully and remain the occasional bright spark in an otherwise dully filmed and drearily paced film. The cast make the best out of their respective roles, but are ultimately undermined by the one-dimensional nature of their characters.

And so, while the blend of genres and stylistic touches may be interesting to watch, the film on a whole ends up as a hodgepodge of good ideas with bad execution. Key to Paltrow's dystopian-set family drama is a character-driven narrative, but sadly that is precisely what is missing here no matter what the character-based three-act setup may imply. At least the picture looks pretty though, benefitting from Giles Nuttgens' widescreen lensing to evoke a George Miller 'Mad-Max' feel to the barren wasteland that the characters inhabit.

A post-apocalyptic Western

[krachtm · 6/10 · 2 March 2015]

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.

average at best

[derbo73 · 5/10 · 19 July 2015]

I didn't check the budget of this movie but it feels like a low budget production in many ways.

First of all the characters are roughly cut and stereotypes, you don't find real inner conflicts in them, Flem could have had good intentions to a degree, but he was just selfish - that is to simple for a drama.

Second the long chapters don't make much sense, it's just confusing. Finishing a chapter with the death of it's subject is not smart. No flashbacks, no learnings in the later chapters about Ernest or the past for example.

The setup was perfect for a Rashomon style drama, by simply NOT letting the audience know every detail all the time. Wasted chance.

The whole movie was to long for the story. The slow pacing and the lack of anything happening over long periods (nothing of substance at least) makes it tiresome.

The automatic mule robot (Big Dog or LS3 Pack Mule) did not add much to the sci fi feeling - it was developed around 2009 or even earlier. If this movie is supposed to take place in the near future (like some 20-50 years) such a machine would be long gone and replaced by better systems. Some primitive drones and stuff do not convince me, too. A little bit more attention to the details would have been nice. Even poor settlers would use something better than an 80s style transistor radio.

The border situation was awkward. I wonder how the patrols walking on stilts would defend against the mob pushing them over... the available fences and guard's walkways would allow much better control. Just silly.

I watched the German translation and the dub voices were terrible. They sounded like some people from the street had been asked to dub the movie during their lunch brake.

All in all the story was too simple, too often seen and the rest of the movie didn't save the day.

I don't consider it a waste of time but would expect something more imaginative or original these days. It would make a solid first movie for a director starting his career right after film school.

Decent dystopia/apocalyptic tale. Visually and tonally impressive.

[neilrudd999 · 8/10 · 19 October 2014]

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.

More Michael Shannon!

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 5 March 2015]

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.

PRAY FOR RAIN

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 24 October 2018]

Ernest (Michael Shannon) lives in a dust bowl, a home made out of Sealands. His farm is dried up, as is much of the US. He hauls items for sale and barter to the construction crew laying pipe and drilling for water. His boring son Jerome (Kodi Smit-McPhee) helps him while his daughter Mary (Elle Fanning) takes care of the house chores. She would rather be with Flem (Nicholas Hoult). He has a motorcycle and is perhaps the only boy she knows. Mom (Aimee Mullins) is away in a home. She is part robot.

The story combines products that are here, but not readily available along with old technology. The family has the option to leave and go where there is water, but it is one of those attached to the land things. There is some treachery in the story, but for the most part the dialogue is predictable and boring. After a while I found myself speaking lines word for word before actors could say them. The film appeared to be character driven, except they made very boring characters with Jerome making me want to watch the wheat grow instead.

This film wasn't for me.

Parental Guide: F-bomb (at least 2). No sex or nudity. Elle's naked feet for Tarantino.

The Dust Bowl in 1930s America meets Fallout 4

[david-fernandez · 7/10 · 1 July 2016]

Looks great, the world is broken, water is scarce and agriculture is in serious decline and subsistence farming is the order of the day. A slightly dysfunctional head of the family ... farmer is holding it together, the mule doing the leg work dies so he buys a Google pack mule and his daughters semi secret lover kills him and oh who cares ... the plot is a glorious mess, just like the narrative / editing but I sort of liked it, I would rather by annoyed at a movie than be bored and I was very annoyed with this movie because of the lack of drama but I liked it.... explain that to me...... someone ??? ... please !

The main cast do a good enough job Holt, Shannon, Fanning and Fanning's kid brother but maybe Holt needed to be more cunning, manipulative like the main oil man in movie Let There Be Blood.

Satisfying Futuristic Western-Style movie

[dchfrs · 7/10 · 30 August 2015]

First off I haven't seen any reviews that mentioned this, but Young Ones was not at all what I expected. I expected this movie to be a dystopian Sci-Fi action movie about tough times in the future, which is actually all kind in the background. This turned out to be for the better.

I don't know where the movie was shot, but the visuals were stunning. Everything is desert, rocks, and old buildings (or a house made of ship containers). There's a scene where you do see plants, and the colors are so vivid. Additionally, I very much enjoyed the slow-burn revenge tone of the movie. The movie pacing wasn't slow, but the build up of pain and anger felt so real that I felt as frustrated as Jerome (who I didn't know was the main character until like halfway through the movie).

There were some weird plot points that never get resolved, like the fact that there's a perfectly good city nearby where everything seems normal and you don't know why these characters aren't allowed through the gates. Also, that random girl that Jerome meets and kinda likes, but never ends up seeing again? Kinda odd. Also I don't like Elle Fanning after seeing this movie, she just doesn't seem to fit...

Overall I enjoyed this movie. It was entertaining to watch, kept my attention throughout, and made me feel for the characters. The oddities in the plot were minor and had little impact on my rating. Watch this movie.

I tried to like this movie...

[k-nicholsrobel · 3/10 · 18 October 2014]

I am a sci-fi lover and in general I enjoy movies that have strong characters and beautiful cinematography. This has beautiful cinematography, sometimes. As I was watching it I wondered how this director or editor (or both) got this far. The premise has a lot of potential and even if you disregard the poor acting, absent character development, and weak storyline, put in the right director's hands this could have been a movie worth watching. As it stands the only reason I finished it was because the set and filming were good enough to keep me tuned in. The last thing I will say is I think the four leads are actually decent actors... Kodi might be a bit stiff but he has talent and room to grow otherwise the others are really great. That and the cinematography/set are the reason this movie got above a one. I really hate to see movies flop because I feel like if they made it through all the bureaucratic hoops and all the scrutinizing of their "product idea" they must have some sense of film making but sometimes the creative team just lose focus and produce something like The Young Ones.

On another note I guess I don't really understand the title. I know the characters are youngish but that isn't their defining attribute is it? I just don't get the title. Not that it is a big deal, just and observation!

Happy watching!

A dystopian futuristic western that starts strong but ends weak

[estebangonzalez10 · 6/10 · 31 March 2015]

"Pray for rain."

Gwyneth Paltrow's younger brother, Jake, introduces us to a dystopian future where water is scarce in Young Ones, his sophomore feature film. The film has style and it is also gorgeous to look at the empty vast dry land (filmed in South Africa, but taking place in an undisclosed American town), but unfortunately the characters did lack some development. This could well be classified as a sci-fi western centering on a family that is struggling to survive under the harsh dry conditions. The always fascinating Michael Shannon plays Ernest Holm, the father of two adolescents who has decided to stay in his dry land hoping he can find water to cultivate his once fertile land. His younger son, Jerome (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is always alongside him as they struggle to find a means for survival. With the help of a robotic donkey carrier, he sends supplies to the workers who extract water from deep wells. His relationship with his daughter, Mary (Elle Fanning), isn't going too well. She has secretly been dating Flem (Nicholas Hoult), who isn't someone his father trusts. Flem has plans of his own for Ernest's land and he will stop at nothing in order to get his way. Aimee Mullins has a supporting role as Ernest's paralytic wife who lives in the hospital where she can use special equipment to move.

The film is divided into three chapters centering on each one of the three male characters. The first centering on Ernest, is by far the best thanks in large part to Michael Shannon's incredible performance. It also sets the rules for this futuristic world and it manages to engage us. But the promising start of the film quickly dies down in the next two chapters with predictable character arcs and familiar story lines. It is a shame because the film did promise an inventive post apocalyptic setting, but other than the fascinating visuals it doesn't deliver anything fresh. Despite not having much character development I did enjoy the performances from the talented young cast. Nicholas Hoult is solid as the villain, while Kodi Smit- McPhee once again finds himself playing a character in a desolated future (The Road). He delivers one of the stronger roles and did a decent job holding up his own in the scenes he shared with Shannon. Fanning is an actress I have always admired, but her character is the least developed this time and she doesn't get to do much here. It is a shame Shannon doesn't get more screen time because the film loses much of its appeal after that first chapter. He always brings an incredible fresh quality to each one of his characters and in a way Ernest was the reason why this dystopian world seemed so fascinating.

Young Ones is the third consecutive Western I've seen and each one has been very different. Once Upon A Time in the West is a masterpiece and a classic spaghetti western, while A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night was an Iranian vampire western that was more atmospheric than anything else. This futuristic western is also gorgeous to look at and introduces a rather interesting premise but it loses its appeal after the first part of the film and heads towards generic and familiar territory. I'd still recommend this film because there are some interesting qualities to it and there is also Michael Shannon of course who always delivers. I loved the landscape as well, but the pacing of the story does get tedious and predictable at times.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

Young ones

[mansstrandberg · 3/10 · 13 November 2014]

Great actors all around, some promising one for sure, what I can't understand is how the producers got all these actors to agree to do this movie.

I mean we have some real on screen Hollywood movie stars here, on a no (from what it looks like) budget film.

The script and story is completely terrible. The director seems to be completely new to making film, making it look like a high school student went and made a low budget Tarantino film.

The movie doesn't even seem to have any actual story to tell.

One thing that also made me very aware of the fact that it was the director who screwed this whole thing up is that he changes screens to often in a really weird way that doesn't flow naturally.

I understand that he is trying to transfer some sort of message to the audience but it never comes through and the whole thing just feels like a weird experience without cause.

In conclusion, the movie is a waste of time.

I only review what I like

[yanbibiyan · 7/10 · 26 June 2021]

It's a lovely film.

Realistic observational.

Very satisfying as the film reaches its climax.

It's atmospheric.

Absolutely terrible

[Cossette-mark · 1/10 · 19 January 2014]

Young Ones makes use of brilliant cinematography that is instantly wasted in the hands of a director who is without a shred of talent, an editor who must have been a butcher, mediocre sound editing, and a cast that is almost as misguided and inept as the screenplays author. A story that had true potential was crippled by a lack of character development, and the nonexistence of focus. The directors lack of skill is clearly seen in his failed attempt to (I may be paraphrasing) give the character of the machine, a robotic donkey, a sense of having a soul (not even a glimmer of this is seen in the film), and his somewhat unsuccessful try at implying that there is prosperity outside the boundary of where the characters live. The film is without any sort of outstanding performance by the cast, and lacks even a single character that the audience can empathize with. Personally I believe that this feature was a waste of a perfectly good cinematographer, and I wish I had spent my time at another premier.

Art house Sci-Fi 'must see'

[Htbug · 8/10 · 29 December 2014]

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?

Strong cast in a middling movie

[justahunch-70549 · 6/10 · 21 June 2022]

Never heard of this, but watched it instantly when I saw the impressive cast. However, it's not Hoult's strongest performance and Fanning is just a background piece for awhile and when brought into focus, she has had better roles. The ever reliable Shannon is reliably effective and I now see why Smit-McPhee was cast in The Power of the Dog. It's a similar type of role and he's good here too. I didn't know it was sci-fi when I turned it on, but it almost really isn't. It's more like a western set in the future. It's got atmosphere, some good photography, it's got some creative direction and good or bad, an interesting cast, but it's slight.

Pretentious tripe

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 15 October 2019]

YOUNG ONES is an entirely routine and dull post-apocalyptic drama shot in South Africa. Somehow they managed to get together no less than four Hollywood actors, but I'm not sure why they were so eager to take part because the script is hardly scintillating. A budget film like this needs really good writing and direction to work; THE ROVER is a particular favourite of recent years, but this one falls short in many ways. Michael Shannon plays the usual gruff patriarch, residing over an all-grown-up Kodi Smith-McPhee from THE ROAD and LET ME IN and a typically annoying Elle Fanning. The underrated Nicholas Hoult shows up for some low rent conflict, but it's all drawn out and highly pretentious, one of my biggest pet hates in film. Amusingly this was retitled BAD LAND: ROAD TO FURY to cash in on Hoult's role in the outstanding MAD MAX: FURY ROAD.

Guilt;Greed;Blame;Betrayal;Murder;Revenge...On a Slow Burn Served Well Done

[tdwillis-26273 · 7/10 · 2 June 2017]

This was an unusual mix of post apocalyptic, sci-fi, western drama. How many movies can you say THAT about? And I liked it. A lot.

This isn't a typical strait forward JUST post apocalyptic/dystopian, or JUST Sci-fi movie and fans of these particular genres may be quite disappointed in this film. I suppose this movie isn't for every one, but in reading my review I believe you will get a good idea, (without any spoilers)if it is a type of film you may enjoy.

Like all good movies, IMHO, the focus is not on the setting but rather the characters humanness and how they react and feel in outrageous and/or unusual, difficult situations.

The acting was top notch good to excellent. I have liked everything Michael Shannon has done and became a new fan of Kodi Smit-McPhee, the actor that played Jerome. The story was character driven, which allowed me to fairly quickly care about the characters. There is a lot of dialogue and just a bit of action, so again action loving viewers, may be disappointed.

The cinematography was wonderful! It really set the tone for a dry and hot waste-land. I didn't notice the editing, which means the editor did his/her job. The special effects EXCELLENT. The camera use was good in that it gave us a variety of different types of shots and angels (zoom in close-ups like the old westerns) and interestingly, red- and black outs, fade in and outs, etc. The score was noticeably good and in some places excellent.

Within 40 minutes the movie had taken directions I didn't see coming.

The second half of the movie was paced more quickly and the twists and turns along with the tension started building, becoming for a short while a psychological thriller.

This film showcases full realistic characters that develop and change around a story about Guilt, Greed, Blame, Betrayal, Murder, and Revenge, in an unusual setting. What's not to love about that?

Although I would ordinarily rate this a 7 (that's HIGH for me) I am going to rate this a 9 to help bring up the score. Perhaps that will draw some viewers like me, who will better appreciate this movie.