VividSimon Simply Perfect

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

tparis-2 Basini, a pathetic, slow witted and rather homely weakling, is targeted as a thief and is subjected to a series of humiliating, degrading experiments in the attic of a military academy. Basini willingly enslaves himself to his classmate Reiting, brilliantly portrayed as a popular bully "with gusto" (as one reviewer noted)by Fred Dietz, and seems to relish the abuse he has to endure.Basini is objectified- his debasement is seen from the point of view of Torless, who is fascinated by Basini's willingness to take whatever punishment is meted out, and his two chums - Reiting and the brainy sadist Beineberg. Eventually the sadists,who are running out of novel ways to torment their victim, decide to turn Basini over to the entire school, where he is strung up by the heels in the gym and subjected to an enthusiastic battering by his gleeful classmates. Basini is expelled as a moral degenerate, the "sensitive" Torless voluntarily leaves the academy. and the two arch-torturers stay on to graduate - no doubt with high honors. Musil's 1901 novel is more sexually explicit. In the novel Basini is stripped naked and battered by his classmates in preparation for a whipping. Basini turns himself in to avoid being flogged to death. In the novel Basini is described as pretty and sexually alluring. Seidowsky, the actor who portrays the victim in this movie, is pudgy and dull-eyed. His tormentors are handsome - almost charming at times, and that is likely closer to reality than we'd care to imagine. A modern remake could explore the homo-erotic sadism more explicitly than Schloendorf dared in the 1960s.

FilmCriticLalitRao It would be extremely difficult indeed impossible for the great master of New German Cinema Volker Schlondorff if he were to make Der Junge Toerless in current times as many would surely accuse him of spreading the message of anti Semitism.The truth is in reality this film does not harbor any such ideas.However that was not the case in 1950s when he directed this film based on a book by Robert Musil.Of course,it is not a layman's fun stuff film in the conventional sense of the word but one cannot remain indifferent to whatever that has been portrayed in the film. Many have praised the stand taken by Toerless in which he feels empathy for the victim but decides to ignore the events claiming to himself that as they are not affecting him why should he bother too much about them ? The real danger is that some of the viewers might perceive it as a thinking of the past and a very negative politically incorrect ideology. It is in the context of these thoughts that this torture drama behind the closed walls of a boarding school must be viewed.This is certainly not for the weak of the heart.

samzpan The movie won an award at the Cannes Film Festival when it was first released and signaled the beginning of a German cinematic revival. The book was written in 1906 and is a tedious read, although thankfully a short book. Homosexuality plays a large role in the book but virtually does not exist in the movie. Torless, a horny teenager in an all boys school, eventually has a torrid sexual affair with one of the students. The movie chooses to ignore this, and maybe for good reason as it was released in I believe in 1966. Filmed in black and white, the lack of color contributes to the atmosphere of German austerity that director uses to his advantage. The final speech by Torless is a brilliant defense for the lack of opposition by the middle class to the rise of Hitler. Most of the teenagers in the movie were not aspiring actors but were chosen almost at random for their roles. But considering the time in which it was produced this is a land mark film, especially for German cinema. The movie is much more entertaining than the book and the director,Volker Schlondorff, did a fabulous job and deserves the awards it was given.

jan onderwater Considered a classic film as it was the first film to put the then New German Film firmly on the (international) map. Also a classic because it was Schlöndorf's first feature and it is still thought highly of. To be sure, this is a beautiful film to watch with its superb black-and-white cinematography; Schlondörf's direction makes it into a well paced and staged, stylish film. But I never liked the film; recent re-viewing confirmed my feelings.Schlöndorf wants to do more than simply bring the viewer the subject and with that the whole thing goes wrong. In trying to convey the deeper meaning of the story as clear as possible the script is written in such way that even the most simple minded can not miss it. The film is lecturing without any subtleties; Schlöndorf never provokes the viewer to think for himself: he has already done it for him. Nor is there any nuance in the psychology of the different characters.And what about the cast? In 1966 (and still) praised for their effort as inexperienced actors. Well, I think that most of the acting is downright poor, or never goes further than reciting lines. In the meantime we have come to know Mathieu Carriere better during his career; Carriere is in this his first film as boring as he still is. Of course the actors were not helped much by the literary dialogue, another feature that was (and is) praised so much; most of it I find simply laughable. Classic miscast is Barbara Steele, who seems to have walked in from the set of a typical sexploitation film, including acting style.