Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

markwood272 I selected this DVD off a library shelf at random. I had never heard of Young Torless. My idle curiosity was well rewarded. The film belongs in the same league with Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Zero for Conduct, Lord of the Flies, or other similar works. Perhaps there is allegory here, a foreshadowing of the murderous future of the Germanic peoples. Or maybe a nearer, smaller-scale atrocity: several scenes are as chilling as eavesdropping on a Leopold and Loeb strategy session.This is expertly crafted film making. Everything – casting, shot composition, editing, plot structure – works. Barbara Steele landed one of the great roles of her career. The music is especially effective. Hans Werner Henze's use of modern tonalities played on ancient instruments functions perfectly, achieving the film score ideal that complements the picture and other sounds, a Greek chorus without words. Aided by Henze's score, some of the scenes in Young Torless brought back with painful clarity many a sad, bleak, cloudy-morning memory of sophomore year in high school.

Radu_A 1. It's been said here that the gay content of the story has been removed. Well, the novel was released in 1905. We can nowadays interpret elements of the story in a gay context, but back then these notions did not exist. If Schlöndorff hints at homosexuality as an element of perversion, that is in fact faithful to the novel, which takes a strictly observatory, non-participating stance.2. 'Törless' is often interpreted as an indicator of upcoming intolerance and Nazidom. Again, the novel was released at a much too early time to allow for such an interpretation; the novel's author Robert Musil certainly envisioned the inevitable fall of an empire stuck to tradition and incapable of accommodating personal liberties. Schlöndorff pushes some of the juvenile delinquents into similarities with the Nazis - albeit being carefully ambiguous about it -, but it would be wrong to consider this interpretation as a part of the original narrative.3. 'Törless' is a highly psychological tale and film - again, Schlöndorff proves faithful to the novel in this respect. But this comes with the weakness of constructing characters around a certain social concept. It would be misleading to consider Törless and his rebellious friends as typical representatives of their era, or real figures upon which the author based his characters. As may be more obvious in Musil's masterpiece, 'The Man without Qualities', his characters are crafted to evoke rather a situation than a person; that makes his books almost impossible to adapt correctly.Schlöndorff's film is somewhat middlebrow; it does not intend to be a substitute for reading the novel, but at the same time it carefully avoids to give the impression that it is anything but a rendition of it. That's not quite true; the interpretation is in the framing, the omissions of the subtext, and that the ideas upon watching the film differ considerably from those you get when you read the novel. One may call it therefore a failure - but an interesting failure to watch.

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.

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.