First of all - I really liked the movie. Having in mind the current situation in Russia, the movie takes one to the feeling and hopes of a nation... using a phantastic style and atmosphere.
To all you who have rated this movie worse then 8... what did you miss? What do you critisize?
Best wishes
Taking into account that Lord of the rings trilogy is among the 250 best movies ever according to IMDB readers, it's not a surprise that a movie like "Euphoria" has such a low rate. Nevertheless, I think that the director was more interested on showing how beautiful is the Russian tundra, the clouds and the landscapes than in the story itself. I think there has to be kind of an equilibrium between the aesthetic and the story, and there's not such thing in "Euphoria". But yeah, its cinematography is overwhelming (and maybe a little pretentious as well).
Your highbrow opinion would be more convincing if you made sure you knew the difference between tundra and steppe.
shareWell, Mister... Let me apologize for not having a perfect command of English language, since it is not my mother tongue. It would be nice to see you write about tundras and steppes in Spanish, tho'. ;)
Anyway, I saw that movie four years ago. I don't feel like arguing about it right now 'cause I'd probably have to watch it again, and I'm not going to do that. I think I had enough of that STEPPE the first time.
I rated the film an 8. It would've been a 9 for me if not for what the other poster had pointed out. It seemed to wander away from narrative a little too much. I think those shots were wonderfully done, but it felt like padding, as if the director took a short film and added an additional 5-10 minutes of footage to get it to acceptable feature length. It happened frequently enough that I began to get annoyed by that fantastic and melancholy bit of music that would play each time. Too much of a good thing, I suppose.
share