Yuri-8
Joined Mar 2001
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews12
Yuri-8's rating
Let's say you are not Canadian. Or Jewish. Then how are you entertained by the movie? Alternatively, how do you explain that Giamatti won the Golden Globe for a COMEDY? To me, the film is overlong, depressing, and devoid of entertainment. The acting is a dissonance. Dustin Hoffman is trying to be lovable Dustin Hoffman and to take over every scene he is in. Minnie Driver is fine but her character supposedly did her master's at McGill and shows nothing of the sort. Actress portraying 3d wife/"love of entire life" does not do any acting, and Giammatti is forced to overact (I actually think he is brilliant in showing the aging of the character through the physical cues, but watching one scene after another of drinking/smoking/doing something idiotic gets tiring after awhile).
I do not join the criticisms along the lines "how did all these women fell for this guy?"--it happens, women like to be pursued and do not necessarily fall for Apollonic beauty or Emily Post table manners. I have not read the book, so can't really comment on faithfulness of the movie, but I do think the title is unfortunate (i.e. something works fine for the way the book is structured but not here).
Thumbs down. Unless you are Jewish Canadian.
I do not join the criticisms along the lines "how did all these women fell for this guy?"--it happens, women like to be pursued and do not necessarily fall for Apollonic beauty or Emily Post table manners. I have not read the book, so can't really comment on faithfulness of the movie, but I do think the title is unfortunate (i.e. something works fine for the way the book is structured but not here).
Thumbs down. Unless you are Jewish Canadian.
Saw the movie at Chicago film festival. Disclaimer--I am not at all familiar with the director's work. However, I am very familiar with the feeling I had when back in the USSR they made movies trying to depict life in America. Well, this time the Swedes (with the assistance from the Danes) make the movie about life... in America, Philippines and Thailand. I swear, sometimes these kinds of things should really be left to the locals.
As a moviegoer I want to be entertained, whether it's a tragedy, a melodrama, or an action flick. On this simplistic level the movie definitely fails. It could be OK, there are plenty of long European movies which are more of the statement of the vision or the philosophy of the artist (The Class/Entre Les Murs is an example of a movie that would be fun to watch only for teachers and nobody else--but at least you appreciate what the film is trying to do)...
However, Mammoth failed for me on an almost visceral level. I very strongly disliked the moralizing approach taken by the director. If you enjoy being told how wrongly you live your life, this is for you (when mother stabs her son in the stomach, is is bad?.. and should we draw a few analogies to this kind of thing?). The rest of the audience should be better off seeing a nice romantic comedy.
As a moviegoer I want to be entertained, whether it's a tragedy, a melodrama, or an action flick. On this simplistic level the movie definitely fails. It could be OK, there are plenty of long European movies which are more of the statement of the vision or the philosophy of the artist (The Class/Entre Les Murs is an example of a movie that would be fun to watch only for teachers and nobody else--but at least you appreciate what the film is trying to do)...
However, Mammoth failed for me on an almost visceral level. I very strongly disliked the moralizing approach taken by the director. If you enjoy being told how wrongly you live your life, this is for you (when mother stabs her son in the stomach, is is bad?.. and should we draw a few analogies to this kind of thing?). The rest of the audience should be better off seeing a nice romantic comedy.
I went to see "Cold Mountain" with my wife and in the end we had a big argument--of course she liked it and I could not get out of the theater soon enough. But then even two days later I was thinking about the movie, and even had some dreams about it! The film clearly had a powerful effect on me.
Why was that? It was surely not the acting (the interactions between the protagonists are uninspiring--they give each other long looks that were supposed to embody pain and passion and that was it). It was not the character development (absolutely lacking except as the plot outline promised Ada "struggles to keep the farm" which culminates in her successfully shooting a turkey!). It was not the predictable plot (the cast of different characters Inman meets on his journey was the only redeeming feature). And even as the sweeping shots of Romanian landscape were good, I had a strange feeling that the cinematographer could have done a lot more with the peace and beauty of nature--as opposed to the gory mess the warring men create out of life.
Come to think about it later, that was it. The most haunting and redeeming feature of the film was that tons of people die in it. None of deaths is beautiful. None of the deaths is glorious. All the deaths seem almost inevitable. Nothing is more contrasting than the Southern jubilation on the great news "we got a war" shown (in a flashback) after one of the most gory battle scenes ever shot. It makes you really consider the frailty of life and especially question thinking about wars from your armchair in terms of geopolitical abstractions. (reminds me of "Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Freedom" article from The Onion). It's interesting that just like in the "English Patient" Minghella takes up the cause of the losing side in the conflict.
All in all, an overlong, cheesy Oscar vehicle--but not a total failure.
Why was that? It was surely not the acting (the interactions between the protagonists are uninspiring--they give each other long looks that were supposed to embody pain and passion and that was it). It was not the character development (absolutely lacking except as the plot outline promised Ada "struggles to keep the farm" which culminates in her successfully shooting a turkey!). It was not the predictable plot (the cast of different characters Inman meets on his journey was the only redeeming feature). And even as the sweeping shots of Romanian landscape were good, I had a strange feeling that the cinematographer could have done a lot more with the peace and beauty of nature--as opposed to the gory mess the warring men create out of life.
Come to think about it later, that was it. The most haunting and redeeming feature of the film was that tons of people die in it. None of deaths is beautiful. None of the deaths is glorious. All the deaths seem almost inevitable. Nothing is more contrasting than the Southern jubilation on the great news "we got a war" shown (in a flashback) after one of the most gory battle scenes ever shot. It makes you really consider the frailty of life and especially question thinking about wars from your armchair in terms of geopolitical abstractions. (reminds me of "Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Freedom" article from The Onion). It's interesting that just like in the "English Patient" Minghella takes up the cause of the losing side in the conflict.
All in all, an overlong, cheesy Oscar vehicle--but not a total failure.