Thread: NonRussian films (work in progress)

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Originally Posted by rockzmom

thank goodness the girls were not here... you should have put a rating on that thing

sorry, my fault.

No harm, no foul.

Originally Posted by Lt. Columbo

i think ill wait until i can download it and see if it's any worse than груз 200 which currently is the worst russian movie i have ever seen

Do you mean "Обитаемый остров"? Why do you think it could be that bad? I haven't seen "Груз 200", but as for "Обитаемый остров", it's based on a perfect fantastic novel with a very interesting plot so I really wonder why you compare it with "Груз 200" which seems to be just some gory thing...

it's not about a gore comparison, gruz 200 had, aside from the stupid gore, a ridiculous plot. the whole thing was a mess, it wasnt like a fantasy horror, it wasnt serious horror. the whole premise was stupid.
just from the trailer, Обитаемый остров just looks like complete отстой. probably wont be worse than gruz 200, but that will only become clear later!
once ive seen it i shall look forward to a vicious debate

Originally Posted by Lt. Columbo

just from the trailer, Обитаемый остров just looks like complete отстой.

I see... Well, I don't like Ф.Бондарчук as a director (as an actor either), so I don't expect him do make a GREAT movie (although maybe fiction like that is exactly his genre?), but as for the plot (at least that of the Strugatsky's book), it is not ridiculous at all; it's a very good novel. The Strugatsky brothers are classical writers of XX century. I've read "Обитаемый остров" two times, and I very much enjoyed it.

I've watched Обитаемый остров and I didn't like it. The whole thing is aesthetically alien to me. In this, aesthetical, respect, it reminded me of Blade Runner, which I didn't get either.

I got mildly interested only halfway through the film, when I sensed something familiar and actually interesting, and that turned out to be the elements of Strugatskie's plot.

I don't think I'm going to watch the second part. Although I'm not a great fan of Strugatskie, I'd rather re-read the novel.

And just in order to not give you the idea that when it comes to SF I am not a fan of anything at all, I will tell you that I consider myself a fan of, for example, Lem's The Invincible, or the film Brazil (1985).

Originally Posted by Оля

P.S. I think Shurick meant "the worst movie".

Yes, good catch on this one.... I missed it! (However, your punctuation should be inside the quotation marks.)

Use 'worse' if you're comparing two things: "I think eggplant is worse than squash, but that's just my opinion."
Use 'worst' if you're comparing multiple things: "I disagree. Eggplant and boiled cabbage are both vile, but squash is the worst!"

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Worse-and-Worst

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I know absolutely nothing about this film... Please let me know ... Why do you believe the film did so well at the box office (highest-grossing movie in post-communist Russia)?

9th Company was the first attempt by Russian filmmakers to create a big-screen, big-budget movie about that war, comparable to the American Vietnam War movies of the 1980s (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Born on the Fourth of July). The film was released in September 2005 and became a Russian box office hit, generating $7.7 million in its first five days of release alone, a new domestic record.

My answer - becouse of money

ps. thank for your corrections, i meant "worst" of course.

Originally Posted by Shurick

My answer - because of money

ps. thanks for your corrections (or thank you for your corrections), i meant "worst" of course.

Since this thread is not only about movies, but also about books, I'd like to ask if anyone on this forum read the famous(?) classical English novel "Vanity Fair". (I suppose at least in England it should be famous; although an Englishman who I asked about it told me that he only knew the title).
And if you did, what do you think about it?

Hey, I have read it, does it count? Are you curious to hear what I think?

To piggyback on Olya's book question...

As she pointed out that it is probably too soon for any of the non-native English speakers to have seen the movie "The Reader" ...

I am wondering if any of you have read "The Reader" as it was first published in German in 1995 and then translated into English in 1997???

According to Wikipedia, it has been translated into 37 languages, so I am guessing that it was translated into Russian at some point.

Originally Posted by Leof

Hey, I have read it, does it count? Are you curious to hear what I think?

Leof!!!!

I am speaking up out of turn here and I hope that Olya does not mind when I say.... OF COURSE!!!

Everyone counts here! Please, please, please... tell us your thoughts.

Ah, then!
I loved it! A lot. Though, my for all time favorite author is Dickens, I appreciated Thackeray's special bitter humor and his sharp look at life very much. So many times I have thought why do all these books end so happily, and smoothly, and logically (which according to real life is quite illogically and far from reality)? Many times I tрought why has there never existed a book where evil wins, where good is shown with all its drawbacks? So, The Vanity Fair (as a real piece of critical realism) was for ten steps closer to this my ideal: Nobody is perfect, but this makes us people. Both dark and bright colors; the way we love and betray; the way we show the generosity and then show cowardlyness, how we can actually be. People who are completely sunny or completely dull and stormy, windy and grey like rainy days are very rare. Most of us are changing, moody, like the day where clouds and wind close and then open again the sun constantly. None of Thackeray's heroes (I have read only one of his books) are perfect or однозначны, односторонни. Becky is sparking and beautiful, smart and witty, strong, she is a fruit, but she is a heartless mother and betraying wife. Amelia Sedley is sweet and tender, but, she is silly and simply a simpleton because she loves the wrong man and doesn't appreciate the love of the most generous man of her lifetime. And Dobbin is fair and generous and so loyal to all his principals of honor and love, but, even he understands (and too late) that he was stupid and lost his best years in vain in sake of the woman who does not deserve his love. Becky's husband is a natural fool, but he is a man of honor and bravery and he loves her truly and with endless loyalty.

But the more I see how fair and cynical the Life attends to the heroes in the book, then the more I felt how deeply I was attached to it's action. I feel how true is Thackeray. Life is the mixture of the salt and sugar and we are supposed to eat this blend until we die. When I think about wild animals which eat the flesh (wolves or lions) I think how much dull and similar is their daily meal without fire, salt and spices. But they have to eat it, tasteless, only tasting of blood. So are we. We have to eat what the life gives. Happiness and bitter of disappointments and grief, эйфория and pain of love, we have to feel the taste of our deeds. We betray our friends and make the new ones. We make our relatives feel beloved and unhappy. It's a life, it is the real taste of life. The man who is known as the most reasonable person of his gender makes the biggest stupidity. We are the причудливая mixture of virtues and sins (добродетелей и пороков). And we love it.

Nobody is perfect. Nobody is hopeless. We all are bad, we all are good. There is no winning without the loss and no good without bad. Our world - the human's world - is a vanity fair, colorful range of events. The greatest events which stood unseen and stupid events which turns on everyone's tongue.

He was very very true in his viewing of the life. Dickens can lie and hide the evident truth, he is an idealist. He is true but until some border where Thackeray stepped over this border. There are no more just good or just bad heroes. They all are good and bad.

Here is what I can tell in "English" (I would be more constructive talking in Russian though)

edited with help of the rockzmom. Thank you!

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

This only applies to American English. With British English the punctuation only goes within the quotation marks if it was present in the original quote.

Лёва, thank you so much.
You guys can't even imagine how much I *LOVE* that book, but unfortunally I am not eloquent like Лёва, so I even don't know what could I add... I only want to say that there are few people who read this novel, and that's sad. I read it at least three times, the latter time I did it recently, and everytime it was a great pleasure. Now I intend to read it in English... some time.

I am very honoured hearing such words, Оль, from you, it was very kind of you.
Спасибо.

Leof,

I truly hated to correct or change any of your review as it was most eloquently written.

Your review makes me want to stop reading all the other things I have bookmarks in and stop watching all the movies I have waiting for me and put Vanity Fair on the top of my pile.

I hope that the liberties I took with my changes were correct. Please let me know if I misunderstood any of your meanings. Additionally, I did make spelling and grammatical changes to be "American" style and not British. Rockzmom

Originally Posted by Leof

I loved it! [s:3ei14u3m]Alot[/s:3ei14u3m] A lot . Though, my for all time[s:3ei14u3m]s[/s:3ei14u3m] favorite author is Dickens. I appreciated Thackeray's special bitter humor and his sharp look at [s:3ei14u3m]the[/s:3ei14u3m] life very much. So many times I have thought why do all these books end so [s:3ei14u3m]happy[/s:3ei14u3m] happily, and smoothly and [s:3ei14u3m]logycally[/s:3ei14u3m] logically (which [s:3ei14u3m]was[/s:3ei14u3m] according to [s:3ei14u3m]the[/s:3ei14u3m] real life is quite [s:3ei14u3m]ilogically[/s:3ei14u3m] illogically and far from [s:3ei14u3m]life[/s:3ei14u3m] reality)? Many times I [s:3ei14u3m]tought[/s:3ei14u3m] thought why has there never existed [s:3ei14u3m]the[/s:3ei14u3m] a book where [s:3ei14u3m]the[/s:3ei14u3m] evil wins, where good is shown with all its drawbacks (недостатки)[s:3ei14u3m].[/s:3ei14u3m]? So, The Vanity Fair (as a real [s:3ei14u3m]peace[/s:3ei14u3m] piece of [s:3ei14u3m]the[/s:3ei14u3m] [s:3ei14u3m]crytycal[/s:3ei14u3m] critical realism) was for ten steps closer to this my [s:3ei14u3m]idea[/s:3ei14u3m] ideal: Nobody is perfect. But this makes us people. Both [s:3ei14u3m]darck[/s:3ei14u3m] dark and bright colors. The way we love and betray[s:3ei14u3m],[/s:3ei14u3m]; the way we show the generosity and then show [s:3ei14u3m]how cowardly[/s:3ei14u3m] cowardliness, how we can actually be. People who are completely sunny or [s:3ei14u3m]completelly[/s:3ei14u3m] completely dull and [s:3ei14u3m]storming[/s:3ei14u3m] stormy, [s:3ei14u3m]and[/s:3ei14u3m] windy and grey like rainy days are very rare. Most of us are changing, moody, like the day where clouds and wind close and open like the sun [s:3ei14u3m]contantly[/s:3ei14u3m] constantly. [s:3ei14u3m]No one[/s:3ei14u3m] None of Thackeray's heroes (I [s:3ei14u3m]rerad[/s:3ei14u3m] reread only one of his books) are perfect or однозначны, односторонни. Becky is sparking and beautiful, smart and witty, strong, she is a fruit, but she is a heartless mother and a [s:3ei14u3m]betraing[/s:3ei14u3m] betraying wife. Amelia Sedley is sweet and tender[s:3ei14u3m],[/s:3ei14u3m]; but, she is silly and simply a simpleton because she loves the wrong man and doesn't appreciate the love of the most generous man of her lifetime. And Dobbin is fair and generous and so loyal to all his principals of honor and love[s:3ei14u3m],[/s:3ei14u3m]; but, even he understands (and too late) that he was stupid and lost his best years in vain in sake of the woman who unlikely (doesn't?) deserves his love. Becky's husband is a natural [s:3ei14u3m]full[/s:3ei14u3m] fool[s:3ei14u3m],[/s:3ei14u3m]; but, he is a man of honour (American spelling is honor) and [s:3ei14u3m]bravity[/s:3ei14u3m] bravery and he loves her truly and with endless [s:3ei14u3m]loyal[/s:3ei14u3m] loyalty.

But [s:3ei14u3m]as[/s:3ei14u3m] the more I see how fair and [s:3ei14u3m]cinycal[/s:3ei14u3m] cynical is the Life [s:3ei14u3m]to[/s:3ei14u3m] of the heroes [s:3ei14u3m]of[/s:3ei14u3m] in the book, then the more I [s:3ei14u3m]feel[/s:3ei14u3m] felt how deeply I [s:3ei14u3m]am[/s:3ei14u3m] was attached to [s:3ei14u3m]it's[/s:3ei14u3m] its action. I feel how true is Thackeray. Life is the mixture of the salt and [s:3ei14u3m]suggar[/s:3ei14u3m] sugar and we are supposed to eat this blend [s:3ei14u3m]untill[/s:3ei14u3m] until we die. When I think about wild animals which eat the [s:3ei14u3m]flach[/s:3ei14u3m] flesh ([s:3ei14u3m]wolfes[/s:3ei14u3m] wolves or lions) I [s:3ei14u3m]thing[/s:3ei14u3m] think how much dull and similar is their daily meal without fire, salt and spices. But they have to eat it, tasteless, only [s:3ei14u3m]taste[/s:3ei14u3m] tasting of blood. So are we [s:3ei14u3m]are[/s:3ei14u3m]. We have to eat what the life gives us. [s:3ei14u3m]Happyness[/s:3ei14u3m] Happiness and bitter of disappointments and grief, эйфория and pain of love, we have to feel the taste of our deeds. We betray our friends and make the new ones. We make our relatives feel beloved and unhappy. It's a life[s:3ei14u3m],[/s:3ei14u3m] ; it is the real taste of life. The man [s:3ei14u3m]which was count[/s:3ei14u3m] who is known as the most reasonable person of his gender makes the biggest stupidity. We are the причудливая mixture of virtues and sins (добродетелей и пороков). And we love it.

Nobody is perfect. Nobody is hopeless. We all are bad, we all are good. There is no [s:3ei14u3m]winn[/s:3ei14u3m] winning without the loss and no good without bad. Our world - the human's world - is a vanity fair, [s:3ei14u3m]colorfull[/s:3ei14u3m] colorful range of events. The greatest events which stood unseen and stupid events which turns on everyone's tongue.

He was very, very true in his viewing of the life. Dickens can lie and hide the evident [s:3ei14u3m]thruth[/s:3ei14u3m] truth, he is an idealist. He is true but [s:3ei14u3m]untill[/s:3ei14u3m] until some border where Thackeray [s:3ei14u3m]speped[/s:3ei14u3m] stepped over this border. There are no more just good or just bad heroes. They all are good and bad.

Here is what I can tell in "English" (I would be more constructive talking in Russian though)

Arr! You did your best corrections while I was so intempering as to ask you about it!
Thank you for leaving the overlined words, it makes the correction more helpfull!
I am about to investigate what you kindly corrected.

...
Now if you let me I shall take your redaction almost without changings.
Thank you a lot for it!

Лёва, а ты не мог бы сказать на русском, что ты имел в виду вот здесь:
But as more I see how fair and cinycal is the Life to the heroes of the book then more I feel how deeply I am attached to it's action.
Особенно слово fair.
Может, ты имел в виду "But the more I see how nice(ly?) or cynical(ly?) Life treats the heroes of the book..." ?

О господи! Оля, пожалуйста, не разбирай меня при жизни!
Что же я хотел сказать-то. А то, что обстоятельства жизни героев Ярмарки складываются ни по какому-то всеблагостному закону провидения, ни по воле автора, склонного к морализаторству или самообману ради человеколюбия (как у Диккенса, за что я его всё-таки очень люблю). Я думаю, что герои и события книги подсказаны самой жизнью, тем, как нам возвращается при жизни. Здесь нет ни лишнего, ни недоокрашенного - хорошее или плохое настигает героев, мы чувствуем, что это справедливо, что так и должно быть, что так рассудила жизнь, а значит это верно, и нам становится спокойно. Даже зная о несчастье Доббина и позднем озарении Эмилии, зная о внутреннем противоречии Бекки, которая верит в свою правоту и _знает всё же, что она заслужила то, к чему пришла - зная о разочаровании героев, я чувствую, что оно кажется им справедливым. А справедливость произошедшего (даже наказания), соответсвтвие нашему внутреннему ощущению правды - это главное то, что даёт нам спокойствие и уверенность. Если я несправедливо счастлив, например, я не счастлив - происходящее не вкладывается в моё понимание правды. Если, допустим, я справедливо наказан, я пережив несчастье, всё же успокаиваюсь, так как понимаю, что всё это согласно с правдой (моей внутренней правдой в том числе). То есть всё в романе справедливо, и я ощущаю спокойствие, так как мне явлена справедливость в жизни этих людей. Я автоматически перекладываю события и чувства героев на свою жизнь и, чувствуя совпадения, испытываю приятнейшее сопереживание героям. То есть то, от чего мы любим или не любим какую-то книгу. Я больше и больше проникаюсь прочитанным, понимая (иногда сквозь выступающие слёзы), что написанное - правдиво, справедливо. То есть, я верю, что даже человек. осуждённый за преступления на смерть, может испытать удовлетворение от неминуемости казни. Так как глубоко в душе это действие соответсвует его подлинному пониманию правды. Если с ним поступят справедливо, а он исполнит то, что заслужил (умрёт), значит он правдивый человек, значит он получил право на мир со своей совестью.

Знаешь, Андрей Болконский плохо кончил, но те слова, что он сказал, мне близки как никакие - что счастье есть лишь то, когда мы свободны от болезней и угрызений совести. Вот я считаю высшим благом жить в мире с самим собой, соответсввовать той правде, в которую ты веришь самым искреним образом.

Так вот, возвращаясь к Ярмарке. Теккерей циник, но он честен, правдив, он не скрывает от себя и от нас (как Диккенс) то, что следут произнести по-совести. Если Диккенс спешит спасти наши чувства под сенью сентиментального переживания, сострадания, то Теккерей не выражает осстрадания. Он беспристрастен, как природа, и в этом его высшее милосердие. Так как он в высшей степени правдив и справедлив. По крайней мере в Ярмарке (а больше я пока ничего его не читал).

Вот, Оля.
А ещё ужасно неловко, когда мы с тобой при людях разговариваем по-английски, но тут уж ничего уж...

corrected