Thread: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!

Зачот!

PS.

Если ты либеральная гнида, ненавидишь своих предков и считаешь, что немцев завалили трупами – беги бегом, это твой фильм.

Входят гниды либеральны. Их и к месту и не к месту приплетают, однозначно. Видно оченно ужасны, и кусаются отменно. Среди ночи вылезают руки их из честных граждан. В патриотов садят яйца, там растут и вылезают, отвратительно гримася. Страхи. Ужас. Кетчуп с мясом.

Oh God, I saw such a great film yesterday that I can't keep me mouth shut about it. Even though I'm most likely the only person here interested in Bollywood.

Chalte Chalte (starring Shahrukh Khan and Rani Mukherji)





Yes, it's another Bollywood movie, it has a very cheesy, god-awful beginning (about 10 minutes) but then it becomes a perfect (for me) blend of romance and realism. The first part is really romantic, while in the second is more drama than anything. This film is a bit unusual for Bollywood because it's not a happily-ever-after fairytale, where the film ends with the lovers getting married. Chalte Chalte explores problems that couples face after marriage. What I liked about it was the great chemistry between SRK and Rani, wonderful music and how small, simple, unpretentious, and sweet it was (when compared to more famous, larger-than-life "Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham", "Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna", etc.) Great acting, tight script, wasn't bored for one minute. Was so rooting for the couple to be happy that got really emotional. And the thing is, I really didn't expect this film to touch me quite so much, having read some rather lukewarm reviews. The main complaint some people seem to have with this film is "It's too real life, I get enough of this at home, I watch Bollywood for the escapist and fairy-tale quality of it." Well, I've always been a fan of realism (social, lol). And even as a fan of Harry Potter, it was precisely the realism of emotions portrayed that I've always liked best... So it's exactly my cup of chai, that film is.

starrysky... did you watch the film New York? It's not your typical Bollywood movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1328634/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(film)

I started to watch it MONTHS ago and the copy I had was not a great version so I never finished and just never got back to obtaining a better copy... now you are making me want to get back to that one.

No, I've not seen that one yet though I heard it's supposedly quite good...

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Does the UK have the fee for air??? People who don't like the BBC and don't watch it have to pay the fee only because their TV CAN get the BBC airing signal?

Yup... We pay... then everyone around the world downloads it off the net..
I stopped watching TV about a year ago, but I am still liable to pay it.
If you own a TV you must pay it. Even though I use mine as a computer monitor and have terrible terrestial reception, so am forced to get cable TV! They don't accept the argument that you don't watch the BBC.

All of Scandinavia has the same policy; not sure about elsewhere in Europe. Personally I think it's ridiculous - they ought to just slam it on the taxes and assume that everyone has a TV.

The positive side is:
It pays for quality content as opposed to commercial junk...
Serious documentaries, historical dramas and other type of content that is not commercially profitable.
State TV does not need to have commercials which gives a MUCH better viewing experience and protects children and vulnerable people from ads.
But the system is very annoying and there is an element of state TV pushing various agendas, which as a citizen and license payer you may not be interested in paying for..

The enforcement agency is quite aggressive, they have equipment to check whether people are watching or not.. And all purchases of TVs are reported to them. But still, a lot of people don't pay.

Here are some typical forms about it:

TV licence:


Tracking down the license dodgers....


Threatening letters....


Someone wrote to them and said that he explicitly ban the inspectors from his property.


The inspectors mostly just catch young people or people who don't know the law though.
Although they are very aggressive, they have no legal right to enter peoples' houses if you exlpicitly tell them they can't. However, it affects your credit rating if you live somewhere that doesn't have a license. So a lot of people pay to make sure their credit rating isn't affected.

Someone let them in to the "corridor" while I was living in student flat, at university, in Stockholm. A lot of people had a TV, and opened the door to their room because they had not expected an inspector. The inspectors saw their TVs immediately, without even entering the room, so they got fined something massive and were very upset. I had no license either, but luckily I wasn't home at the time.

Does Russia / Ukraine have anything like this, or is everything financed by ads?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Starrysky might be a Bollywood fan... but I am a sci-fi fan!

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard that there had been a remake of "V" !!!
Some people might remember it from the mid 1980s? I was vaguely aware that the series existed, but not allowed to watch it, by my parents.. lol. I think it was the only sci-fi series that ran on Swedish TV for the entire 1980s. It holds a special place for me, because of that.

johanna & strarrysky...

I missed your posting about "V"
If you go back in this thread to Sun Oct 11, 2009, I wrote about how Ken Johnson the original creator of V was going to be in Russia!

Johanna.... Interesting how your mom would not let you watch "V".. and there I was on the set of it!!!

I watched the first episode of the new series, but have not seen any more of it. Not because I did not like it... just time, health and other issues...

Urgh, those letters look nasty.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Does Russia / Ukraine have anything like this, or is everything financed by ads?

Hmmm... I think we do pay but indirectly. Since the central channels are supposedly "pro-government," I s'pose they might be getting some money from it. Then, you know this new film by Mikhalkov that everyone is so displeased with -- he was given $50 mlns or something to do it. I think I even read complaints somewhere on the net on that score.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Personally I think it's ridiculous - they ought to just slam it on the taxes and assume that everyone has a TV.

So, you mean the working guys should pay for everyone having their TVs?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

Personally I think it's ridiculous - they ought to just slam it on the taxes and assume that everyone has a TV.

So, you mean the working guys should pay for everyone having their TVs?

Yes; everyone who pays tax.

I support state TV because it is better than commercial TV. Compare BBC news with Sky...
And it's free of ads, which is good. State TV broadcast good quality domestic and foreign programming with no ads.

But to run state TV they need money and there are really only two options in a market economy: 1) Licence fee 2) get the money from taxes.

I am saying that I think it's better to take it from taxes than the insane license system.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, you mean the working guys should pay for everyone having their TVs?

Working guys always pay social taxes for everyone having medical care and for incapable and handicapped persons to support their life.
The point is quite different for me. If I pay taxes and these taxes are used for a state TV. I, as a tax payer, can write angry letters if I don't like what I see with this TV (not sure if these letters will have any effect at all, but I have the right to write it). But what I see with license fee looks as the TV channel has no any responsibility for its products because the viewers will pay for it anyway.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Working guys always pay social taxes for everyone having medical care and for incapable and handicapped persons to support their life.

That's true. So, do we deem the TV ownership as essential as the medical care?

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

If I pay taxes and these taxes are used for a state TV. I, as a tax payer, can write angry letters if I don't like what I see with this TV (not sure if these letters will have any effect at all, but I have the right to write it). But what I see with license fee looks as the TV channel has no any responsibility for its products because the viewers will pay for it anyway.

I'm pretty sure the angry letters will have no effect in either case. The only way a media could be affected is through another [competing] media. And the state TV is fully controlled by the state officials, so if you don't like the content of the state TV, write angry letters to your regional MP whose office might at least be interested in replying to you.

PS. Whoa! I can make any thread political, can't I? "The rest is silence."

Originally Posted by Crocodile

PS. Whoa! I can make any thread political, can't I? "The rest is silence."

Yes, Croc.. you are "The man! A God among men! You rock! You rule..... we worship your amazing brain power and witty skills (actually, I do!)."

rockzmom, you got me all blushing. There isn't so much brain power, really.

Finally I found the Movies thread! I was looking for it in "Culture" part of the forum
I love Soviet movies, but I occassionally need a break from people randomly breaking out into song.

A movie that doesn't seem to be mentioned and that I just watched the other night -- "Mechanic Gavrilov's Beloved Woman" (Любимая женщина механика Гаврилова) (1981) -- has the great Lyudmila Gurchenko and no random singing! A great little "day-in-the-life-of" movie about a middle-aged woman that is about to get married, but the groom doesn't show up. The only let-down was the finale -- it added some melodrama to the "slice of life" feel. Not sure if there are English subtitles, but if there are and you enjoy slice-of-life dramas, check this movie out.
Directed by Pyotr Todorovsky, whom you might know as the director of "Interdevotchka" (see it, if you haven't yet!!).

I saw Sex and the City 2 (the movie).

Work offered tickets to the London premiere and I felt I had to go because one particular colleague was incredibly keen for the two of us to go together.

To sum it up: This film was terrible!

It had next to no plot apart from the girls going to the Abu Dhabi.
Most of the film was about:

1) How incredibly luxurious everything was in the UAE... (while tons of third world people are working there as domestic servants -- discussed in the film with a very flimsy and arrogant view...)

2) How "frigid" the people in the UAE are... (apparently you have to cover up just a tiny bit and can not make out in public places -- big deal!!!)

3) Carrie meets Aidan (old fling) while there and kisses him. Gets bad conscience and calls up "Big" (her husband) and tells him about it. Big gets a bit upset but ends up insisting that Carrie wears a super elegant wedding ring as a "punishment" (previously she had refused to wear a wedding ring).

That's essentially the whole plot. The stereotypes about the Middle east are just one tiny step from those old films where a European put some shoecream in his face and pretended to be a "negroe". It was incredibly silly. These women should definitely stay in New York!

Not even the fashion was that great in my view or maybe I am not fully up to date with the latest fashion....

I give the film 2 out of 5.

The only thing that makes the film worth watching is "Big" who is attractive and cool and played by a good actor.

If anyone wants to watch it, I suggest they wait and get a pirated copy online; it isn't worth the price of a cinema ticket by far!

Incidentally at this premier they were checking all large bags for camcorders, would you believe!!!!

SatC is so wrong on so many levels.
Although, I assume this latest installment would have great medicinal value as a soporific.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Incidentally at this premier they were checking all large bags for camcorders, would you believe!!!!

Oh no, one of my pet peeves -- premier vs. premiere

Premier in the sense of "first, earliest" is an adjective; the noun premier means prime minister

Premiere (noun) means first performance

I see this use of "premier" in the media more and more and it makes me weep

Originally Posted by Johanna

All of Scandinavia has the same policy; not sure about elsewhere in Europe. Personally I think it's ridiculous - they ought to just slam it on the taxes and assume that everyone has a TV.

Germany has it as well. There are a first and second channel, as well as various regional third channels, all of which are financed by a fee which you have to pay if you own at least one TV set. Radio stations are paid out of that as well, you only pay for them specifically though if you have no TV. Anyone other than a private household has to pay for each device (radio, TV). I actually once overheard a man from the organization which collects that fee in a computer shop who asked the owner not only to pay the fee for the TV he used to demo console games, but also for each TV-capable graphics card in the shop, even those on the shelves.

There is discussion of a 'head fee' which is supposed to cover all media use, to a certain extent even copying stuff, but I don't see it succeed.

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

Originally Posted by Johanna

All of Scandinavia has the same policy; not sure about elsewhere in Europe. Personally I think it's ridiculous - they ought to just slam it on the taxes and assume that everyone has a TV.

Germany has it as well. There are a first and second channel, as well as various regional third channels, all of which are financed by a fee which you have to pay if you own at least one TV set.

One more thing on this theme... I am FURIOUS because there was this great archive of recorded films of Swedish films on an ftp server... Basically the owner recorded practically every film that ran on Swedish state TV for about 12 years.

His project had been that he transferred all of it to digital and shared with Swedish film geeks. The benefit was that some of the films were very rare and they all had hard coded subs in Swedish.

The server was ordered by country and year and he had a whole section of Russian speaking films, at least one film I would like to watch but which I know has no subs available online.

His argument was "Me and everyone else who watches these films were license payers at the time when they ran on TV, therefore it was legal to record them and share them with "friends" via invitation!

The site had no glossy interface just ftp archive and he made no money from it and didn't even ask for donations.

But he had shared some material that was copyrighted, and the copyright holders did not agree with his view on the licensing covering for the viewing cost. The police raided his house and took his servers.

Not only is this a TERRIBLE thing to happen to a nice public spirited man who went to enormous lengths of trouble to record and transfer the films, but me (stupid ) had not thought to download more than about 3 films from his Russian section.

Most of these films are not available with any subs at all, and were "rare" films. It's hard enough to find any decent Swedish subs for Russian films, I have to get the English subs and it's only a fraction of the Russian films that even have subs at all. He had at least a hundred Russian films.

To be honest I had planned to download a bunch of the films and upload them to swetorrents of pirate bay.. but I didn't get around to it. Now this man will have to pay a massive fine and probably won't dare take the site up again. He did not have quite the coolness of the Pirate Bay and was not out to make a political statement.

This project was very cool -- he had all sorts of very rare films not only from Russia but across Europe, and they ruined it just because he was so stupid as to share some Hollywood films.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I saw Sex and the City 2 (the movie).

Was the first movie good?

I had similar reaction to the "Shopaholic" film -- totally hated it. I liked the book -- it was quite funny and ironic and reading it in English probably added to its interest but the film I thought was awful... Well, maybe not awful but so different from the book -- the whole set-up changed to New York instead of London... Wrong lead actor...

I've never also seen a single episode of Sex and the City. I mean, why would I watch a series about four women? lol I'm not into women. And these actresses didn't seem very interesting look-wise. I dunno... Just not natural. I adored "Friends", though. And some other stuff like "The O.C." and "Gilmore Girls", of which I've seen only one or two seasons. It's been such a long time since I've seen any American stuff, actually, be it a film or a sitcom.

Originally Posted by starrysky

Originally Posted by Johanna

I saw Sex and the City 2 (the movie).

Was the first movie good?

I have seen most of the episodes of the TV series. (yeah... admit... )

It is TERRIBLY materialistic, decadent etc but also fun and entertaining.
But it's a bit like ice cream which tastes good at first but is not real food and can be sickening in large quantities...

The point is that the four women have quite different personalities and priorities in life. And different fashion sense. You could argue they are all quite messed up and very loose too.... There is a big theme about the different types of guys they date. They sleep with a new guy in almost every episode.

The other point is to show off a lot of fashion, particularly shoes... A lot of women I knew got pretty stressed out about feeling that they ought to have clothes by the same designers as Carrie in the series. Many womens magazines here in the UK ran a feature on the fashion featured in the latest episode.

I never saw the first film because frankly that series had its' time and a film just seemed silly. The conclusion of the series left it exactly where it should end and no further spin on the story was needed.