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

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).

Review

Day Watch (Дневной дозор, Dnevnoi dozor, a.k.a. Night Watch 2: The Chalk of Fate), 2006
(This film is the second of four movies, loosely based on the novels by Sergei Lukyanenko)
http://movie25.com/day-watch_669.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_Watch


Trivia
The film's estimated budget was USD $4.2 million
Film grossed over USD $31.9 million at the Russian box office alone and in U.S. grossed over USD $450,000 as of July 2007
Surpassed "9 rota"(2005) to become the highest-grossing movie in post-communist Russia.

U.S. Reviews
Variety http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117...id=31&cs=1&p=0
San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DGOJQ477Q1.DTL


Let me start by saying that I watched the U.S. unrated version of this film which is the same as the Russian version.

I have always been a sucker for movies or books about destiny, fate, and time travel. So when the opening lines of a move are, “Why does the wind blow? It wipes the tracks where we have passed. So that no one can tell, whether we still exist.” I really am hoping that it will be good and I want to enjoy. I suspend all disbelief and let the film/book take me where it wants to take me. I had a little trouble doing this for Night Watch as I did not understand the story line that well; however, for Day Watch, it was much easier as I now knew these characters and the premise for this part of the series was made very clear early on in the movie... Find an ancient piece of chalk, and you will have the power of changing your destiny.

So, I was all in for this movie and even though I know a number of you are going to bash me here on the forum , I actually enjoyed this film. The ending I thought was a little too nice and neat; however, it was the entire point of the chalk, changing your destiny. I loved the special effects (especially the truck driving through the semi truck - very tight) and some of the dialogue/scenes made me laugh:

Tamerlane: I shall control the fate of the world...
[gets stabbed from behind]
Zoar: But you can't even control your own fate.

And some made me contemplate:
Zavulon: Imperfections are hidden in darkness, Yegor. And people always have their imperfections

Once again, as an outsider, I wanted to know if the places I was watching on the screen were real. Was the Cosmos Hotel mentioned in the first book and now the scene of a major battle, real? So, of course I Googled it and found it to be indeed a real place with a great Web site. http://www.hotelcosmos.ru/

So yes, this was not a great masterpiece of film; but it was an enjoyable movie to watch.

QUESTION????
Now, as I have not finished reading the first book, I do not know how this movie stands up to the novel and I would be interested to hear from people who have read the series and seen the movies.

Please share your thoughts...

Originally Posted by E-learner

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).

If you like to see Russian Sci-Fi film try Kin-Dza-Dza (1986) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091341/. It's very low budget (well, there is no way to overbudget Hollywood) but smart and fancy and with good acting. Though for someone may be a bit depressive.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

If you like to see Russian Sci-Fi film try Kin-Dza-Dza (1986)

I've seen it.
Just in case - I'm Russian.

Originally Posted by E-learner

Just in case - I'm Russian.

Oops!

I want just say about "9 rota" - I think this movie is terrible!
"This film is based on real events" - its lie. In real life all events was not like in this movie
Bondarchuk maked worse movie about this war.
IMHO

Originally Posted by Shurick

I want just say about "9 rota" - I think this movie is terrible!
"This film is based on real events" - it's a lie. In real life all events [s:kio50vci]was[/s:kio50vci] were not actually like they were portrayed in this movie. Bondarchuk [s:kio50vci]maked[/s:kio50vci] made the worse movie about this war.
IMHO

Shurick,

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)?

Anyone else want to voice their opinion on this one?

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I know absolutely nothing about this film...

It's "The 9th Company". Rota means "company" in Russian.
The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_9th_Company

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

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!