26

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, Marty, you wrote: M> Objection on the second point. Like correct to write - . , you do not know the Jewish language, and use in   .  fat!

27

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, SvoboduAnzheleDevis, you wrote: the GARDEN> means the good review. It is necessary to look. It is not necessary. Bazhenov - a quilted jacket.

28

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, anonymous, you wrote: A> This roller looked  at an amount of people, than watched a film. . On  the amount of reviews, instead of not an amount of spectators is registered. If you 10 times open a roller is there will be 10 reviews.

29

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

M> Yes it is fine, when it was, that Bondarchuk (and similar) for both cheeks burst? 9 company precisely devoured for both cheeks.  at it was. But any more I will not remember. Personally it only in  a house was pleasant to me. Though he there and not the director, and plays the idiot. Absolutely to a place I consider

30

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD> Pozanudstvuju. On  the amount of reviews, instead of not an amount of spectators is registered. If you 10 times open a roller is there will be 10 reviews. Will not be, I tried.

31

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

A> Unlike Russians you with pleasure guzzle any slops if they are seasoned at least by imaginary sauce . But a film really slops. No art advantages has. Look through this  could not and it completely agree with it . Next  the Russian cinema. 6 million dollars on this  simply killed.

32

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, Kaifa, you wrote: K> but a film really slops. No art advantages has. Look through this  could not and it completely agree with it . Next  the Russian cinema. The Russian cinema, of course, not , but the person, listened it, has no relation to the Russian cinema.

33

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

The NANOSECOND> the Russian cinema, of course, not , but the person, listened it, has no relation to the Russian cinema. Why?  it come with

34

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, Kaifa, you wrote: the NANOSECOND>> the Russian cinema, of course, not , but the person, listened it, has no relation to the Russian cinema. K> why?  it come with  at what here ? Speech about Pimanova.

35

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, alsemm, you wrote: M>> Objection on the second point. Like correct to write - . , you do not know the Jewish language, and use in  A>  .  fat! Fat kosher?

36

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, Kaifa, you wrote: A>> Unlike Russians you with pleasure guzzle any slops if they are seasoned at least by imaginary sauce . K> but a film really slops. Who argues?

37

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

NANOSECOND> At what here ? Speech about Pimanova. Here you are eternal riddles and it is necessary to google. I should know this lack of talent?

38

Re: Re: the Film "Crimea". Again.

Hello, Kaifa, you wrote: NANOSECOND>> At what here ? Speech about Pimanova. K> you here are eternal riddles and it is necessary to google. I should know this lack of talent? Well,  you know