Talk:Underground (1995 film)

message: the plot section of this article is almost directly from amazon's description page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Algorythmic (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot copied from amazon 

message: Please do not replace the US release poster for this film with another unknown lesser quality image. If you can provide a quality version of the actual original film poster please do so instead of uploading a random European release cover and trying to pass it off as the original when it is not. Thank you. // Laughing Man 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image for infobox 

message: There is a comment in IMDB about the existance of a "long version (5 hours)" of Underground.  I was unable to find such a version.  It would probably be useful to comment or add details if such an uncut version indeed exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.128.147 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  full version of film 

message: :Image:Underground (Film)-US.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Underground (Film)-US.jpg

message: what was budget of this film? it must be one of most expensive Serbian films Vladar86 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  buget?? 

message: Why isnt there anything in this article about the controversy surrounding this film?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.119.212 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy 

message: Those to persons are well known for their hate towards Serbian people. Bernard henri levy is well documented as being a Serb hater. He was very active in producing and encouriging anti-serb propaganda during entire 90's and even today. Underground is a magnificent work of art, it shows the life and history of Yugoslavia and relations of people who were once brothers. Film has a strong message and is absoulte gem of work.
Sadly i do not see the reason why those two Cerovic, and Levy should be even mentioned when giving their opinion of this film as those two men have absolutely no credibility nor foundation to even comment of this film. They are not artists nor are they believers in freedom of expression or even the truth.I found their comments spiteful, full of hate and unfounded. Ceric attack on historical original videos of nazi's entering capitals of Yugoslav republics in 1941 speak volumes, they are not altered nor fictionalised they are real. The only reality of those films speaks volumes about europe then and now. The only city that did not estatically welcome nazi german occupiers was Belgrade which was in ruins, while Zagreb, Ljubljana welcomed nazis as saviours. Then exacly 50 years later we see the same thing again, attacking of the Serbs by new european nazis called the European Union or 4th Reich. We see Zagreb, Ljubljana, and even Sarajevo being portrayed as victims of "evil" Serbs and again 4th Reich attacking and bombing Belgrade some 55 years later. Does anyone need any more comparison what Kusturica wanted to say? 
I suggest that more credible and qualified persons reviews or opinions should be listed regarding this film. Parallel would be made as if a highschool student was reviewing an accomplished professors work in his thesis. It serves this film no justice. Ceric's comments are so unintellectual and so spiteful that i seriously doubt his intellect or competence in any of his work. Educated and intelligent person would try to find valid points and extrapolate them with credible arguments, and not fall back on such instinctual and i dare say primitive animalistic critisism. His comments do not show how "bad" or "biased" Kusturica's Undergorund is, it only shows the level of intellect of mr Ceric.
Those who are not biased, and who do not take sides, and are knowledgable of the real truth of wars in Yugosalvia from 1991-1999 have made thir judgement. Their reivews are portraying this film with superlatives which it rightly deserves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanko Cerovic, Bernard Henri-Levy comments are unnecesssary. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Underground (1995 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.filmfestivals.com/news/newsl1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified