John Grisham is mostly known to the modern world as a writer of thrillers about lawyers. But in this book you`ll find no descriptions of ugly cases, no chopped to pieces advocates in the trunk of a Volvo, no corrupted politicians and not even a single witness. The book starts off quite nicely - Luther Krank has decided not to spend a lot of money on Christmas as he has been doing for many, many years but to go together with his wife Nora on a vacation in the Carribean. A great plan, I think. Since their daughter Blair has gone on a Peace Corps mission to Peru they have no reason to stay for the commercialised crap that nowadays is called Christmas. They don`t have to put a "Frosty the Snowman" made out of plastic on their roof, they don`t have to give money to everyone that`s willing to take it. Yet their neighbours can`t understand the Kranks` decision and get on their nerves the whole time. This goes for about 2/3 of the book. Ok, not every scene is witty, things tend to get repeated but it`s ideologically ok at least. But then suddenly the whole thing becomes a silly mess - Blair decides to come home and bring her fiancee with her. So the parents decide to stay at home and it even turns out that all those creeps they have as neighbours aren`t so bad at all, and Christmas isn`t only about shopping and about high prices, it`s about people helping each other (for example, by lending a Frosty the snowman to your neighbour). And it turns out that only a scrooge or a moron would want to skip Christmas, for it`s really the best time of the year. For a person like me that doesn`t really love any of those hollidays when everyone tells you that you should be celebrating it only because all other people are, this isn`t a nice ending. The whole thing with buying stuff you don`t need, with being kind to people you despise, with all this fake shit that has nothing to do with Jesus, with God or with anything, it`s simply so disgusting. And Grisham either doesn`t see that or he doesn`t have enough balls to say what he means until the end. He starts quite bravely but finishes in the Hollywood manner. And it`s not a good thing by my standards.

It probably can`t be classified as a single record but should instead be separated into different elements that don`t have too much in common. On the other hand, discussing bonus material as such seems to be a silly thing. Yet for a whole disc of previously unseen (at least by me) material I can make an exception. First, this disc features a documentary about Terry Jones and Michael Palin revisiting most of the locations where "The Holy Grail" was shot. I never thought that those guys worked under such money saving circumstances that they shot almost all scenes in a single castle which has only about 3 different rooms but in the film it appeared to be a lot of castles and dozens of rooms. The things they talk about on those locations they go are worth to be heard as well. This documentary also proves how extremely significant to Britain this legendary film has become - you can nowadays buy coconuts at the castle where king Arthur was harrased about European and African swallows. But enough about the documentary already. Let`s talk about another documentary. It was done by BBC in 1974 on the shooting locations. Despite having got all 6 pythons on screen it ain`t too useful, for it`s mainly goofing around with very little substance. Both Terries shine on this documentary more than the rest of the sixpack, mainly due to the fact that it was them directing the film and therefore receiving more attention from the BsBC. Other materials aren`t that extensive - there`s a short new film about splitting coconuts featuring Michael Palin and some unknown fellow, there`s a bit of old posters and bashing reviews (one of those states that "Holy Grail" makes "Ben Hur" look like an epic. To me it was "Life of Brian" that really made "Ben Hur" look like an epic). Oh, I almost forgot - there`s a short part of the film done in "LEGO". It`s goofy, of course, but not particulary interesting. As for the final judgement - only a Python fanatic would care about those things. But on the other hand - I am a Python fanatic!

Nevaru to nosaukt gluži par Normja "ieteikumu" skatīties šo filmu, bet, protams, zināma loma viņam bija tajā, ka mēs ar Lieni "Eragonu" noskatījāmies. Pirmkārt, vērts pieminēt, ka filmas pamatā ir 15 gadīga puišeļa sarakstīta grāmata, kas zināmā mērā iezīmē ierobežojumus, ar ko šajā darbā nākas saskarties - un pirmais no tiem ir zems oriģinalitātes līmenis. Kā apgalvo eksperti, sižetiski "Eragons" ļoti daudz esot aizņēmies no "Zvaigžņu kariem", taču es šo sāgu redzējis neesmu, līdz ar to nevaru spriest. Līdzības ar Tolkienu gan var saskatīt ļoti vienkārši. Sižets kompaktā veidā ir sekojošs: pasaulē kādreiz valdīja pūķu jātnieki, bet viens no viņiem kaut kāds Galbatorikss (vai līdzīgā vārdā dēvēts; atveido John Malkovich) visus viņus (jātniekus un pūķus) apslaktēja un pats kļuva par karali-tirānu. Princese Arja kaut kādā nenoskaidrotā veidā nosūta zemnieku puikam Eragonam zilu spīdīgu akmeni, kuru tas mēģina pārdot, bet neviens to nepērk un izrādās, ka tā ir pūķa ola, bet Eragons (kura vārds patiešām skan visai līdzīgi vārdam Aragorn no Gredzenu pavēlnieka) ir diženais varonis, kura atnākšana tiek paredzēta jau tūkstoti gadu. Kaut kāds aizdomīgs tips, kas kādreiz ir bijis pats pūķa jātnieks - Jeremy Irons atveidā - ņemas šo apmācīt. Protams, kā jau tāds tīnis Eragons īpaši neklausās padomos un izteikti viņa vainas dēļ Broms (Irons) iet bojā, lai gan nekāda vainas sajūta viņam no tā, protams, nerodas. Toties Eragonam izdodas no sliktā Durzas (kaut kāda veida spoka) rokām izvilkt laukā Arju, pēcāk filmas noslēguma lielajā kaujā viņš nogalina arī Durzu, kas laikam gan ir bijis sliktā Galbatoriksa labā roka.

Es apzinos, ka šobrīd esmu sācis albūmus apskatīt nepiedodami straujos tempos, bet kāds gan tur brīnums, tā kā darīšana patlaban man ir ar ierakstiem, kurus es esmu klausījies jau ļoti daudzas reizes pēdējo gadu laikā, līdz ar to tos ja ne gluži zinu no galvas, tad vismaz piedziedājumus zinu gandrīz visām to dziesmām. Un "Def Leppard" te ir pat ļoti tipisks piemērs. Šo nosacīti metāla grupu es iepazinu tieši ar šo ierakstu un momentā iemīlēju tās saldi popsīgo metāla manieri un tikai līdz ar dubultalbūma "X" iznākšanu un tā noklausīšanos sāku mazpamazām zaudēt savas siltās jūtas pret šo grupu. Daudziem Def Leppard būtu vērts zināt viena ļoti savdabīga fakta dēļ - tieši "Hysteria" ierakstīšanas laikā grupas bundzinieks zaudēja kreiso roku, kā rezultātā patiesība bija "Bloodhound Gang", kas kādā dziesmā vairākas reizes atkārtoja: "The drummer from Def Leppard`s only got one arm". Un tas grupai īstenībā pat nāca par labu.

Would you believe that Paul McCartney is over sixty? It ain`t far till the day when he won`t be allowed to sing "When I`m 64" anymore and will have to change it to "When I`m not 64" - there was a Latvian song titled "When I won`t be 16 anymore", which by the way was a crappy song and has nothing to do with Paul`s new album. Is it right that I call him just Paul? Or do people get punished for not calling Him `Sir Paul McCartney` on the Internet? Anyhow, he`s got a new album out. It starts off with the energetic "It`s a fine line" which somehow reminds me of the Electric Light Orchestra and that song "It`s a living thing/It`s a given thing". After on Paul more relies on doing sad ballads which doesn`t come off as a real surprise. "Jenny Wren" is an accoustic song that could have been a Beatles demo record, where it not sung by a 60 year old man. "Friends to Go" is also a Beatles songs, circa from 1965. "English Tea" sounds to be a later Beatles composition, more in the style of "Maxwell`s Silver Hammer". "Certain Softness" is good. I also like "Promise to you girl" which is one of the most rocking tracks on the album. The one thing that bugs me is that at his not so young age Paul still writes mostly love songs. Jesus, he can`t be thinking seriously that people will believe in his sincerity. His lyrical capacity doesn`t seem to be much stronger that in 1964, but he ain`t a good looking young fellow no more. Hey, I don`t really think that he was that good looking back then. I`d put George in the first place, then John and Paul was only better looking that Ringo, but even that not always.

It took me some time to figure it out where I first heard the name "August Strindberg". And finally I realised that it was the title of a play by Duerrenmatt "Play Strindberg" where I heard it first. A brief research in Wikepedia told me that Strindberg was a Swedish novelist who lived in late 19th, early 20th century and was a major force in Swedish literature. He`s mostly famous for his dramatic work, but "The Red Room" was the book that brought him fame. Strindberg can be classified as a satirical realist who balances on the line between communism and anarchism, yet prefers the second to the first. This book we`re talking about isn`t really too interesting on the first glance - the characters are kinda weird, the story goes pretty much nowhere, only to prove that bourgeous pigs suck big time. It`s no big shakes for me. The central figure in this book is a fellow who has a rich brother but he himself is a silly idealist, who can`t compete with the capitalist pigs, and has to suffer. Other people around him are more or less normal people - they know good from bad but they also try not to drown. Apart from a young man named Ulle who commits suicide. His last note is surely the best thing in the entire book and it provided me with a thing to think about. He makes fun of some of the ten commandments. For instance, he says - that the first commandment which says that God shall be the only God you shall serve clearly states that there ARE other gods. And why would a God so great care about whether someone uses his name without a need? Isn`t that a silly thing that no God would find that important to give it as one of the ten commandments which every man and woman should follow? Yet apart from this part about the commandments the book isn`t too interesting.

Stephen King meets Johnny Depp. "Good day I bid you" says Stephen King. "Howdy, partner!" says Johnny Depp. Not likely to happen? Not likely to write a correct sentence. Sentence me wrong or sentence me right I don`t mind.

Now I can finally call myself an expert in the field of Willie Wonka. I`ve seen both films, I`ve read the book, and finally I`ve read a comparison of the three of Wikipedia. So how do they compare?

The year of 2005 began with a repeated watch of "Road Trip". 2004 started with Amenabar`s "Abre Los Ojos". What will be the tendency for 2006? Will it open with a silly teen comedy or as a serious alternative movie? By choosing "Thumbsucker" on a section of films categorized as comedies it seemed that the "Road Trip" agenda would be the chosen for this year. Yet in reality this film wasn`t particulary comic at all. If you are one of those people that consider a guy of 17 still sucking on his thumb a funny thing per se then the only thing I can offer you is a pie in the face. Justin doesn`t do particulary well at school, he`s far from convincive and he sucks his thumb - you can probably say that he`s the equivalent to "Napoleon Dynamite", better looking though. His mother is obsessed with some TV star, while his father hasn`t still come over the fact that he couldn`t enjoy a career of a professional footballer because of an injury. Still things aren`t going that bad for Justin - in Rebecca he`s found a good looking and a smart girl friend. If he only knew some ways of keeping a relationship going... Instead he`s first hypnotized by his dentist (who happens to be Keanu Reeves) to stop sucking his thumb and put on medication so he could focus his thoughts better. Drugs help and Justin suddenly has perfect discussion skills and he goes to compete as an orator on different occasions yet he also turns innerly into a very dislikeable person. When he stops taking pills he teams up with Rebecca again who has switched from Justin to weed and they smoke together as she overgoes some "teenage experiments" with him - learns how to do and what to do. When he finds out that they don`t have a relationship but merely an experiment he isn`t exactly full of joy. The film is certainly strange and the only movie similar to it I`ve seen so far was "Napoleon Dynamite" which I mentioned here already, but in comparison to "N.D." Thumbsucker is better cut and it doesn`t seem pointless.

Recenziju rakstīju Delfiem, to arī šeit zemāk iepostēšu. Atsevišķi no recenzijas varētu piebilst, ka šī filma man "idejā" patīk vairāk nekā praksē, jo īpaši interesanti to skatīties nav, lai arī es atzīstu, ka Švankmajers ir patiešām visnotaļ ģeniāls kino mākslinieks (ar uzsvaru uz mākslinieks).