Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

Uzreiz paskaidroju, ka šī nav tā filma, kuru skatījās Mānis, bet gan "īstais" Good Shepherd - tas pats, kurā piedalās Mets Deimons. Turklāt Mets nav vienīgā slavenība šajā filmā, tāpat te piedalās arī Andželīna Džolī, Aleks Boldvins, Bilijs Krudups (Rasels no "Almost Famous"), pats Roberts de Niro, Maikls Gembons (pazīstams, piemēram, kā Dumbldore "Harijā Poterā"), Viljams Hērts (vispār - kino leģenda), Džo Peši un Džons Turturro. Sižeta te ir tik daudz, ka manā saitā tam nemaz vietas neatradīsies (aizbildināšos, ka man Normis noteicis striktus limitus, cik gari varu rakstīt, lai gan tā nav patiesība). Mets Deimons ir Edvards Vilsons, viņš strādā CIP. Filmā mēs redzam viņu dažādos periodos laikā no divdesmitajiem gadiem (tad gan viņu atveido cits aktieris) līdz sešdesmito sākumam un krīzei starp ASV un PSRS Kubas dēļ. Pa vidam tur iekrīt vēl viens pasaules karš un šādas tādas citas lietas, Edvarda attiecības ar kurlo Lauru un dzirdīgo Kloveru (Džolija), vispār ar to varētu sižetam pietikt, jo vairāk aprakstīt man ir slinkums. Tīri ok filma, tikai bišķi par garu, tā man būt domāt.

Lately I`ve read a lot of books where someone tries to solve some mystery concerned with history. "The Da Vinci Code", "The Sect of Egoists", "Baudolino" - those are the first to come to my mind. And here is another one of those. Claude Wooldridge is a rich man in his early fifties, who owns a bookshop, a few bakery shops, and some shops of antiques. His life goes through a whirlpool when he finds among old books a hint that could lead to a lost diary of the most famous British poet - Lord Byron. But the diary is only the background to the real drama of his life - he has a very weird relationship with his daughter and his wife, it turns out that his wife loves his best friend and not him anymore, but what`s the worst - Claude begins to realise that his life is completely empty, there`s no sense in anything he`s ever done, even the diary which he buys for a lot of money turns out to be just a hoax, and the book ends with him commiting suicide. This certainly means that this book hasn`t too much in common with the ones I mentioned at the beginning of this review, but it doesn`t also mean that it`s better or worse. I can`t say that it`s particulary thrilling, but it isn`t also drowsiness evoking. Probably the problem lies in the fact that the adventure part of the book never seems to overwhelm the ever-worsening condition of the main hero, which never lets you really be happy about something.

This film stars Seann William Scott - one of the few actors who`s most films I`ve already seen (yuck, this sentence sounds like crap but it`s too late and I`m too tired to think how to improve it). The only other that comes to my mind is Brad Pitt, altough I haven`t really seen that many of his films. So, what is this thing about? Knowing that S.W.Scott never does serious films you`ll probably say - this is a comedy. And you will be right. It`s pretty dumb, of course, but for a S.W.Scott film it also goes without saying. There`s this message that some Tibetan monks have been guarding for the last ... years (fill in any number you like). But the whole time the message has only one keeper, a person that lives 60 years without getting old and that can fight like a real menace. But in WW2 fascists killed most monks and an especially nasty fascists almost got the message (it`s the kind of thing that makes you live forever and gives you more power than Bruce Lee had in his prime). And now in circa 2000 a young thug (Scott) in America is about to become the next keeper of the message as the monk from Tibet meets him and the thug named Kar starts fulfiling some silly prophecies. But then the fascists come again and start doing their nasty shit, for you know that underground Hitler support troups exist even nowadays. And even in your back yard! Yeah, for sure. Anyhow then there`s also this crazy chick that meets Kar somewhere below the city (in the underground) and that falls in love with him (if you put it that way) and that can also fight like a menace. The film is an action flick with lots of silly comedy - a bit like "Welcome to the Jungle" with the same S.W.Scott. Dumb but at least partly fun.

Par to, vai globālā sasilšana ir vai nav būtiska problēma, par spīti Elam Goram un daudziem līdzīgi domājošiem cilvēkiem, joprojām ir daudz strīdu. Un manis pēc, lai tie būtu. Ja kāds uzskata, ka pie šīs problēmas ir vainīga Saules aktivitāte, nevis cilvēks, manis pēc viņš var tā uzskatīt. Daudz svarīgāka, vismaz tā man šķiet, ir tava rīcība un nevis tava pārliecība. Mans viedoklis ir tāds, ka no kaitēšanas videi un nelietderīgas dabas resursu izmantošanas iespēju robežās vajag izvairīties, neatkarīgi no tā, cik liels no tā rodas ļaunums, kaut tāpēc vien, ka labuma no tā noteikti nekāda nav. Bet uzskati un pārliecība - tā ir cita lieta. Nevaru īsti noformulēt domu, bet ko es gribu pateikt. Labi, izmantošu analoģiju. Kas ir labāk: ja tu netici Dievam, bet "ievēro baušļus" (jeb dzīvo tiešām labu dzīvi) vai regulāri ej uz baznīcu, atbalsti savu draudzi un vienlaikus esi totāls maita? Manuprāt, atbilde ir skaidra. Tāpat man nav svarīgi, kādu motīvu vadīts cilvēks, piemēram, atsakās no liekas braukāšanas ar mašīnu - lai viņu vada vēlme uzlabot savu fizisko gatavību, mēģinot panākt, ka ar viņu pārguļ Dženifera Anistone; lai viņš ir skopulis, kas negrib maksāt par benzīnu; lai viņš grib izlikties esam trūcīgs - nospļauties man par to: līdzekļi attaisno mērķi! (varbūt ne vienmēr, bet tomēr bieži vien).

"Tiekšanās pēc laimes" ir labākā Vila Smita filma, kādu man līdz šim ir nācies redzēt. Protams, nemaz tik liels sasniegums pēc definīcijas tas nav, jo "Vīri melnā" nav mana visu laiku mīļākā filma, gabalu par Muhamedu Ali es nenoskatījos, uzskatīdams boksu par man neinteresantu tematiku, "Hitch" es neesmu redzējis, "Wild Wild West" arī tikai daļēji (un tā jau ar nav nekāda super filma), kamēr "Independence Day" vienīgais krutisms bija specefekti, ā, vēl bija "I Robot", bet tā filma man arī nelika lēkāt uz dibena no sajūsmas.

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.

Beidzot noskatījos trešo nomināciju gada labākajai animācijas filmai - "Monstru māju". Šī gada animācijas kategorijā nominētajām multenēm patiešām ir viena kopīga īpašība - tajās visās ir ekselenta animācija. Pingvīnu multene vietām bija vizuāli līdzvērtīga īstajai Pingvīnu filmai, "Vāģi" bija daudz labāki, nekā es biju gaidījis, un visu beidzot Monstru māja. Starp citu, šogad visas 3 nominētās multenes ir datorgrafika. Nez, vai tas par kaut ko liecina? Pagājušogad neviena nebija tīrā datorgrafika. Droši vien gan tas liecina, ka šogad nav bijis gana labu zīmēto multfilmu. Kā lai arī nebūtu, es savu "Oskaru" atdotu tieši "Monstru mājai", kas mani patīkami pārsteidza. Vispirms, vizuāli no visas šīs ļoti spēcīgās trijotnes tieši "Monstru māja" izceļas visvairāk. Otrkārt, sižetiski tā arī ir pārāka par abām divām konkurējošajām multenēm - vismaz nav tā, ka jau no paša sākuma var saprast, ar ko tas viss beigsies. Bet tomēr galvenais šeit bija tieši vizuālais baudījums - te tas ir atstrādāts vienkārši perfekti, liekot man noticēt, ka datorgrafika beidzot ir sasniegusi tādu līmeni, kādu es no tās vienmēr esmu gaidījis - beidzot pat es nevaru teikt, ka ir pārāk maz poligonu izmantots.

Reti gadās, ka es kādu filmu skatos tik daudzos piegājienos, līdz tieku līdz galam, ja darīšana nav ar kādu īpaši neinteresantu mākslas darbu (lai gan tādos gadījumos būtu vērts uzdot jautājumu - kāpēc tad es to vispār noskatos līdz galam, ja ir tik neinteresanti?). Tomēr "Little Čildren" gadījums ir patiešām īpašs. Šo filmu lejupielādēju vēl Rīgā, ierakstīju diskā un sataisījos Ženēvā jau vienā no pirmajām dienām to skatīties. Principā es zināju, ka filmu biju dabūjis krieviskā tulkojumā, tomēr nepievērsu šim faktam īpaši lielu vērību - bieži tulkojumiem nav ne vainas, turklāt anglisko tobrīd dabūt man bija pagrūtāk. Tomēr jau pēc minūtēm 10 es filmu skatīties pārtraucu, jo mani totāli bija nokaitinājis tulkotājs, kas nespēja izsekot līdzi sižetam, rezultātā tulkodams labi ja pusi teksta un regulāri atkārtodams "eēe" tipa skaņas. Taču kad Oskari jau bija pienākuši stipri tuvāk, izlēmu iedot šim tulkotājam vēl vienu iespēju - mēģinot iespēju robežās klausīties angliskajā tekstā, kas bija apakšā. Šoreiz noskatījos vēl minūtes piecas - līdz brīdim, kad sapratu, ka "koroļ porno" oriģinālvalodā ir "prom king".

Suppose I tell you this film is a Japanese horror movie. Are you already scared out of your pants and on your way to the mental hospital? I bet you are. But you shouldn`t be. This film isn`t that scary. It plainly isn`t scary at all. There`s this guy who works as a sound engineer, and who has a wife who is a medium. While he`s in the woods recording the sounds of the forest a little girl running away from a rapist hides in an empty equipment box belonging to the man. It`s quite silly that after the recording he puts the box in his car without thinking why it has become much heavier and without even putting anything back inside it. It seems that he just likes carrying around huge empty boxes. Anyway, the girl dies in the box, and after a few days his wife is asked to find her. She finds her through her powers, but the girl appears to be living. Since they have no way of explaining how the girl got into the box the guy and his wife decide to hide her in a remote location and send the cops to that place. That is particulary silly, but ok. In the end the girl turns out to be a physical ghost and the guy does the best thing you can do to a ghost - he kills her once again by using a piece of wood. After that he sees his body double (which signs his near death) and puts it on fire. To be honest - the guy is crazy, and so even to a greater level is the director. And the film is stupid, uninspired, boring, dull - choose whatever you want. And it isn`t a horror film.

I have always been a fan of Mr. Kundera, and his latest work didn`t dissapoint me even as much as a tiny, tiny little... thing. And it surely doesn`t mean that my expectations were low. Irene is a woman in her fourties that lives in France but now has a chance to return to her homeland of Prague since the iron curtain has fallen. She doesn`t really want to, but other people tell her - she must. There she meets Joseph - another man from the exile whom she once met when they were very young. Still this book isn`t that much about the main characters. It`s about the homecoming and its painfulness and senselesness. Kundera`s hero are somewhat similar to Odysseus who was abroad for 20 years and came back to people that didn`t bother to notice that he had changed. The book is about our memories and how they betray us. How we remember very little, and each our own, and how nobody really knows anyone at all. It`s very sad, it`s a book by an old man who has very much knowledge, a bit of humour but very little hope for this world. Read it if you can. And if you can`t read - don`t read it.