Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

I certainly had seen this film before, but that was way back when I was a young boy so why can`t I rate it now when years of experience have changed me like Elvis changed when he grew fat. This film, by the way, has nothing to do with Elvis but he just somehow came to my mind. Basically this is the 1st part of a film called "Eurotrip" - although it has no common actors with that film, but the idea is basically the same. The main character does something to a girl he shouldn`t have done - accidentally sends her a video of him screwing another chick. So he goes to get the video before she gets it. Some of his pal join him - so there`s the road trip. Their journey is full of gross stupidities along with some quite interesting humour. But to me this film would have been absolute bullshit if not for the performance by the infamous Tom Green - who amazingly is the most attractive character. He totally rocks in this film, quite unlike his own film "Freddy Got Fingered" which already was on this factoid. Anyhow this is no cinematic delicatess, but who would have expected that anyway? Not me, Sir. I want just some tits and an old weirdo with an erect boner. For I am a perverted pig, my dear Sir.

Yesterday all the troubles of Guy Ritchie were so far away, now they look as they are here to stay. Do you know what his troubles are? If I have to answer in one word I’ll just say – Madonna. If I have to answer in more than one word I won’t be able to give you an answer for I don’t remember her full name and the Internet is out of order right now. Anyhow, you probably got the point already. By the way, I don’t really mean that his latest films suck because he has married a formerly attractive pop star. No, the problem is much deeper. I guess Guy Ritchie has somehow come to the conclusion that he is a serious filmmaker and that most people consider him to be shallow but he isn’t shallow at all. With “Revolver” he tries to establish a link between an action film/comedy and a serious film. Jake Green (played by Jason Stetham, you probably remember him from “Transporter” – in case you’re younger than ten that is). The worst thing about the film is that it is uninteresting, never before was I so close to falling asleep while watching a Guy Ritchie film. Oh, no, he was the master of hooking the spectator to the screen but nowadays I can’t see any difference between him and most directors. The plot is twisted, that’s for sure but the twist makes very little sense to me, actually being too pretentious for such a primitive film.

Gadās, ka tu skaties filmu, jau iepriekš zinot, ka tā būs pēdējais mēsls, bet gribas tomēr uzzināt, cik slikta tieši tā būs. "Ļoti episks kino" ir viens no vistipiskākajiem šādiem gadījumiem. Kā nekā šeit tiek piedāvāta vesela buķete aizdomīgu feaktoru. Pirmkārt, to ir režisējuši divi no sešiem "Šausmenīšu" scenāristiem. Scenārists un režisors taču nav viens un tas pats? Turklāt pēdējās "Šausmenītes" (pareizāk - visas izņemot pirmo) bija absolūti mēsli. Treškārt, šajā filmā piedalās punduris (pat "Time Bandits", kas it kā ir laba filma man nepatika, bet šajā gadījumā no pundura līdzdalībam nepavisam neko labu negaidīju). Var pieminēt, ka šeit piedalās arī Stiffler`s mom atveidotāja no "Amerikāņu pīrāgu" sērijas, kā arī tips, kas vislabāk zināms kā Kumārs no filmas par Haroldu un Kumāru. Vienvārdsakot - supertalantu plejāde.

Nu tas beidzot ir noticis - es noskatījos šo Almadovara filmu, kuru no Sīča paņēmu vēl janvāra beigās. Laikam gan es to tā arī nebūtu izdarījis, ja vien Liene nebūtu aizbraukusi uz Ēģipti, tā kā viņa neizrādīja ne mazāko vēlēšanos ar šo filmu iepazīties tuvāk.

This was the first time I went into the territory where Roald Dahl doesn’t write scary stories on taxidermists and butchers but switches to children instead. After having watched the film less than 24 hours ago I probably am no qualified enough to compare what Dahl wrote to what Tim Burton did. In terms of character development there’s a significant difference between the film and the book. While Dahl’s Willie Wonka is just an eccentric fellow Burton makes him a creepy man with a twisted mind. But that doesn’t necessary mean that one of the two Wonkas is better than the other. The ending is also different, and it has a lot to do with Wonkas character – here he simply invites Charlie and his whole family over to the factory so they would live with him and doesn’t do any nonsense. I got to admit that the film ending was better (apart from the meeting the father scene). Although I can imagine why Roald Dahl has become a classic in the genre of books for children, I can’t really see myself a fan of his. Why not? This fairytale has a storyline much to linear and an ending much too trivial for my taste. Ok, the whole factory was designed in Dahl’s mind perfectly, so was Charlie’s family, and the archetypical characters were really good. So I don’t know why I’m so critical about it. Probably the best choice would be just finishing the review and run away like a sissy.

Šo jauno Robina Viljamsa filmu es jau kādu laiciņu biju psiholoģiski gatavs skatīties, bet kaut kā sanāca, ka manos un Lienes kino baudīšanas plānos tai prioritāte bija nostādīta visnotaļ zemu, kas noveda pie tā, ka tā nedēļām ilgi bija skatāmo filmu sarakstā, bet par noskatīto filmu tā arī nekļuva. Nule šī situācija beidzot ir labota un varu mazliet padalīties savos iespaidos par šo filmu.

Šo Metalikas ierakstu nedaudz saīsinātā veidā - 80 minūšu apjomā, biju pat iecepis matricā, kas liek domāt, ka savulaik biju radikāls Metallica cienītājs. Protams, ka vienīgais iemesls kaut ko tādu klausīties, bija apziņa, ka Metallica ir mega stilīga metālistu grupa, par kuru fano visi krutie ļaudis.

Michael Moore is the director of "Bowling for Columbine" and in this film he still shows his documental style to criticize American government, and George W. Bush in person. Of course, Moore isn`t particulary neutral, you can simply feel how much he hates GWB and how much support he puts into the democratic party thus showing that there`s a choice between good and bad in the states, and I can`t really aprove it. But what the film shows is some cool things - starting from 2001/9/11, switching into the war in Afganisthan, over to Iraq and to Bushes interests in the Saudi Arabia - a country which brought Osama Bin Laden to the world. This film certainly is controversial, and it didn`t win the palm at the Cannes film festival for no reason, but in comparison to the Bowlind movie it isn`t extremely strong, for it lacks the horrorous feeling of watching something unexpected. Most of these things Moore shows in this movie are already known to a wide audience, and for me in person. But what was good - it was an American soldier singing "Fire Water Burn" by the Bloodhound Gang as a patriotic piece of music in order to keep the spirit of the soldiers up.

I`m not quite sure why I never watched this film earlier. Probably it`s because of the title - I`m not a sucker for films with the word "American" in the title. This is certainly a film that doesn`t easily fall into any category. The film starts with Kevin Spacey masturbating in the shower. Mainly the film is about the meaning of peoples lives - what content our lives have, what we leave behind, what do we think we are, what are we in the eyes of the others, what can we do in order to change our lives, etc, etc. It doesn`t provide real answers, it doesn`t try to moralise about things and feelings, its just a very powerful film. Lester doesn`t love his wife anymore, and he falls in love with his daughters she-friend. The daughter meanwhile creeps out of her goth shell into love with a weird guy who lives next door and who`s father happens to be a homophobic army man. The weirdo is a drug dealer whos main hobby is filming things that he finds beautiful - including the legendary dancing bag sequence. It`s surely the first great film I`ve seen this year, but I hope its not gonna be the last.

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.