Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

I am slowly turning into a computer nerd. Some may think that I am one already but watching films about the youth of Bill Gates surely is a sick thing. Anyhow Bill Gates isn`t really the main star of this film. It`s Steve Jobs, the man that created "Apple" we want to see. And no wonder - in comparison to the pale dorky Gates Jobs looks like a Jesus-like creature, a very complex person with its good and bad sides but certainly a Man and not a mouse. The film didn`t have a big budget and it surely didn`t have a perfect script. The actors are quite good though and I won`t even complain about the fact that the computer freaks look too much like hippies to me. The funny thing that Bill Gates is played by an actor whom I`ve only seen in "Freddy got fingered". In case you don`t know Tom Green is also connected with Bill Gates - he once swam across a lake that the wealthiest man in the world owns. Update: I found out that Anthony Michael Hall also appears in "The Breakfast Club", one of the most famous films of 1985 where he plays a dorky kid. I don`t know why anyone who doesn`t care for computers would want to see this film but I learned a lot from it. For instance, that not "Windows" wasn stolen from the Macintosh but that the Mac itself was just a copy of what people at "Xerox" were doing at the same time. Yeah, and DOS also wasn`t created by good ol` Bill and his pals but bought for 50 grand off a weirdo.

I`m not exactly the most romantic person in the whole wide world. But that doesn`t necesserialy imply that I can`t enjoy a good film "for ladies only". "The Notebook" is a typical example of such a film. An old man reads a romantic story to a woman that has lost her memory. The whole thing happens in a nursing home. It`s no big wonder to learn that the characters in the story and the old pair are the same people. Yet once again you don`t really need to be surprised. It`s interesting to watch even if you know what`s going to happen. This film ain`t flawless for sure - and I doubt that any melodrama in the whole wide world is. And it`s not a film that I would want to watch over and over again (not that were are many films I would). You can`t say that too many famous actors are involved in this film but that`s no problem either. So - watch it if you want to shead a tear while watching a film. In case you don`t and in case your eyes are hurting from sitting at a computer all day long - don`t. I`m going home, that`s for sure. And there`s no use stopping me.

Wild thing - you make my heart sing! That`s the song you most probably know The Troggs for. And you`ve also heard a cover of their another song - "Love is all around" was done by "Wet Wet Wet". But none of these tracks can be found in a "Mixed Bag". No, Mr. Mister! But that doesn`t mean that you won`t find anything useful in this bag. If you happen to be a romantic person you`ll probably find something in "You can cry if you want to" which goes in the same vein as "Love is all around". "Say Darlin`" is dumb but fun. "Marbles and some gun" is a typical song for an oldies collection. So is "Little Girl". "Purple shades" is a bit better than the two songs preceeding it. "Heads or Tails" is the most likely candidate for being the best song on the record, although it is also primitive like hell. "Hip Hip Horray" is good, although dumb once again. Yet who would await anything else from some troggs?

This is crap! Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott are two idiots living in the South of the US of A and they know how to have a good time - selling illegal alcohol and being chased by mad fathers with guns after they`ve made out with the daughters is the perfect plan for the Duke brothers. They also have a cousine named Daisy who`s played by pop star Jessica Simpson and that should only do porn movies - big tits she has, acting talen`t she hasn`t. Man, was her acting lame! Willie Nelson and Burt Reynolds also take part in the film but they are only better than Jessica. As a matter of fact no one would be worse than her. Only Pamela Anderson probably. There`s nothing more to say than this is a bullshit film for rednecks. I am not a redneck, so I say - it`s worse than bad, it`s worse than worse than bad. Even Sean William Scott has participated in better films, and he ain`t no Johnny Depp for sure.

I`m far from the most enthusiastic fans of Latvian literature. I don`t follow who writes what, who was seen performing a hand job upon whom etc. Therefore this novel by Jochan Korin was a huge surprise for me. I expected this book to be either a luscious tale of women in the country or a stale story about WW2 where the great patriotic Latvian nazis fight the nitty commies with great passion and results. But it proved to be an excuisite crime story that is a riddle itself. It seemed to be a book done especially for me - a book of logic riddles, a book with a huge emphasis on playing cards and cracking codes. The most important thing about it is the fact that the riddles are interesting, memorable and fun. Quite unlike the ones in "The da Vinci Code". The central story goes around Matiss Ziemelis, a guy who has mostly only interest for crossword puzzles and playing cards but who`s also capable of some other things. He is asked by his friend from the university to help the local police to fight car stealers, but the whole book is much more about different stuff than just thievery. And I don`t mean masons by that - it`s a perfect book for a quest game, and a good game for sure - I have no doubt at all that something like "Monkey Island" could come out of this. And can you imagine anything better than "Monkey Island"? I can`t.

Less (that`s a name) is a young man/boy living in the GDR of 1980s. After a brief encounter with his cousine Radost he goes to Eastern Berlin to live with his uncle Wanja (who`s full name is Werner, so he ain`t no Russkie). Anyhow it`s a bit of a change for a young man from a tiny town somewhere in the country. He gets to meet an anarchist philosopher, a crappy and boring poet and a punk named Beck. He also has relationships with two girls - one of them a nice girl named Irene and another - a cool chick named Dani. The most remarkable thing about the book is the fact that choruses of famous punk rock songs of the era sometimes appear in the text. So are people that like "The Exploited" or some other half-obscure punk bands among the characters. I presume this book could be best described as hip. Yet not being a particulary hip person myself I found it to be kinda dumb and not particulary interesting. Therefore goodbye and thanks for all the fish!

Why do people still make new films after William Shakespeare`s plays? Maybe because they`re really good. Maybe not. I don`t know. I`m not a fan of good ol` William`s work. For instance I haven`t even read the play on the jew of Venice. This film has Al Pacino in the role of Sheilok, the jew. Who were the other actors I don`t remember. Some people claim this film to be antisemitic. I claim those people are out of their minds. Ok, they may go and crucify good ol` William Shakespeare, but it won`t change a lot. The film was done quite professionally, without having too much of political correctness and the wit of Shakespeare was still there. Probably I could have enjoyed it more were I a huge fan of classical literature. Yet since I`m not I can say that despite being a good costume film it wasn`t much more than that - a good cast + a good script don`t make a great movie. You need some magic in order to feel the touch of god in a piece of cinematography.

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.

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.

The Latvian translators did a great job as they do it usually, by deciding that the perfect translation for the title of this film would be “European cocktail: 2”. This film features Audrey Tautou and a lot of other actors I don’t know anything about. I find it a good choice of the filmmakers to have native actors for every role – if someone is playing to be Russian he is Russian in real life, and not just some Hungarian with a silly accent. The story itself isn’t too bright – there’s this Xavier fellow who wants to be a serious writer but right now he’s a scriptwriter for a silly TV series. He isn’t too happy in his private life, which is no wonder for a person who lives in his Lesbian friend’s apartment and who’s still looking for the ideal girl, although he’s almost thirty already and should past the idealistic period. He starts a relationship with one of his friends’ sister but they have their ups and downs. The overall style of the film reminds me as if it came from Europe. And it does, of course. In case you want to know why Russian dolls, I’ll try to explain the metaphor. It goes like that: every girl you meet is one girl closer to your real one. Yet since the whole thing is organized similarly to traditional Russian dolls where one doll is put inside of another you can’t get to the last one without meeting the others. That’s the most important thing about the film actually.