Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

I have absolutely no idea why do Germans prefer calling God "dear". This is the second book where I see such an expression in the title. Anyhow, Mr. Rilke is considered to be one of the greatest German poets of all time. Since I don`t have any interest in poetry at all I decided just to read a collection of his stories which are supposed to be revolving around God. In fact they are but only loosely. In the form of the stories you have little doubt that Rilke is a poet in deed and not a writer of prose. His style is a bit of expressionism + E.T.A. Hofmann`s aproach towards the word. I can`t say that I enjoyed it very much for to me it all made little sense but I can`t deny that this may be an interesting aproach he had although these stories do sound quite a bit dated nowadays.

Nu, ko, atzīšos - mani kaut kādā veidā piesaista filmas par retard`iem. Jo kā citādi lai izskaidro, ka mēs skatījāmies šo kino eposu?

Tāpat kā Nazareth, arī Manfrēds Manns manos agrīnajos diskos parādās relatīvi bieži, kamēr vēlāk par tāda eksistenci pavisam aizmirsīšu. Kāpēc tā?

This documentary provides a lot of insight on to the material behind the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. It features interviews with some of the writers who inspired Brown for his bestselling thriller and it makes much more clear that there ain`t too much substance in Brown`s theories. Basically the main ingredient of everything seems to have been "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - a bestseller from 1980s, one of the books that also inspired Eco for "Foucault`s Pendulum" - only he didn`t take "HBHG" too serious. Then there were some books on templars and some other books about Mary Magdalene. The film itself is done quite conventionally, without any narration, just some 5-6 people talking. Among the talkers you should see Dan Brown himself yet since my version of film unexpectedly ended after something like 95 minutes (instead of 135) I didn`t get to that part. Of all the talkers only the author of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" seemed to be an interesting person to me - he didn`t appear to be one of the crazy maniacs willing to change the world. Quote from him: "Any document proves only that it has been written and nothing more. Everything else is speculation." (ok, that`s not a direct quote, he used some other word and not speculation but I don`t remember it). What I found particulary amusing the way those posessed people mess with material using only fragments which they like. For instance, a lady mentioned a non-canonic early Christian writing called "The Gospel of Thomas" which supposedly was much more in Mary Magdalene`s favour than the canonic ones. She quoted a sentence from this gospel: "Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don`t deserve life."" By this she meant to show how jealous Peter was of Mary and Jesus` attitude towards her. From this fragment the reader/viewer might conclude that in reality there were HUGE reasons for Peter not to like Mary. Yet I wasn`t too lazy and found the whole text on the Internet. And what do you think was Jesus` reply to the accusation? "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." That sounds particulary feministic to me, doesn`t it? Usually that`s quite similar to what one would say about his beloved wife whom one wants to give his reign over? Still I`m not going to rate this thing upon whether I believe it or not. It`s quite a decent documentary, perhaps not too deep but quite interesting.

Grupas Green Day trešais lielās ierakstu kompānijas paspārnē izdotais albūms lielākoties netiek dēvēts par grupas karjeras virsotni, lai arī viens būtisks pluss tam noteikti ir - tajā Green Day pirmo reizi sāk eksperimentēt un spēlēt kaut ko mazliet savādāku nekā savas tradicionālās un praktiski identiskās trīs akordu dziesmas.

"Big Nothing" nav no tām filmām, par kurām runā visur un visi - programmētāji-Unreal tournament cienītāji tavā darbavietā, sievietes ar pundursuņiem spa salonā, Tautas partijas deputāti Saeimā, Kristaps Kaupe kārtējā NSS sanāksmē par tēmu "ebrejpediņi ir kaitīgi mūsu sabiedrībai, likvidēsim tos", pat tantiņas tramvajā nekad viena otrai nejautā: "Vai tu redzēji to melno komēdiju ar Saimonu Pegu un Deividu Švimmeru?"

Do you like films about cops? If you like them you`ll probably decide that you can watch this film. Starsky & Hutch originally was a 70`s TV series about two stupid but totally good looking cops. And now we have a full time feature film about these two characters. Starsky is played by Ben Stiller while Owen Wilson is Hutch. These two guys already worked together in "Zoolander" and in "Meet the Parents". And here we go again. The film actually pretty much reminds of the "Zoolander" but this time it isn`t very good. What about the plot? Some drug dealer has found a way to make cocain impossible to find by dogs, and he wants to sell a huge amount of this cocain to resellers. And here do the heroes step in. And they do it with style - killing a pony, showing their pretty body to a pervert sitting in the jail, participating in disco dancing competitions - you got it. What I don`t like is the fact that disco music sucks, that the film is stupid, uninspired, boring and not funny. Apart from that - there`s nothing that can save this film from being an atrociuos piece of garbage.

Andrew Largeman returns to the place of his birth for the his mother`s funeral. In the small town everybody thinks that he`s a Hollywood actor, but in fact he`s just a waiter at some Vietnamese restaurant. When visiting a doctor he encounters Sam (Natalie Portman) - a weird and quite funny girl. A romance starts between them that`s bound to change Andrew`s life which has been a bit of problematic ever since he injured his mother when still being little. In some ways the film is similar to "Eternal Sunshine" with the difference that this one doesn`t have erasing memories and cool morphing. It`s somewhat romantic, and it`s somewhat funny, but I still wouldn`t call that a romantic comedy, because it`s more than that. Music in the film is awesome. So are some of the dialogues, and the characters as well. Was there something I didn`t like? Probably on that Ian Holm (Biblo Baggins) didn`t have furry feet and never mentioned the Ring. But that`s not really a complaint.

If there`s one thing which I don`t understand conserning Steven Spielberg then it is why he is considered to be a great director. If you hear the name "Steven Spielberg" in connection with any film project you automatically start drooling expecting something miraculous. Well I have to admit I don`t! Ok, he may not be a bad director but most of his stuff is typical Hollywood blockbusters not intending to be something like high art. "The Schindler`s List"? I haven`t seen it and don`t intend to, I know enough about the Holocaust already. "Sawing private Ryan"? Had it been "Sewing private Ryan" I`d probably be interested. But war movies bore me. Indiana Jones? Yeah, sure this is the most elaborate kind of filmmaking ever, Orson Welles and Ingmar Bergman can`t offer anything to match the glory of Indy.

Šī bija tā pati filma, kuru iesākām skatīties pagājušo sestdien pie Bū, bet kuru no manis neatkarīgu iemeslu dēļ man nācās "piebeigt" vienatnē.