James Blunt may be one of the most successful performers of 2005 but his album lacks emotion and sticks to patters that leave no doubt that every beat in it, every sound is perfectly calculated in a way so teenage girls will like him. In terms of sound James Blunt is a replica of Coldplay with Elton John for singer done by the record industry. The big hit on this record surely is "You`re Beautiful" which is beautiful for sure and I have to admit that I like it as a sort of dirty pleasure. The tempo on most of the songs is slow and uninspiring. "Wisemen" sounds as if it was lifted straight off "Electric Fire" by Roger Taylor (I kinda like when Blunt changes his intonations for a few seconds for something pretty British and says "dirty bastards" though). "Goodbye my lover" is the piano equivalent for guitar strumming - it has close to no melody and sounds particulary silly. If James Blunt was a Leonard Cohen it would be perfectly fine but he ain`t no old Canadian Jew. "Tears and Rain" sounds ripped off from some oldie, maybe from James Taylor. Intro to "Billy". I just found out that James plays a lot of instruments on this album but that doesn`t really change anything. The album has catchy songs, it`s polished to perfection but it just doesn`t click emotionally and that`s a huge problem.

Never judge a book by its cover! And never take to read a book without inspecting what are you going to read. I have been lately wise and foreseeing enough to check whether I am not taking a book of poetry but this time this method wasn`t enough. First, Adelbert von Chamisso is basically a poet. But that`s not the main issue. I`d probably have very little problem with this book being poetry for I`d just decide not to read it then. But "The Prussian from France" is a biography. Hell, why didn`t I notice that A.von Ch. wasn`t the author but some obscure P.Lahnstein was! So I thought - why shouldn`t I read the biography of some strange writer who seems to have lived a long time ago and who I don`t know a thing about? After reading the book I know the answer. And it is: because I don`t care. So, this Adelbert was some sort of a biologist who travelled for 3 years and did some scientific work and apart from that he also wrote poetry. He was a Frenchman by blood but his family (an aristocratic one) fled from the Revolution so they ended up in Prussia. What else is there to say? Not much, that Lahnstein fellow seems to be a rabid fan of Chamisso`s and the way he describes his hero is sometimes funny but the book as a whole is probably worthy for people interested in Adelbert von Chamisso but it`s a waste of time for someone like me.

This was one of the few occasions when I watched a film entirely because of the fact that I knew it was going to be terrible. Although such reasons may seem quite obscure in reality it does make sense (at least mildly). You see, if a film is terribly bad it`s sometimes funny to watch. That doesn`t apply to comedies usually because a bad comedy is one that isn`t funny. But in case of sci-fi films a horrible film can mean an awful lot of fun. It was exactly the case with this film. It was so goddamn bad that I just couldn`t stop watching it. Sean Astin (also known as Sam the fat hobbit) is a geeky scientist who happens to have developed a time travelling device. The device isn`t particulary strong though - its power is enough only for a journey ten minutes back in time. Describing the story of this film is kinda silly for it doesn`t make particulary much sense. On the contrary, everything on here is done without a clear purpose, even the camera usage and editing are bizarre. Not bizarre as in crazy but bizarre as why couldn`t they do it better. As a matter of fact it`s hard to judge a film like this one. How bad is it? If you watch it and expect at least decent acting of okayish special effects you`ll be dissapointed. If you expect the worst film in film history you`ll also be dissapointed. If you expect a very stupidly done sci-fi film, "Slipstream" is the film for you. The idea itself was quite a good one but everything they did with it was so goddamn stupid that I can`t even express how stupid it is.

I`ve never quite understand what lies behind my choice of films. It seems quite unreasonable to consider it a strategy, a much better description for it will probably be the word "random". For example, although "Blood of a poet" is considered a classic I am absolutely convinced that it`s almost impossible to enjoy a silent film nowadays. But no, I still decided to watch this film. As if I cared about how influential Jean Cocteau is. No, I don`t. Anyhow this film is somewhat crazy, of course, just like most films of surrealism are. The only similar film to it which I`ve seen so far is "The Andalusian dog". Blood of a poet is considered to be a perfect description of the way an artists mind works. Which is just another proof that I stand absolutely no chance of ever becoming a true artist. To me it was just visually interesting (especially considering the year the film was made and how little special effects were available at the time) but in terms of content empty film. The film starts off with a man drawing a face on paper when suddenly the mouth on the face becomes alive, as the "poet" wants to close the mouth with his hand the mouth moves on to his palm. The last place where the mouth stays its location is on a sculpture which also comes alive. Then the poet smashes the sculpture. Apart from that you`ll see buildings collapsing, a woman being connected to wall and lots of other senseless stuff.

The film starts off with quite a significant and meaningful message. "It`s preferrable not to travel with a dead man." Sadly it`s exactly the thing that the hero of this Jim Jarmusch`s film does. It was some two weeks ago when I started watching this film but since I was feeling a bit sick at the time I didn`t manage to watch it till the end. After all can you expect a person with a headache to enjoy a film that has absolutely nothing going on but a man (Johnny Depp) sitting on a train as the train goes past a countryside. I remember falling asleep during that trip. After that the film does get a bit more active yet it never reaches such a tempo that your head will spin around from the weird twists and storyline changes. Yet what can you expect from a dead man? If you happen to be travelling under the name of William Blake you don`t even have to be a poet in order to be a dead man. Especially if you meet a strange indian who likes to be called Nobody. And if you`re just a stupid white man it`s probably the best for you to make blood your poetry, especially in the wild west. The film is also special because of its soundtrack which mainly consists of crazy guitar feedback noises and occasional guitar strumming done by Neil Young. As a whole Jim Jarmusch is undoubtely a very special filmmaker but I can`t call him the master of entertainment.

I had an argument with my girlfriend over whether I had already watched this film with her or not. First I was pretty sure that I hadn`t but later on I started to doubt whether my memory wasn`t tricking me. The truth happened to lie somewhat in between - while watching the film I came to the conclusion that I had seen nearly a half of it. The latter half by the way, which meant that pretty soon I knew what the film would end with. That didn`t really bother me much for "Don Juan DeMarco" isn`t one of those films that struck you like lightning with an unexpected ending. Johnny Depp plays a fellow who`s either Don Juan, the great lover, or just an insecure kid from Queens, NY. Marlon Brando is either a famous psychiatrist named Dr. Mickler or a Spanish fellow named Don Octavio. Basically it`s up to the viewer to believe in Depp`s story of his life or not. It`s about believing in perfect imaginary worlds or not. I may be a romantic but I would say "Why not?" just like Mickler does in the end.

This film is considered a masterpiece in goth film-making, and it`s no wonder since Tim Burton himself is the father of all goths. "Edward Scissorhands", "Corpse Bride", "Sleepy Hollow" and other films prove his perfect sense for the dark arts and dark fairytales. Therefore I expected "Beetle Juice" to be a weird kind of comedy. Yet it proved to be quite a conventional film. That`s if you don`t count the underworld, ghosts reading a book called "A Handbook for the recently deceased" and other typical goth stuff. In terms of story the film was interesting enough but I somehow think there was something done wrong about it - a great idea turned out to be quite a boring film. I don`t really know what I didn`t like about it but in the context of Burton`s better works "Beetle Juice" doesn`t shine at all. The "Betelgeuse" character itself wasn`t particulary great if you ask me. And you should ask me for it`s me who`s talking and it`s you who`s listening. I did like the goth chick though. Goths rule! I would have invited her for my birthday party if I had a chance to do that. It was Winona Ryder playing Lydia, the goth chick. Did I mention the story? I suppose not. Alec Baldwin and Gene Wilder are a perfectly normal couple that somehow dies in a car accident and returns to its house in form of ghosts. They would presumably have lived happily ever after if they hadn`t a family of yuppies moved into their house and tried to change everything around it. So the couple asks the excentric Betelgeuse for help to get rid of the living. I suppose they shouldn`t have done that.

Canada once already appologised to the USA for Bryan Adams - it`s a fact everyone who has watched Southpark knows. But it didn`t stop me from listening to one of his supposedly better records. The disc starts off with a typical mid-eighties song "One Night Affair" which sounds like a minor song from a Dire Straits album (musically not vocally) and like a different take on "Run To You", which can also be found on this album. The album is mostly famous for having 6 hit singles on it, "Run To You" and "Summer of `69" being the most famous ones. By the way did you know that the latter is about oral sex and not about the year of "Abbey Road" after all? It`s not too surprising, considering that Bryan was 9 in 69. And he most likely didn`t do 69 in 69. Other tracks are basically just supporting songs for the highlights, and they don`t support them too good. "It`s only love", a duet with Tina Turner, is one of them. How could this fellow become such a legend if all his songs sound the same, if they`re generic and formulaic? "Heaven" is a song which he later reshaped a bit and made "Please forgive me", it also sounds a lot like "Heaven is a place on earth" (a slowed down version of that song as a matter of fact), or no... that song by Bonnie Tyler. Heck, who cares? It`s Bryan Adams after all, and not some strange Frank Zappa. Music for your school discoteque is the best purpose for music like this.

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.

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.