Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

That`s the second time I started watching a film by Peter Greenaway and this time I actually made it until the end. Shocking it may be and very good it may not be but still it`s a pretty decent effort. Of course, the film is full of totally obscene and somewhat dirty scenes but what else could one expect from Mr. Greenaway? On the positive side there`s Tim Roth (Rosencrantz... or was it Guildenstern?) present, it`s quite interesting to watch altough not a joyful experience by any means. A woman named Georgina for no clear reasons to me starts an affair with a jewish bookeeper Michael right under the nose of her violent and totally crazy husband who`s some kind of a criminal authority. The film is almost equally divided into sex scenes and eating scenes in a restaurant owned by Albert (the husband), where Georgina with the help of Richard (the cook) does what she`s supposed to do. Later on the film gets totally gross but I`m not gonna tell about.

The trilogy goes on although there ain`t a single character appearing in both movies. A man named Karol has to escape from France back to his native country of Poland for after being divorced from his wife, he has no money and has police on his heels (his ex-wife told them he set her aparment on fire). What`s complicated about their relationship - is the fact that they still love each other in a strange way. After returning back to Warschaw in a suitcase Karol returns to his work at a barbershop and also, using the changes in the country (it`s the early nineties - if you know what I mean) gets rich from buying and selling land. He also becomes friends with another Pole named Mikolaj who asks Karol to kill him. Later Karol imitates his own death (with the help of Mikolaj who regains will to live), in order for his ex-wife to come to the burial. After that he has sex with her and leaves but before that he makes sure that Dominque (played by the then gorgeous Julie Delpy) is the main suspect for his death. The film is a bit strange for the deeds of his and hers are quite illogical but sadly it`s just the way it goes. A good film, I would perhaps even prefer it to the first part.

A film by the director of the original Dracula (Tod Browning). Not that I have seen the vampire movie, but now I`ve seen `Freaks`. The plot isn`t really great - a beautiful female circus performer pretends to fall in love with a dwarf because of the dwarve`s wealth. And she gets punished for it. But neither the plot, nor the partly silly acting is the main attraction of the film. It`s about the freaks - which are real and not some stupid Hollywood special effects - as a matter of fact, what special effects could one create back in 1932? The film features a man without limbs, siamese twins, a bearded woman, a human skeleton, many dwarves, etc., etc. Scary it may seem and so it was designed to be. By the way, this here is not the full version of the film - originally it was about 90 minutes long but later was cut to 64 minutes. I really don`t know how disturbing the rest of the film must have been if even after the cut the film is still creepier than most horror flicks. Yeah, and it was banned in the UK for 30 years. Does that say something to you (althogh there`s no rude language or naked skin around for miles)?

It is a cartoon, as a matter of fact, and a highly praised one, it was even nominated for this year`s Academy Awards. Well I don`t see what`s the fuss all about, not being a fan of cartoons as such, not even cartoons for adults, which most certainly is the case here (I would also like to point out that in the Oscars there is no difference between cartoons for children and for adults which have very little in common and can not be easily compared one with another). I can say that the animation was interesting but the cartoon as a whole was a true boredom.

You know what? I decided to give Francois Truffaut another chance! I had seen one of his worst films - "Fahrenheit 451" - and now I wanted to see his arguably best work. And you know what? It was worth it. Antoine Doinel is a fourteenyearold who`s not happy at school, `cos the teacher of French hates him; he`s not happy at home, for his mother doesn`t love him, and his father isn`t even his real father; and his mother wanted an abortion in the first place. He starts stealing things, leaves home several times, his parents don`t know what they should do about their child, because they don`t know what to do about themselves. At some times the film is funny, at others it is sad as a weeping willow, but it still is an enjoyment to watch. There`s one scene I especially like - it`s a lesson in sports where the children run through the streets of Paris after their teacher and on every corner a few of them leave, and in the end the teacher is left all alone by himself.

Let`s start with a simple question? Have I read "Peter Pan"? Have I watched a film about "Peter Pan"? Do I at least know the story of "Peter Pan"? Well, what do you think? Of course, I haven`t done single one of those things. So, watching this movie I wasn`t thinking all the time - oh my God - Johnny Depp is James Barrie - the creator of Peter Pan! My pants are almost wet already! Ok, let`s cut the crap! The film is a supposedly partly true story about how the idea of "Peter Pan" came to Mr. Barrie`s mind. He meets Sylvia Davies and her four sons, and the meeting is bound to change their lives. What surprised me was that this film had no developed love story - Depp and Winslet didn`t like even kiss a single time! That was cool I must say. No wonder this film is only PG rated! Still what was wrong with the film that it had quite much resemblance to Tim Burton`s "Big Fish", thus the originality wasn`t particulary high. But nevertheless the film is beautifully made and perfectly acted. What more can you ask for?

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.

Kā jau tas bieži atgadās ar eiropiešu filmām, "Il postino" ir grūti klasificēt kā kādai konkrētai valstij piederīgu. Tās režisors ir Indijā dzimušais anglis Maikls Redfords, kurš pirms pāris gadiem sacēla zināmu furoru ar Šekspīra "Venēcijas tirgotāja" ekranizāciju (un kurš iepriekš bija zināms kā Orvela "1984" ekranizācijas režisors). IMDb kā tās pamatvalsti definē Franciju, no kuras ir galvenās lomas atveidotājs (pareizāk - vienas no galvenajām lomām) Filips Nuarē. Taču Nuarē balsi filmā nemaz dzirdēt nevar, viņu ir ierunājis itāļu aktieris, kaut gan Nuarē atveidotais Pablo Neruda pamatā bija spāņvalodīgs.

Kurtu Vonnegūtu es "iemīlēju" kaut kad ģimnāzijas laikos - precīzi vairs neatceros, vai tas bija 11. vai 12. klasē. Taču zinu, ka tas sākās ar "Kaķa šūpuļa" izlasīšanu un ka pēc tam mana lielākā interese bija dabūt savā īpašumā "Lopkautuvi Nr.5". Un liels bija mans pārsteigums, kad es atklāju, ka šī grāmata angliskajā oriģinālā ir atrodama manā grāmatu plauktā. Es to, protams, izlasīju un biju sajūsmā. Un, kad man skolā vajadzēja rakstīt referātu par kādu 20.gadsimta ārzemju literatūras darbu, mana izvēle krita tieši uz šo Vonnegūta romānu. Šo referātu, kas gan, protams, nav nekāda grāmatas kritika vai kas tamlīdzīgs, bet skolnieka "pārdomas", es šeit arī zemāk iekopēšu.

I`ll probably never know why I downloaded this film. It just accidentally happened that I saw its title in some users share in a P2P hub, and I thought: Hey, that`s one famous film, it`s certainly in the IMDB 250 greatest films of all time. Only later on I realized that it wasn`t there. I was mistaken and that was a bit of a surprise. Logically the most common reaction upon that would be deleting the film from my computer`s hard disk since after all it`s an illegal action to store films of illegitime source on your computer but I decided to watch it despite it not being as highly rated as I thought it would be. Hey, I never wrote that last sentence! Nor did I write the beginning! I never, I repeat never download films from the Internet! I saw this film on TV one Sunday morning, since it`s one of those films that Latvian television tends to repeat and repeat once again. So this is a story about an Arabian king who`s turned into a blind man by an evil wizard and he`ll remain that way until the wizard lays arms upon that fellows fiancee (if you can call her that since their relationship wasn`t exactly like that). And the wizard has also turned a thieving little boy into a dog who`s now the only friend of the blind king. The film is intended for children of course, therefore apart from the quite discussable the girls agreement to let the wizard lay his hands around her (which probably meant that a lot more was involved but this is 1940 and not the porn era after all). As a film for children "The thief of Bagdad" is quite good and even the special effects seem to be quite decent for its age. Nowadays you`ll still most likely watch this film just as a historical curiosity because advancements in the field of technology have been beyond imagination in those 65 years therefore the film has undoubtely lost some of its original attractions. Still - not bad at all. Just to give some names - June Duprez is the princess (quite good looking knowing how much tastes for beauty have changed over time), John Justin is the leading man (I`d probably like him if I was a woman or a gay man) and Alexander Korda is the producer of this film. The latter seems to be quite a legendary figure, for even I had heard his name somewhere. Still I have absolutely no idea - where.