Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

Šo Murakami stāstu krājumu aizņēmos no N.R., kurš ir kļuvis par, iespējams, lielāku šī japāņu autora cienītāju nekā es jebkad esmu bijis (un te varu pat justies "kruts" - kā nekā "Aitas medīšanas piedzīvojumus" viņam uzdāvinājām mēs ar Lienču).

Pēc ilgāka pārtraukuma bijām kinoteātrī. Mī un žē, cik sen tur bijām pēdējo reizi. Varētu jau apskatīties šeit pat faktoīdā, kad tas bija, bet slinkums.

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.

Lai arī es nebeidzu atkārtot, ka ņūmetāls nav mans mūzikas stils, disku kolekcija bez kaut viena RATM albūma, manuprāt, nevar būt pilnīga. Protams, šis gan nav tas ieraksts, kurš būtu nepieciešams, bet cita man gluži vienkārši nav.

Teorijā "A Perfect Circle" varētu būt ļoti interesanta grupa, jo tajā jābūt jūtamām divu tik prestižu grupu kā "Tool" un "Smashing Pumpkins" ietekmēm. Diemžēl rezultātā šis ieraksts ir padevies ne visai baudāms.

There are some things about this film that showcase that it`s not a very simple film - for example the fact that it isn`t spoken in English but in the original languages of Jerusalem of 33 AD - Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. I guess only a complete dumbass would consider it a good idea to tell the story that happened to Jesus in the last day of his life - I don`t mean that a film would be silly - but telling the plot of this film would be just that in deed. What`s weird is that the film despite being controversial for some reasons unknown to me doesn`t have anything in it that would make me jump out of my socks and start shouting: "Now that`s not in the Bible!" Hell, everything in this film IS in the Bible! Jesus doesn`t make love to anyone, he speaks only what he`s supposed to and he even has a resurrection. Damn, except for the fact that you can see various people beat Jesus up like he was a sack of potatoes there`s nothing controversial in here. Mel Gibson of "Braveheart" is the director of this little funny film, of course, therefore bloody scenes shouldn`t surprise you very much. Still this is a good film, it`s perfectly honest and for those who say that it`s antisemitic I can say just one thing - you are freaking morons, my dear lads!

I may not be the most racially intollerable person in the whole wide world but I`m not particulary interested in stories about slavery. And this is the most typical story about slavery written by a modern writer. Whitechapel is a very old slave who loses his only son who`s being killed by a keeper after having ran away and been given out by the father himself. When the young white man kills the young black man he learns to know what the slave was indeed his half-brother. The book is written as monologues of all people involved in the incident and it logically ends with Whitechapel dying. I can`t say that this novel was something special, but it`s short in form and easy to read.

Kad tālajā 1992. gadā Kalifornijas poppanku trio "Green Day" izdeva savu otro albūmu, droši vien reti kurš gaidīja, ka šis ieraksts iezīmē vienas no 90-to gadu skaļākajām grupām īstenu parādīšanos savā istajā gaismā. Bet, kā teiktu šajā situācijā Jēzus, Tēti - viņi nezina, ko viņi dara.

Es apzinos, ka Terija Džonsa dokumentālu raidījumu par vēsturi skatīšanās ir slima. Šis vīrs IR zināms kā kādreizējs Džona Klīza (komiskā Mesijas) kolēģis, kas neizbēgami nozīmē, ka viss, ko viņš savā dzīvē var izdarīt, ir tikai parodija par beigtā papagaiļa skeču (kurā Džonss gan nepiedalījās).

Weird. I was absolutely sure this was already on the factoid but here I look and it just isn`t there. Strange. Anyhow "Sputnik Sweetheart" may have a perfect title but it`s not a perfect novel by any means. In fact it`s just a love triangle between a man and two women. Yet the fact is that the man is only sexually interested in one of the women, the other woman has no sexual life whatsoever, while the first woman has found out that she is a lesbian. Since I`m not particulary keen on reading about women desiring making love to one another (ok, that may be good on film... wait a moment, I didn`t say that... I`m not a pervert) "Sputnik Sweetheart" isn`t the book for me. Sugiko (that`s the lesbian one) goes with Meo to Greece and suddenly dissapears after she has told Meo that she wants her. After that the book gets a bit mystical, a thing not too uncommon for Murakami`s novels but it still doesn`t become one of my favourites. First, it offers very little new elements to the ones I`m already familiar with. Second, the content is a bit too sexual with Murakami going a bit too much in detail. It is true that I can tolerate more sexual content on film than I can in a book. I don`t really know why, probably because in a book you usually feel that it`s written by a middle aged person from the viewpoint of a young one, and you don`t get that much on film. Maybe it`s because films rarely dig that deep, they just stay on the surface and if something goes wrong it doesn`t go terribly wrong as it is with books.