Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

Good morning, sunshine! You`re listening to "The best sentimental novels of the 18th century" on "Radio losers". Our todays guest is a certain Mr. Oliver Goldsmith. His hobbies include making people suffer and unexpected twists. The lead character in this novel is a silly old pastor, who just thinks that he`s so smart and that he`s so good. In the beginning everything`s fine for him but the suddenly he loses all his posessions because of a bankrupt merchant, his family is torn apart, his daughter gets seduced by a villainy nobleman. The funny thing is the fact that he seems to be the good hero, despite him being a complete idiot who`s only capable of thanking god and of preaching obedience. The most interesting thing about the book is the way it changes perspective. The first half of it is some sort of a comedy where the hero acts foolishly and everything suggests that this book is some sort of satyre. Later on the reader learns to know that the author is a sentimental fool and not a witty master of the ink after all. The ending for instance is more absurd than everything else in this world. Man, he really got me. I didn`t expect this would turn out the way it did. I mean, I knew it would have a happy ending - but what the heck did Goldsmith mean by the first comic half? I don`t believe that this was some sort of an aburdist, postmodern joke. Heck, that dude died before the French revolution. Sex wasn`t even invented back then. And this fellow would know something about postmodernism? He probably only read this Vergilius and Shakespeare and never thought that Hamlet might have been gay and killed Claudius only because he couldn`t let his mother share the bed with the man he loved. Hey, that was my idea and not Goldsmiths!

Jē! Ronijs Džeimss Dio! Jē! Black Sabbath! Jē! Ragainā pielūgšana! Jē!

Vakar divas reizes man izdevās šo aprakstu izdzēst - vienu tāpēc, ka izrādās, ja man "rating" šūna ir tukša, ieraksts netiek saglabāts. Otru - nejauši aizvēru brouseri. Stilīgi, vai ne?

Strange, so strange. Who would have thought that I would find this film good? Let`s think logically, for indeed we are people that never - I say never - base their opinions entirely on the "it`s so cute and cuddely" kind of attitude. No, sir. First, we have the facts. And what are the facts? "Love Actually" actually is a romantic comedy. You probably know what a romantic comedy tastes like. You take your two teaspoons of Jennifer Lopez, add a knife`s end of Matt Damon and here you have it - a romantic comedy. A film of this category is usually recognizable by a complete lack of funny moments in it. And what can you expect from a romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant (oh, he`s such a cutie! - pathetic) and Mr. Colin Firth? "Bridget Jones`s Diary" would be the correct answer. But since I answered the question myself, no prize will be give. Screw you, Mr. lucky one! I don`t really why but I don`t like Hugh Grant at all. Maybe it`s because of my admiration of Johnny Depp. No, I hope not. But the fact is that Hugh Grant`s pretty face can`t be found on my "top of the poops" longlist. I do like his British accent and I can`t blame him for being a bad actor but he somehow doesn`t snap it for me. Still this film isn`t actually about Hugh Grant. Yes, he does play the prime minister of UK and he says some pretty straightforward things to the president of the United States, maybe that`s the reason why I have nothing against Grant`s performance in this film, but he still isn`t the true star of this film. Who is then? I don`t know. I like the probably bisexual dude at the art gallery, he`s cool and he looks like a fellow named Maanis I briefly know. Then there`s this funny guy named Colin who thinks that if he`ll go to America all chicks will want to have sex with him just because he`s British. Still the aging pop star Billy Mack is probably everybody`s favourite. Who else would have sung the brilliant "Christmas is all around" if it wasn`t for Mack? Who else would have not given a damn about anything sacred in this world? I don`t mean to say that this is a film of pure genius, that something like this can`t be repeated by anyone, anywhere and anytime. But this still is one of the best romantic comedies I`ve ever seen. And I feel such a total loser that I watched it alone and not together with my girlfriend who was studying for some exam. For this is a film to share with someone you love.

No Erika Kleptona ierakstiem šis diez vai ir tas labākais, bet viens no populārākajiem noteikti, kā nekā te ir divas dziesmas, kuras ikviens mūzikas cienītājs pasaulē vismaz kādreiz ir dzirdējis, bet visticamākais, ka ne tikai kādreiz vien.

"Zooropa" noteikti nav tas U2 albūms, kuram pasaulē ir visvairāk cienītāju. Līdz ar to es būtu ļoti oriģināls, ja paziņotu, ka man tas ir viņu mīļākais ieraksts, bet pat es ne vienmēr esmu gatavs oriģinalitātes pēc pateikt kaut ko TĀDU. Dažas zināmas dziesmas šajā ierakstā, protams, ir, bet tās nav gluži tādas, ar ko vairumam asociējas šī grupa, jo "Zooropa" patiesībā ir deju mūzikas un nevis rokmūzikas albūms. Reizēm šī deju mūzika ir labāka - tādās dziesmās kā "Numb", "Lemon" un it īpaši "Babyface" (kura pat ir salīdzinoši roķīga) U2 izklausās kā pietiekami lieli šāda stila mūzikas eksperti. Savukārt citos brīžos īsti labi viņiem šī štelle nesanāk, tādi skaņdarbi kā "Some days are better than others" vai "The first time" varbūt nav gluži aizvainojoši slikti, bet augstāk par fona mūziku pacelties nevar. Laikam gan viens man ir jāatzīst - es šo grupu nesaprotu. Par katru viņu albūmu es domāju - šis man patīk tā ne visai, varbūt citi patiks labāk? Bet parasti nepatīk. Es neesmu radīts U2. No vienas puses - žēl, viņi taču skaitās labi. No otras puses - whatever.

Harry Potter, beat it! You are nothing but a useless second hand magician living in a world of fairies and bullcrap! Now Lemony Snicket`s creation is a really good flick for children. First, it`s the choice of the actors - Jim Carrey as the main villain is superb, and his villainy character is much stronger than that Voldemort loser Rowling gave her hero. He is funny, and that`s the most important thing. Then there`s Jude Law as the narrator, who repeatedly offers the audience to leave in order to see a cartoon about the smallest of elves. There`s also Meryl Streep who plays the good aunt, and Billy Conolly (man who sued god) as the snake scientist. The plot is not particulary smart, of course, but it`s fun to watch at, and it`s more inventive that Harry Potter for sure. The Baudelaire children - the main heroes - can`t escape from their unfortunes by waving a stupid magic wand, `cos they don`t have one. Of course, this ain`t no Shakespeare, this even ain`t no "Lord of the Rings" but as a film for children this certainly is a very solid example of the genre.

Today is a rare occasion. I`m probably the most conservative person in the world - my feelings towards any kind of art artefact usually is tightly connected with my attitude towards the people behind it. If a book is written by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, a very high possibility exists for me to like it. If a film is starred by Arnold Schwarzenegger I`m not likely to become a fan of it. And I believe that everything that glitters under the name of Terry Gilliam is gold. Or at least I used to believe until yesterday. So I never fell for "Time Bandits" but I had my reasons for that - the film just had too many flaws for me to enjoy it more than anything. Maybe I didn`t find "Brazil" the best epic of all times, but it was very good after all. I even liked "The Brothers Grimm" despite this film being considered the worst Gilliam had ever made. But "The Fisher King" for me was just too senseless. Tim Robbins`s character was at least mildly memorable, but everything concerning the formerly great DJ who`s played by an actor who`s name I keep forgetting was just a bit too dull for my taste. I have to agree that some moments of this film show the genius of Gilliam still alive but most of the time it just doesn`t work for me. I probably could have given this film a higher rating in order to show that I`m an elitist and that I know a good film when I see one. Maybe I don`t but who cares.

Pārspiežu tekstu no Vikipēdijas, tā kā es pats to tur ierakstīju :)

Šis ir viens no četriem Vonnegūta romāniem, kas man ir paša krājumā un turklāt arī viens no vispār pirmajiem viņa darbiem, ko izlasīju. Arī tagad - 8 gadus kopš "pirmās reizes" tas šķiet tikpat svaigs un aktuāls kā iepriekš.