Trying to be living up-to-date and not in some imaginary world, I`m on my mission watching some of the films that are after this seasons Oscars. And one of them is this film here - "Ray" is a celebration of life of music genius Ray Charles. He was a blind black young man who went from the very bottom to the very top. Women, drugs, money, fame - he had it all. He almost lost his life to cocaine but was able to return back. He combined different styles of music together creating his own mix of r`n`b, gospel, country and jazz. And he died last year, that is probably the main reason for the success of this film. Ok, Jimmy Foxx is a very good actor, and I really believe him, so do all the other actors also seem very real. But the film has nothing more - it`s actually no different from "The Doors" - we get a drug addict who has lots of women, and still is a genius. Oh, no, we got one thing here - you see, all the problems with drugs came to him because when he wasn`t on drugs he had hallucinations because when Ray Charles was still a kid and was still seeing he saw his little brother die in a bowl of water. And this is it - the problem of childhood was the source of all his problems. And then - while the film about his life was made - he died, and - shebang! - a film that would probably never make no noise becomes a massive hit and goes for lots of Oscars! Isn`t that a bit silly, or is it just me?

Damn, does ones attitude change with time. When I was a kid I though Pink Panther to be the coolest cartoon character ever. Now in this series of 51 minutes of Pink Panther I found only one cartoon I could fully enjoy - and it was the one I had already seen back then when I was a kid. All the rest? Uninteresting, quite similar to Tom and Jerry (which I never liked). So what was the difference between those two cartoons? I don`t remember.

Ok, I am a bit of a fan of Russian (or Eastern European) movies, but I never try to be particulary generous while rating them. This "Mars" film isn`t gonna be big in the West of course, and I`m not really sure whether it was big in the East - although it has Gosha Kutsenko - a famous russian toughguy playing a boxer who`s run away from his sport. He lands in an obscure little town named Marx (which is spelled Marks in Russian) but it`s more like Mars to him than anything else. All people in this town work in a factory that produces stuffed toys and they don`t get money for their work - but fluffy money instead. He meets a girl working in a library and a young man who wants to marry her. Boris (that`s the boxer) doesn`t have to do anything to steal the woman away. But when he leaves she commits suicide. Overall this film isn`t particulary deep and it isn`t particulary interesting. It has its moments though. But at the beginning some of the actors seem to have been prepared for at theatre performance and not a film. But it`s not bad. And I keep contradicting myself. Ok, let`s add the rating and end this discussion for good.

Emir Kusturica should only make movies at home, and not bother to become popular all over the world. I`ve seen four of his movies so far. 3 of them were done in Yugoslavia/Serbia, one - in Hollywood. And guess what? The one with the most popular actors and the biggest budget did nothing for me. And all the rest - they were just top class movies. "Underground" is surely the hardest to bear among those 3. First, because it is a film where war goes on the whole time. The characters are still what you would expect from Kusturica, but the circumstances are just dreadful. Marko Dren and Peter Cerny are two real good friends that are communists and fight against the fascists in WW2, it doesn`t mean of course, that they`d be great people or something like that, on the contrary they are sick weirdos, that don`t care much for the others. But it happens that Peter and a group of his people has to remain underground hiding from the nazis, but Marko decides at the end of the war that he doesn`t need to inform his pals that the war is over, and they remain underground for 15 more years. Marko and Peter meet again in the Yugoslavian war of 1990s, where literary a brother kills a brother and a friend kills a friend. Of course, I read that this film is a support of the Yugoslavian fascist regime of Milosevic - but I also read and knew that already that stupid people are stupid people. And Emir Kusturica ain`t a stupid person, but a great film director, capable of creating a drama of a very high level.

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.

This is a film that you are bound to know. It`s the highest acclaimed work of Martin Scorcese and one of the most famous films with Robert de Niro as the anchorman. Travis is a Vietnam veteran who suffers from loneliness and who can`t sleep. Therefore he works as a taxi driver. Being dissatisfied with his world, with his life, he goes a bit over the roof. He tries to start a romance with Nancy - an activist for a president elections candidate Charles Palantine, but fails miserably after inviting her to a cinema to watch a Swedish porn movie. Somehow it happens that she is not a fan of this type of movies. After that Travis buys a lot of guns and starts training for cleaning up the city of New York. Why does he do that? Just because he doesn`t like the scum of the city. And he even manages to shoot something like 4 people, and even become some sort of a local hero in the end. What is good about this film? I guess, the acting is quite good, the characters are realistic - especially the one portrayed by De Niro himself. But what`s not that great? At least I could see why this film could be considered that good - it`s level of tension is pretty low and it seems to go for a very, very long time. Maybe I didn`t get something but I wouldn`t call this a real masterpiece, just a good movie.

American Beauty, American History X, American Pie, American Wedding, American Psycho, The Quiet American... the list could go on and on forever. What has this Splendor thing got that the other films don`t have? It certainly is the embolishment of the American dream, although in a bit acward way. First, it`s a film based on true facts, and it even features the prototypes of the films characters. Harvey Pekar is a middle-aged loser who works as a filing clerk, has been left by his second wife and has very little pleasure in life. His interests include collecting old records and comic books. I personally never got what`s so great about them comic books, but I don`t care. And one day he decides that he can start a comic book of his own - not about some superhero but about the average loser - himself. He can`t draw, off course, but there are other people who can. And he becomes massively popular, not that it makes him happy or anything, cos` he`s still a loser. He even gets married and he could be happy if he wanted to. But he doesn`t want anything like that. There`s also his friend Toby who`s a genuine nerd, and who`s proud for that. This film is somewhat similar to "Napoleon Dynamite" - in being an obscure comedy about a loser, although it`s less obscure for sure. And it also reminded me of a Simpsons episode called "Angry dad" - where Bart started drawing comics about Homer, and also became successful at that. This film is certainly worth watching, but not particulary interesting.

I`m getting a bit bored writing long reviews for things I have no interest in. This is a typical example - stories by a modern Latvian author, most of them have very little interest for a person that`s not a fan of Latvian literature. Of course, if you enjoy stories about the Latvian countryside or you are a major fan of descriptions about old women in a sauna and what advantages a big clitoris gives you, you won`t enjoy this very much. Probably this book isn`t about flat old breasts and sending SMS messages, but this still is pretty boring. There was a single one interesting story in this book - it`s entitled "The years of love" and it`s about a man who awaits a blue centaurus and by doing that misses his own wedding. But apart from that there ain`t very much to speak about.

Paraquoting a review that "Spinal Tap" got to its album "Shark Sandwich" ("Shit Sandwich") this is Legally Shit 2, Blonde Shit 2 - or whatever you want. 17 minutes of this film was more than enough to stop watching it.

Latvians and comedy? It`s not like fish and chips, it`s more like fish and meat. Or I don`t know what and I don`t know what. Ok, Maris Bishofs went to Israel and spent there a few years but he still comes from Latvia. At this exhibition there were his drawings done over a period of something like fourty years - starting with the work back home for a magazine named "Dadzis" and including work back home again for our biggest daily newspaper "Diena". Basically his work is done as carricatures. The technique is very simple - I guess I would be able to draw like that. But what he has is a massive amount of ideas, of creativity and certainly of wit. The level of details is extremely low - Bishofs doesn`t draw what you can see everywhere around you, and if he does that he does it in a minimalistic manner giving you a perfect impression of what life is like. And what is life like? It`s not particulary great, there are banks and casinos everywhere, people ar reduced to numbers and have about as much individuality as birds flying south. I enjoyed this exhibition like I rarely enjoy something. It`s in the following style - you laugh and think at the same time: damn, is it sad! A wonderful experience for sure.