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!

Mystery, mystery. And thriller, of course. John Klein (I`d prefer Calvin, but there`s nothing I can do about it) is a successful media man - man, is there a lot of films about successful media men! He has a beautiful wife to whom he makes love in a closet of a house they just bought. But when they drive somewhere John`s life collapses as his wife sees a mothman and crashes the car dying afterwards in the hospital. His grief is too strong and in 2 years he hasn`t really recovered from that. But when he in a strange way finds himself in a place called Point Pleasant John starts really freaking out. And in that Point Pleasant weird things come to peoples eyes, ears and dreams. Mostly they are around a certain mothman - a weirdo looking like an ugly batman. The mothman is some sort of an ancient creature higher than man who can see almost everything, and he`s very good at predicting catastrophes. But what`s the problem - is to find out where the catastrophe is going to happen. John meets a good looking police officer named Connie (so he wouldn`t be alone) and a man going crazy named Gordon. What`s crazy about the film is that it says based on true events. Ok, I`m probably not open minded enough but I still believe that things like this are rarely based on something true (unless the base isn`t used at all). But the film ain`t even half bad, although it looks visually a bit B-movie`ish.

What`s weird about German literature (ok, this one is Austrian, but there`s not that much of a difference between the writers from those two countries) - it`s that most of the books that I don`t like fall into two categories - they are either too boring and too trivial or they don`t make no sense at all. This one by Peter Glaser is one of the latter. There`s five stories in the book and not a single one of them makes much sense to me. It`s probably because they are meant to show that there is no sense to life whatsoever but they aren`t particulary amazingly written as well. In "The Story of Nothing" a man is looking for his missing aunt. "Nobody" is about a man and his wife that have different parted libraries - there`s one good thing in it that the man buys books for his cat to sleep in the book boxes but after that books end up in the cats house and the cat ain`t happy anymore. "The three body problem" is about a paper factory worker, his lover and his roommate. "Roomcare" is about a woman that cleans rooms for two men - and is a lover for both of them. "After a long summer" - I don`t know what`s it about, probably the summer of 2001 - just before September 11. I can`t this rate very low - I guess I probably did get the point that there is no point, but it`s not entertaining for sure.

In the Soviet Union Mr. Vysotsky was a real icon - his songs were symbolising not agreeing with many things, something like that. In 1980 he died from having too much alcohol and morphium - he wasn`t what you call a real pioneer in everyday life, and not even in his songs. But even now - 25 years after his death Vysotsky is still celebrated as an actor, as a poet and even as a singer. This exhibition was to show some info about his songs, and about his life. What I found good was that the exhibition didn`t only provide positive information about the hero but also gave some critique - which is a logical thing if a person was as controversial as Mr. Vysotsky. On my personal opionion of him - some of the songs have good lyrics, musically they are lamer than the ones by Leonard Cohen but he was a great actor, especially I like his most famous work - "Mesto vstrechi izmenit nelzja" - if you were born in the Soviet Union you`re bound to know this one. About the exhibition - it was pretty good, but not groundbreaking of course.

Of course, I had seen this film before. But why can`t I tell what I think about it now? I`m not weird enough to add this to the date when I first saw the film - it was quite a long time ago and I`ve wouldn`t remember it that good, had I written only based on the first watching. So, Amelie is a waitress in a cafe in Paris but her life changes one day when she finds a "treasure box" a boy hid in her suite some fourty years ago. And she decides to find the owner of childrens stuff she has found. And from that day everything goes in another way than it did before. The film is directed by the same Mr. Jeunet that created "The city of lost children" and "Delicatessen". "Amelie" also has a weird world in it but it`s not dark and dreary anymore - it`s just weird, every person has his little funny hobbies which don`t do other people no harm. The message of the film is a positive one, and it`s not sad and funny, it`s just funny without being primitive at all. Probably one of the best films I`ve ever seen. And it gave Audrey Tautou international fame - which she certainly deserved. It was nominated for five Oscars but didn`t receive a single one - and I don`t even wonder why.

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?

This is a rare thing when at the beginning of a review I`m not sure whether the rating for the film is gonna be good or bad. You see, Napoleon Dynamite is a weird film. It`s a comedy for teenies and partly about teenies, of course, but it`s not what you`d usually expect from a film like this. For example - there`s like a hundred situations in this film when you`re sure a stupid thing is gonna happen - for example that someone will receive a blow in the face, but then - it doesn`t happen. And another thing - for at least the first half of the movie it`s totally pointless. It just goes nowhere. Probably it`s because everyone in this film is a jerk (dork, freak) of some kind. Napoleon himself is just a weird looking and stupid acting flegmatic dude, his brother Kip (who`s 32 by the way) sits all day long in the chat on the web, Pedro is a weird mexican fellow with close to no emotions, and Deb - the girl, she`s like totally shy and flegmatic as well. It`s not too easy to describe the scene, for pretty much nothing happens most of the time - just like in real life. Well, probably, the film is good at doing what it tries to do. Probably not. I`m not really so sure.

Andrew Largeman returns to the place of his birth for the his mother`s funeral. In the small town everybody thinks that he`s a Hollywood actor, but in fact he`s just a waiter at some Vietnamese restaurant. When visiting a doctor he encounters Sam (Natalie Portman) - a weird and quite funny girl. A romance starts between them that`s bound to change Andrew`s life which has been a bit of problematic ever since he injured his mother when still being little. In some ways the film is similar to "Eternal Sunshine" with the difference that this one doesn`t have erasing memories and cool morphing. It`s somewhat romantic, and it`s somewhat funny, but I still wouldn`t call that a romantic comedy, because it`s more than that. Music in the film is awesome. So are some of the dialogues, and the characters as well. Was there something I didn`t like? Probably on that Ian Holm (Biblo Baggins) didn`t have furry feet and never mentioned the Ring. But that`s not really a complaint.

Last year I watched a film that was done after this book (and done brilliantly by Stanley Kubrick). And now when I had a chance to buy the novel, I didn`t really hesitate. Reading it in Russian was a bit weird though, for the storyteller has a wicked language that has borrowed quite a lot of words from the Russian language which would certainly look more like it if the rest of the text was plain English. Still the story is quite simple - Alex at the age of 15 is one spoiled brat who gets his kicks for living by attacking people in the streets and in their houses together with his gang. But suddenly his comrades turn the back on him and he`s left to the police and charged for murder (which he has commited). Alex goes to prison but after two years he joins a program for "curing" criminals which means that he gets pain every time he sees something bad happening or when he does something wicked himself. In the end he returns back to his old style of being a spoiled brat. Still in the book he grows out of it as well and becomes a normal member of the society. What I like about Alex is that he despite being a violent asshole loves classical music, is pretty intelligent - thus shitting on the whole concept of blaming the modern subculture for youth being out of control.

Why on earth do people write boring books? I really don`t know but probably they get some sort of tingling in their backbone from doing that. This book in question, for example, is a story about a woman that leaves her husband with a total stranger, spends a few months with him, then comes back to her husband, stays a few months at home, and goes away with the same stranger once again. Oh, and on her second leaving she dies in a car crash. For the 300 pages of the book it wouldn`t be too little, if there had been some other things happening. But basically it`s just what I`ve already told. Her thinking isn`t particulary interesting to me, her husband and lover are both quite uninspiring characters and the whole thing drags like a very slow snail that has probably suffered a heart attack just two minutes ago. And what`s the worst thing about it is that this is the most typical kind of German literature you can encounter - too pretentious, too long, too useless.