I never heard who this Grosek character was before I bought this book and I still don`t know too much about him. But there`s one thing I sure about - and it`s that "Restauration of a Dinner" is one of the best books I`ve read in quite a long time. What genre is it? Basically it`s over-the-top comedy, full of things that`s bound to make you laugh even if you`re a snobby and arrogant punk like me. There`s a detective somewhere inside it - about the weird death of Mr. Shkreta in Janka`s bath. Then there`s the mysterious writer Jiri Heller who apparantly doesn`t exist. Or does he? Then there`s Irena. Then there`s the writer himself. There are descriptions of different lands and cultures, lots of episodes that don`t have nothing in common. Until the ending you don`t know how anything relates to anything else, but in the end the picture is quite clear. And the mystery is so comical, that I don`t even know how to write about it. It`s prime genius, man, and you don`t have to be a genius to understand that. If you don`t appreciate this, you`re no friend of mine. If you don`t care - that`s ok with me. But if you`re lonely, if you have a depression - Mr. Grosek has the right cure for you, mate.

I`m a nasty pervert, my dears ones, and I`m not ashamed. Why should I be? Who are you to judge me? I watched this film about prostitution in 1920s and I`m not ashamed at all. And this film even features nudity from a 13-year-old Bruke Shields. And I don`t give a damn about this. What`s the story about? Violet is growing up in a whorehouse and her time to start making money arrives just now. Her mother wants to leave the damned place, but Violet has nothing against it - it`s a living after all. She`s a bit perverted for sure - but what else can you expect if you grow up in a place like this? There`s another important character in the film - it`s Bellocq - a photographer, who`s by the way a historical person - who made a lot of pictures of prostitutes of Storyville (that`s in in New Orleans). He develops some weird passion for Violet, but she`s not ready for him, of course, and not the physical part is the problem - she`s perfectly capable of that but her imagination of what life is about is a bit... so to say... uncharacteristic for a person like me. What`s wrong with this film? It doesn`t actually tell you that prostitution is bad, that child prostitution is bad (I may think that it is but it doesn`t matter) - and that`s ok with me, for the last thing I need is somebody moralising like he was J.C. in a McDonald`s cap.

You know what? I had nothing better to do, since I was in no mood for intellectual masterpieces, so I watched another of those "Bridget Jones" films. The first part it was. So, let`s go into details. Bridget Jones is a woman in her early thirties, a bit overweight, a bit too much drinking and smoking, absolutely stupid (ok, not absolutely but pretty far from intellectual for sure), and single. But that`s bound to change. How strange it might seem (knowing that she never had a real boyfriend of her own) there are whole two seekers of her body and soul. One of them is Colin Firth who happens to go around under the name of Mark Darcy. The other one is Hugh Grant, who also has a name for his character. Mark is a lawyer, and a not very interesting person. Hugh, on the other hand, is a very cool guy although he`s a bit sex obsessed. And only one of them can come out the winner. Although Mark stays with Bridget in the end, I guess Hugh shouldn`t be unhappy about - he had his share of love-making and he doesn`t have to stay with a smoking girlfriend. Although he strangely doesn`t feel happy at all. Comparing this film with the sequel, I found the first part a bit better. Why? I`ve absolutely no idea.

To start with - my expectations for this film there pretty low. What else could one await from a film like this? First, it`s a sequel. Second, I never ever bothered to watch the original film. Third, Bridget Jones - isn`t that this for-ladies-only film where you can see the world just like any woman sees it? Sorta "Sex and the City" style? To continue: I don`t know whether this is similar to "Sex and the City". Why? Because I`ve never watched a single episode of the series. To continue even further: the film wasn`t thad bad. Ok, it was a comedy that very rarely made me laugh. But - do I often laugh while watching a comedy? Not so often for sure. And that goes for good comedies as well. Bridget Jones`s relationship with Mark Darcy falls apart because of her thinking that she`s cheating upon her. So she has nothing better to do than to fall back into the hands of Hugh Grant (what`s the name of his character? wasn`t it Hugh Grant?). But Hugh Grant still is an asshole. And Mark Darcy isn`t one. That`s basically it. Of course, this is a romantic comedy. Of course, most of the jokes aren`t particulary good. But, since this was the next film I watched after "Meet the Fockers" I can compare these two films. In terms of actors the F word film was better. In term s of plot - I`m with Bridget.

Going to an art gallery isn`t a very regular thing in my diary. Why is it so? I`m not quite so sure. Apperantely I like art, but I`m just too lazy to go and look at it. This Maija Tabaka is probably the most famous (at least in Latvia) living painter of my country. And her works certainly have their charm. Mostly her paintings look a bit goth - the characters often have a bit greenish/pale faces and you`d probably never call her style very optimistic. The colours are either very bright and a bit agressive or very thick and spaced. I guess her favourite colours are black and white. But you can never know. What did the paintings remind me of? Probably, there`s a very slight similarity to Andy Warhol, with the exception that (as far as I know) the paintings weren`t done by updating photos. Still stylistically there is something similar to that. One thing I`m sure of is that Maija Tabaka doesn`t specialise on painting landscapes - there are people everythere, and quite a huge part of them are Roma people. And the ones that aren`t Roma look like they were a bit mad, posessed or even like zombies. I`m not gonna try to dig deeper, possibly even searching for the meaning but I`m certainly glad that I went to this exhibition and I found the pictures very interesting (man, did the last sentence sound like some right-thinking crap I`d probably use in an essay back at school).

Public opinion isn`t more important than a dead rat. Critical opinion isn`t more important than a dead bug. My opinion isn`t more important than a dead me. Mr. Steinbeck appears to be a Nobel prize winner (in Literature, of course), but at least this book of his has no sign of literary genius whatsoever. According to what the critics say this is a comedical farse, a parody or something like that. Mr. Eristale is an amateur-astronomer living in Paris who suddenly becomes the king of France for because of struggle between the political parties monarchists take over and monarchy is restored in France. He doesn`t want to be king, for he`s a man whom nobody notices, who just wants to look at the stars. But suddenly he`s popular to the sky, although nobody gives him any power, he`s just a puppet. But the king doesn`t want to be a puppet. He wants to stand up for himself but he fails miserably and he is no king any more. The book is probably a very sharp political satyre of the French democracy, but it a) isn`t funny, b) sounds terribly dated, c) isn`t original. If a man who could write this unintersting could receive the most respected literary prize in the world this world just isn`t any good.

Once there was a time when I considered Viktor Pelevin my favourite writer. When I got hold of this book I thought this time to be over, never to return back. Now, a few days after reading this one I`m not sure what am I to expect from Pelevin now. On one hand, the book is thrilling, it has some very interesting strokes of word, but, on the other hand, the basic ideas are not more than recycling from Pelevin`s previous works. He doesn`t come up with very many fresh ideas, although the plot is twisted enough. What is it all about? Actually it`s a bit of a love story - she is a were-fox at the age of more than 2000 but looking like a Lolita. He is a were-wolf who works for the Russian FSB. He wants to become the uber-were-wolf but she already is the uber-were-fox. The language in the book is pretty explicit, although there`s no "explicit content" sign on the cover. I guess this novel is quite good at describing what life in modern Russia is like. Probably Mr. Pelevin is no optimist, his vision is one full of sex and drugs, but he doesn`t become too pesimistic and he certainly doesn`t preach what he wants the world to be like - that`s a very positive thing indeed.

Luis Bunuel was one of the greatest directors that ever came out of Spain. And when I got this film I thought it was one of his works. But I was proven wrong - because I thout it was something like "Bunuel`s mesa del ray Salomon" but "y" in Spanish, as it was proven by "Y tu mama tambien" means "and". So it`s more like "Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail". With the exception that this isn`t a real adventure film and that the grail is replaced with king Solomon`s table which can tell both past and future. On Bunuels journey his two friends are with him - painter Salvadore Dali and poet Luis Garcia Lorca. The film is totally surreal, quite in the same style Bunuel did in the 1930s together with Dali ("The Andalusyan Dog" is surely the best example). It`s not clear when all the things happen - is it some twisted today with them all having jumped out of the thirties, or is it some twisted 1930s with modern Japanese tourists. Anyhow, this film is bizarre. Although at the beginning I thought this to be somewhat similar to "National Treasure" this film reminds me of nothing. And I don`t know whether this means something good or bad. By the way, what was "The Andalusyan Dog" about? I guess the same thing. And that would be? ...Um,... don`t know.

It`s been a few years since the first part of this film "Meet the Parents" came out, and now the makers of that film decided that the right time has come to milk the cat once again. Milk the cat, get it? I`m so good at recycling jokes that I truly believe that one day I`ll have my own recycling company. But until that day I`ll watching stupid romantic comedies just like this one. Mr. Gaylord (aka Gary) Focker and his fiancee that probably also has a name of her own are planning to get married but first their parents must meet. And knowing the fact that Gay`s father is a house-husband while his wife is a sex therapist, but Mr. Byrnes worked his entire life for the CIA some problems may arise. And so they do, as a matter of fact. The good thing about the crap is that Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand play senior Fockers (not that I liked any of them, but they are good, aren`t they?). There`s a baby involved, a baby that`s not even born yet, and a child at the age of 15 is also here. Why do I tell so much about them kids? Hell do I know, I just want to write something more. The film wasn`t utterly disposable, but it was still pretty lame, and a bit too romantic for my perverted mind. Give me blood, guts and pussy (trademark of the Dwarves) you morons!

Only a madman would desire to watch a thing like this. Everybody (or at least a few elitist people on the web) knows that Elvis` best period in terms of music was the 1950s and after that he had a major decline turning from the worlds leading rock`n`roller into a Frank Sinatra with shaking hips and knees who didn`t have Sinatras voice. And 1977 was also the year when the king died (or was abducted by space aliens). By that time he was not particulary old, a bit fat, and he sung stupid songs. In terms of songs this concert isn`t actually as bad as I suspected - it has both "I want to be your teddy bear" and "Jailhouse Rock" - two from his finest numbers, but the actual performance of these songs isn`t very impressive. And neither is it interesting to see and hear him perform some stupid mellow songs that he can`t sing at all and to those he even can`t shake his overweight body. It`s a really pityful experience watching him, knowing that just a month later Elvis would have been gone. But this isn`t a good way to say farewell. At least after watching a performance like this you`d most likely never think that that guy was named the King.